authorityresearch.com

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."  Proverb. 3: 5-6

The Institution for Authority Research
deangotcher@gmail.com 

About, Issues, Articles, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios (New 10-4), Youtube, Radio (New 9-24), Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!  P.S.

When children negate the Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' they bring upon themselves the Father's wrath in the end.

After earning a teachers degree (in the dialectic process, i.e. "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e. learning how to use the affective domain, i.e. the student's "feelings" of the 'moment' to "facilitate" the 'changing' of his values and ethics, i.e. 'liberating' his "feelings" from parental restraint thereby making his "thoughts and actions" subject to 'changing' situations and times, i.e. establishing his "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" over and therefore against parental authority, which I had to repent of), then attending seminary (which was based upon the same process, i.e. upon men's opinions rather than the Word of God), then taking years of classes on European history, then spending five years reading over six hundred social-psychology books (with the Holy Spirit bringing to my remembrance, confirming God's Word in the midst of my reading, exposing the process for what it is, the negation of God's authority from the heart and soul of man), then teaching in a University, and now having spend the last twenty years traveling across America speaking on (exposing) our education system (learning more about George Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud from researching our education system, in the light of God's Word, than all the European philosophy classes I took) it comes down to this: the purpose of life is either the honoring of the father's authority, restraining the child's nature or the honoring of the child's nature, negating the father's authority, which, according to Hegel, Marx, and Freud, correlates with honoring the Father's (God's) authority, restraining man's nature or honoring man's nature, negating the Father's (God's) authoritycorrelating the father's "top-down" system (or way of thinking and acting) over the child, with the Father's/God's "top-down" system or paradigm over man, the idea being if you can negate the child-father relationship/system/paradigm you can negate the man-Father/God relationship/system/paradigm, i.e. if you can 'liberate' the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions from parental restraint you can 'liberate' man's feelings, thoughts, and actions from Godly restraint.  For one to prevail over the other, the one, i.e. either the child or the father (man or God/the Father) must be exalted and the other must be brought into submission or negated.  Your education (including college, university, or trade school), workplace, "community," "church," family, etc. experience is based upon this objective ('purpose'): either you evaluating your "feelings" and "thoughts" (your "self interest" of the 'moment') according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (with your desiring of the approval of the father/Father predominating) or you evaluating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts and truth according to your "feelings" and "thoughts" (according to your "self interests" of the 'moment,' with your desiring of the approval of others of like "self interests" predominating)—either the "old" world order predominates (with your father's/Father's authority inhibiting or blocking your "self interests" of the 'moment') or the "new" world order predominates (where your "self interests" of the 'moment' are 'liberated' from your father's/Father's authority).  Either the father/Father rules over your thoughts and actions (your affairs), for your individual good, i.e. for the good of your soul, or the facilitators' of 'change' controls the environment, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you, i.e. using your "self interest" for the "good" of the "the group," i.e. for the "good" of the "community," i.e. for the "good" of society. 

Few will ever come to understand the affect the dialectic process has had upon their lives.  Because they are "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God"  (2 Timothy 3:5) they are blind to their need of the Father's authority, hating it instead.  If you love the flesh and this world, i.e. the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e. "human nature," i.e. your "self interest" of the 'moment,' you have to hate the Father and His authority which restrains it, hating anyone who honors and submits to His authority as well.  For this is what the dialectic process is all about, 'justifying' to yourself (and to others) your carnal desires (your "self interests") of the 'moment' over and against the father's authority which restrains them, and therefore establishing "self interest" over and against Godly restraint.  Through the use of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e. uniting with others in "common cause," your "self interest" is esteemed and the father's/Father's authority, which blocks or inhibits it is negating"The dialectic ['compromising' the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth for the sake of "building relationships" with others upon "self interest"] will go on until we reach the absolute whole [global unity based upon "human nature," i.e. upon "self interest" Only, i.e. a world 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. 'liberated' from Godly restraint, i.e. with man and child 'liberated' to be of his "self" again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact or truth, i.e. thinking and acting according to the world and his "self interest" Only], that which includes everything within itself ["human nature," i.e. your carnal "feelings" and "thoughts" (your "self interest") of the 'moment Only], and so cannot possibly depend upon anything outside itself [no longer depending upon the father or God/the Father to direct your steps again]."  (Frederick Beiser, Hegel)  "We are proud that in his conduct of life man [the child] has become free from external authorities [the father's/Father's authority], which tell him what to do and what not to do."  (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom"Humanism [dialectic 'reasoning'] asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience [in human praxis]; . . . concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God [concern for pleasing "the group" replaces concern about pleasing the parents]."  (Leonard F. Wheat,  Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism Unmasking the God above God 

While the earthly father is not perfect, he may be a down right tyrant, his office of authority is perfect—given to him by God that the child might come to recognize and know the Heavenly Father and His authority, through Jesus Christ, His obedient Son, Hebrews 12:5-11.  Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood that by negating the father's "top-down," "above-below" authority system in the thoughts and actions of the child, the Heavenly Father's "top-down," "above-below" authority system is negated in man's thoughts and actions, 'creating' a "new" world order which is based upon the carnal nature of the child/man, i.e. 'creating' a world based upon the law of the flesh Only, negating the law of God, God's judgment upon sin, and the "guilty conscience" which ensues, thereby negating mans' need of a savior, Romans 7:14-25.  (The dialectic error is the teaching that Jesus came to 'liberate' man from the law of God, i.e. from the Father's authority, when in truth Christ came to fulfill the law, 'redeeming' man from the Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to the Father; the dialectic process doing the opposite, i.e. by 'reconciling' man to the flesh it 'redeems' man from the father's/Father's authority).  While the harlot draws the child away from the Father's authority, the beast is the children, emerging as one in their feelings, thoughts, and actions which are purged of the Father's authority, i.e. freed of Godly restraint, i.e. having no "guilty conscience" regarding their praxis of unrighteousness and abomination.  Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood this (bottom of pg. 29).  While Hegel identified the father's/Father's authority as being "the social problem," and Marx set out to remove the father's/Father's authority from society (by force), Freud realized that the father's/Father's authority had to be removed from the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions if 'change,' i.e. the "new" world order (with man becoming only of and for himself, i.e. of "human nature" only, i.e. 'liberated' from the Father's authority) was to be initiated and sustained, Genesis 3:1-6.  Yet, while Hegel, Marx, and Freud hating God, attempted to negate the Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of men (by negating the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child), they confirmed God's Word instead.

"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."  Luke 16:13  "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." "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."  1 John 2: 16, 15  "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  "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."  Romans 8:7  "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?"  James 4:1-4  "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1  Leave out the Son's obedience to the Father and you leave out the Father's grace to man (righteousness imputed by the Father to men of faith in His Son, Jesus Christ).

The Father's authority is made manifest in the Son's obedience, who we are to follow, "taking captive every thought" to His obedience to the Father's will, as well.  "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"  2 Corinthians 10:5 7  It is the Father's authority (and anyone who submits to it) that the flesh and the world hates, hating anyone who exposes their wicked ways, i.e. their "human nature," producing a "guilty conscience" within them for their sins.  "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  John 7:7  "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Mathew 10:22   But man, loving the flesh, will not see his hate as being hate, but will perceive anyone who exposes his love of this world (who preaches and teaches God's condemnation of and judgment upon it) as being hateful instead.  Perceiving spirit as being man's approval of man (as in "team spirit," "community spirit," i.e. with everyone being a "team player," etc.), glorifying his carnal nature (tolerating deviant behavior), he must resist the Spirit of God, removing the knowledge of God from the face of the world, killing those who stand in their way, doing so in the name of "peace and harmony," glorifying the flesh over and against the Father and His authority. "And when he [the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." John 16:9, 10

The scriptures make it clear that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of the child's nature, i.e. "human nature" over and against the Father's authority is evil.  Even those of dialectic 'reasoning' know this: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)  It is to simple.  According to those of dialectic 'reasoning' "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)  Therefore, according to them, since the Father's (God's) authority is the result of the child's (man's) obedience to the Father (God), instead of fighting directly against belief in God (recognizing the father's/Father's/God's authority), by simply negating the father's authority over the child (thereby negating the father's authority within the child, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for sinning), the Father's authority (God) over man is negated.  This can be accomplish by simply replacing the preaching and teaching of right and wrong (righteousness, i.e. facts and truth established by the Father, i.e. the Word of God) with the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus (sensuousness, i.e. where man's feelings and thoughts are taken captive to 'changing' situations, i.e. to the carnal 'moment').  In this way belief is turned into an opinion and facts and truth are turned into a theory, i.e. faith is replaced with sight, making all 'willing' participants adaptable to 'change,' i.e. becoming at-one-with the world before them instead of confronting it according to the Word of God.  In the praxis of unifying theory and practice, i.e. "tolerating sin," i.e. being silent in the midst of unrighteousness (not reproving, correcting, or rebuking the child's rejection of the Father and His authority, i.e. man's rejection of righteousness, i.e. rejecting the fact that the Father's authority is the issue of life, but condoning the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e. making his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' the issue of life instead), making the child's/man's sinful nature the "norm," all children are 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. all men are 'liberated' from Godly restraint.  "Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action.  'The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history.'"  (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the PRISON NOTEBOOKS)  Instead of spirit being of God, giving life to man, along with the Word, directing his steps, it is man relating with man, working together, becoming as "one," negating the Spirit of God in the thoughts and actions of man.  Praxis is not just the unifying of man as "one," it is the negating of God in the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of man as he becomes "one," i.e. at-one-with himself (his carnal nature) and the world.  By replacing the preaching and teaching of facts and truth, to be accepted as is, with the dialoguing of opinions, how we are "feeling" and what we are "thinking" in the 'moment,' to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," the praxis of 'change' is initiated and sustained.

If the father's authority is 1) to give commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as given, 2) to bless or reward those children who obey or do things right, 3) to chasten those children who disobey or do things wrong, and 4) to cast out those children who question his commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenge his authority, and if the child's nature is 1) to approach pleasure and 2) to avoid pain then it is the father's right to bless, reward, chasten, or cast out that keeps the child subject to his authority, the "guilty conscience" (the father's voice in the child's brain, the fear of pain, including the pain of his rejection or disapproval, i.e. the desire for his approval being therefore evident) restraining the child when the father is not present.  If you begin with the father's authority system, i.e. his commands, rules, facts, and truth and his right to bless, reward, chasten, or cast out then the child, out of fear of lose of pleasure (which includes the desire for approval) and fear of pain (which includes disapproval), remains subject to the father's way of thinking and acting.  But if you start with the child's nature, i.e. his natural inclination to approach pleasure, i.e. to become at-one-with nature in the 'moment,' and to avoid pain, i.e. to negate whatever or whoever it is that prevents him from fulfilling his natural inclination to approach pleasure, then the father's authority system, i.e. his right to bless, reward, chasten, or cast out is negated.  Dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies' the child's nature of approaching the pleasure of the 'moment' over and against the father's authority to block or inhibit it, paving the way for the "new" world order of unrighteousness and abomination, 'creating' a world based upon the impulses and urges of the child's carnal nature, i.e. upon "human nature" only.  If you negate the Father's authority, His demand for righteousness, which no man can fulfill or do, you negate the need of a savior ('redeeming' man from the Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to the Father), i.e. you negate the gospel message, making it a gospel of man (with man 'redeeming' himself from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' himself to the world), instead.

All of history is being rewritten along this mécanisme du raisonnement, i.e. the 'emancipation' of the child from the father's authority, i.e. the 'emancipation' of man (the flesh) from the Father's (Godly) restraint, to where man can sin without having a "guilty conscience,"  i.e. to where he can tear down, destroy, and kill (remove that which stands in the way of pleasure, claiming it as his instead) with impunity, as long as it is done for the "good" of society, i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, i.e. negating fear of judgment and death for sinning against God in his thoughts and actions.  Instead of the law of the flesh being condemned by the law of God, with man needing a savior to 'redeem' him from the Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to the Father, dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies' the flesh, "redeeming" man from the Father, "reconciling" him with (and therefore to) the world.  Instead of praying "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:9-13), through dialectic 'reasoning' man 'justifies' his carnal nature, i.e. exonerates "human nature" over and therefore against the Father's authority, justifying' not only himself and the world, but "the evil one*,"  i.e. the facilitator of 'change' as well.  *In the Greek the normative case is being used for "evil" denoting a personality, i.e. "the evil one."

"In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life.  Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become' [once they are dialectically (through dialoguing with one's "self" and the world) 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority]."  "Freud speaks of religion [loving the Father over and against the child's nature, with the flesh and the world becoming subject to the Father's will] as a 'substitute-gratification'– the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people' [loving the King over and against "the people"]."  "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization [the Father's authority engendered a "guilty conscience" in the child while he was doing (or thinking about doing) that which comes naturally, i.e. responding to his nature to become at-one-with the world (becoming at-one-with the mother and his siblings in the 'moment') in pleasure, i.e. satisfying his urges and impulses of the 'moment, i.e. "lusting" after the things of the world in the 'moment']."   "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects [parental authority with their rules, commands, facts, and truth] now part of ourselves : the super-ego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past' [incorporating the child's own "feelings" of the 'moment' in determining right from wrong in the 'moment']."   "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself."  Freud considered children sexually active (just not able to procreate). "Eros [man's "lust" for the world] is the foundation of morality." "The basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to dialectics [where the child's thoughts and actions are 'liberated' from parental authority, i.e. man's thoughts and actions are 'liberated' from Godly restraint, i.e. where the child and man is purely of and for himself, i.e. of "human nature" only, individually and socially]."  "Freud's finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'"  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

By changing the classroom environment from the teacher preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted by the children as given (by faith), blessing or rewarding children for obedience or doing things right and chastening or threatening to chastening children for disobedience or for doing things wrong or casting out children for disrespect toward authority, to the facilitator of 'change' encouraging, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating children into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (openly sharing their "feels" and "thoughts" concerning their personal desires of the 'moment' along with the social issues of the day, with no fear of chastening or being cast out by "the group"—unless they persist in hold onto the father's "top-down," "right-wrong," "prejudiced" way of thinking and acting, refusing to become a part of, i.e. at-one-with "the group," get in the way of 'change' instead), the father's authority system is negated in their thoughts and actions, turning them against him and his authority, not only 'changing' them (their way of thinking and acting) but also the world in the process.  Classroom "environment" is shaped by the "curriculum" the "educator" is using in the classroom.  The curriculum determines the objective (the outcome) desired by the teacher or the school as well as the method being used to attain it regarding the child's participation in the classroom, whether in this case he is still subject to the rigidity of parental authority or is adaptable to the "community" of 'compromise' and 'change.'  "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."  (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education

Kurt Lewin knew that if we started with the father's authority to chasten or cast out in the classroom, the "negative valance," i.e. the "guilty conscience" would prevail, keeping the father's "top-down," "right-wrong" authority system in place in the child's thoughts and actions.  Lewin explained the fathers' authority system this way: "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."  But if we start with the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. allowing him to freely share his opinion with no fear of being chastened or being cast out ('liberating' his feelings and thoughts from the father's authority), the "negative valance," i.e. the "guilty conscience" for disobedience or for doing things wrong is negated, along with the father's authority.  Lewin explained how to overcome (negate) the father's authority system in the child this way: "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)   Lewin wrote: "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group."  (Kurt Lewin and Paul Grabbe, "Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of New Values" The Journal of Social Issues) )  Kenneth Benne added: "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions."  "A feeling of complete freedom and a heightened group identification are frequently more important at a particular stage of re-education than learning not to break specific rules."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Lewin knew that through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' in the classroom, i.e. accentuating the positive, i.e. augmenting pleasure, and negating the negative, i.e. attenuating pain (removing the fear of being rejection for doing wrong or for being deviant), the child (and society) could be 'liberated' from the father's way of thinking and acting, paving the way for the "new" world order where children (in adult bodies) could control the world (without Godly restraint).  Since children do not come with commands, rules, facts, and truth but with their own natural inclination of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, commands and rules, facts and truth are taken captive to the child's ever 'changing' "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' 'creating' a world adaptable to 'change.'  God warns use of the consequences of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. thinking through our feelings of the 'moment,' building relationship with the world through our "self-interest," rejecting His way, i.e. the Father's authority. "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable."  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."  Isaiah 3:4-5, 12  "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."  Jeremiah 6:16 

The dialectic process, i.e. the ideology of George Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud (as well as that of Obama), directly affects your life.  The dialectic process is so personal (is so much a part of you that) you might not even see it when someone points it out to you.  It is your nature of 'justifying' your "self," i.e. 'justifying' your carnal desires of the 'moment' over and against anything or anyone who stands in your way or prevents you from having what it is that you want or want to do in the 'moment.'  It is not only you 'justifying' your love of ("lust" for) the things of the world, it is also you 'justifying' your hate toward any authority which prevents you from attaining it in the 'moment' or in the future.  It is you only seeing your love of pleasure, not seeing your hate of the restrainer, perceiving the restraining authority as being unloving or hateful in the 'moment' instead.  It is what all children have in common with one another (the basis of "common-ism"), i.e. their desire or "self interest" to "relate" with the things of pleasure of the world, in the 'moment,' and their resentment or hate toward whatever or whoever prevents or blocks them from initiating and/or sustaining it.  "A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority."  "In fact self and interest are the same fact; the kind and amount of interest actively taken in a thing reveals and measures the quality of selfhood which exits."  (John Dewey, Democracy and Education)

Dialectic 'reasoning' is driven by the child's carnal desire ("human nature") to relate with the things of the world and the child's resentment toward the father, who's authority restrains the child from becoming at-one-with the things of pleasure in the world in the 'moment.' The child, by nature, therefore blames the environment, i.e. the authority figure who created it, for his bad behavior (as Adam and the women in the garden in Eden did, manifesting socialism, i.e. blaming the environment or situation they found themselves in, i.e. the man the woman and therefore God, the woman the serpent and therefore God, not their "lust" for pleasure and disrespect toward authority for the ills of life, 'justifying' themselves, i.e. their "self interest" instead of repenting before God for their disobedience, i.e. their sin against Him).  The "new" world order is a world of children, in adult bodies (as children esteeming themselves and the things of the world over and against the father's authority), 'justifying' their "lust" for the things of the world, therefore 'justifying' the negation of the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of all the children of the world for the 'purpose' of creating "world peace and social harmony," i.e. at-one-ness with the world only, thereby 'creating' a world of abomination.  Dialectic 'reasoning' allows the child to transcend the father's/Father's authority, transforming him into "oneness" with the world, making himself and the world,  i.e. emotion and motion, i.e. "theory and practice" as "one," i.e. manipulatable, ever subject to and adaptable to 'change.'  "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."  Luke 16:15

The dialectic process is all about the praxis of 'creating' "worldly peace and socialist harmony," ("community unity") by building "humanist relationship" upon "self interest," i.e. creating a "new" world order of "equality"—common-ism—based upon "human nature," i.e. upon "the approaching of pleasure" (the augmentation of the flesh) and "the avoiding of pain" (the attenuation or negation of anyone who judges, condemns, and restraints the flesh), by creating an environment in which the child can question the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenge his authority, placing the child's carnal nature ("human nature") over and against the father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' the child from parental restraint so that he can be himself, as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, and truth and threat of chastening for disobedience, i.e. carnal, i.e. of the world Only, negating the "guilty conscience," i.e. the father's voice (authority) in the child so that the child can think and do unconscionable things, i.e. unrighteous and abominable things, in pleasure, "in the 'moment.'"  "In the 'moment'" places the child in a "stimulus-response" condition, where he, like an animal, responds (reacts) to, i.e. is controlled by the immediate environment or situation according to the laws of the flesh, i.e. "avoiding pain and approaching pleasure," i.e. living by sight (we are by nature drawn to that which gives us or has the potential of giving us pleasure, avoiding, resisting, or removing that which engenders pain), whereas he, under the father's/Father's authority, learns to rule over his feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' (setting his feelings of the 'moment' aside, not running after pleasure or from pain, including the pain of rejection) in order to respond to the situation or environment according to the commands, rules, facts, and truth established by the father, i.e. living by faith. The same is true regarding man and the Heavenly Father (Romans 8:6-14), with dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' "human nature" over and against Godly restraint.

Dialectic 'reasoning' establishes "human nature," i.e. man's/the child's love ("lust," i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "pleasure") of the world over and against Godly restraint (progressively 'liberating' the wife from the husbands authority, the child from their parent's authority, with the agenda of 'liberating' man from God's authority being the end objective).  Whether the authority is that of the earthly father or the Heavenly Father (both being the same in structure, system, or Paradigm, i.e. Patriarch), the objective of the carnal child (or man) is the acquisition of the pleasures ("self interests") of the 'moment' which is being restrained by the father's/Father's authority, with the father's/Father's money and/or property (stored up pleasure) being the object of "interest" for those "helping" 'liberate' the child/man from the father's/Father's authority, affecting ('changing') the present or future behavior (feelings, thoughts, and actions) of the child or man toward the father's/Father's authority (to initiate and sustain the pleasures of the child, "the people," and/or the government of the present and/or the future, with the negation of the father and his authority only being necessary in order to get him and his commands, rules, facts, and truth, which interfere with pleasure, i.e. which engender a "guilty conscience," i.e. which inhibits or prevents 'change,' out of the way).  "Change theory, refers to the process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system."  (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy"In brief, [it] is the breaking down of the mores, customs and traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that he is ready to accept new alternatives." with the pedophile of 'change' in control. (Edger Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach

During the 'change' process (the process of praxis), what is not perceived by the child is the facilitator's seizure of the father's/Father's money and property (indebting the child to supporting their "new" way via their time and money, i.e. volunteerisms, taxes, donations, contributions, etc.), 'justified' by the facilitator of 'change' in order to advance their "self interest" of controlling the world (living off of the child's father's money and property), preventing the child from acquiring the father's money and property and returning to the father's/Father's "old" ways). 

Our framing father's limited the father's authority outside of the traditional home (the father's authority in the home creates law, judges behavior according to it, and directs the families course of action which must separate the three branches, i.e. the legislative, judiciary, and executive outside of it), preventing those in government, i.e. in the National, State, County, Township, City, and village from using the father's authority over the citizenry, while leaving it in tact within the traditional family, guaranteeing a civil citizenry (private family, property, and business), engendering citizens guided by the principle of doing right and not wrong and respecting private property and business, i.e. "Mine. Not yours." - "Yours. Not mine.," i.e. not being (through dialectic 'reasoning') 'liberated' from the "guilty conscience" but through the father's/Father's authority being restrained by (honoring it) instead, i.e. feeling "guilty" for doing wrong or trespassing.  Other revolutions around the world, i.e. the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc. Revolutions, including the "civil rights movement" and the "velvet revolution" ("Trasformismo.  This term was used to describe the process where by the so-called 'historical' Left and Right parties converge [repeatedly came to consensus] until there ceased to be any substantive difference—a 'revolution' without a 'revolution' or a 'passive revolution.'"  Antonio Gramsci), negated the father's/Father's authority in the home, circumvented limited, representative, constitutional government by using the soviet system, i.e. the consensus process, networking all branches together as one through departments instead. "The workers' council" [the consensus process] "eliminate the bourgeois [the traditional families] separation of the legislature, administration, and judiciary."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

Dialectic 'reasoning' (self-social 'justification') 'liberates' man's feelings, thoughts, and actions from Godly restraint.  It is the practice (praxis) of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. self-social 'justification,' i.e. 'justification' of the flesh, negating the system of Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. the Father's authority, thereby negating the condition of Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, 'justifying unrighteous and abominable behavior instead.  Instead of preaching and teaching truth we are now a society which dialogues opinions, i.e. how we "feel" and what we "think" in the 'moment,' ever subject to the 'changing' conditions we find ourselves in, ever subject to the seductive, deceptive, and manipulative stratagems of the facilitators of' 'change.'  Dialectic 'reasoning' finds its 'purpose' in 'liberating' the child's/man's nature from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions (praxis) of the child/man in the 'moment' so that he can be subject Only to the flesh and the carnal mind, i.e. Only to nature, i.e. Only to the creation, i.e. Only to the world. 

Instead of trusting in the Lord with all your heart (Proverbs 3: 5), making your "self" subject to the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ), through your use of dialectic 'reasoning' you lean upon your own understanding (your "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience," Karl Marx), making your "self" subject to the world and all that is of it, "lusting" after the things of it.  Instead of acknowledging the Lord in all your ways, letting Him direct your steps or paths (Proverbs 3:6), through dialectic 'reasoning' you acknowledge the importance of your "self" and the importance of the world, letting your impulses and urges of the 'moment' and the things of the world that stimulate them direct your steps or paths.  Instead of thinking upon and acknowledging Gods grace, increasingly becoming aware of your deceitful and wicked heart, i.e. repenting of your sins, daily dying to your "self" (giving  thanks to Him instead, i.e. thanking Him for your next breath, i.e. recognizing and acknowledging that every breath you have taken and will be taking is a gift from Him, i.e. instead of using them to praise your "self" and the things of the world, praising Him instead), through dialectic 'reasoning' you 'justify' yourself, no longer cognizant of your deceitful and wicked heart, your wicked ways, or His grace (engendering praise of "self" and the world, i.e. 'justifying' your sinful ways) instead. 

It is an either-or condition.  It has always been and will always be an either-or condition, i.e. humbling of your self before the father/Father, repenting of your sins, serving and exalting him/Him or exalting yourself before the world, 'justifying' your sins, i.e. 'justifying' the flesh, serving it instead.  While in the beginning dialectic 'reasoning' deceives you into believing that you can have it both ways, i.e. doing what you "feel" like doing and are "thinking" about doing in the 'moment,' i.e. thinking and acting according to the flesh and the world, and still have the approval of the father (who is your inheritance, i.e. your liberty, peace, and life), it negates the father and his authority and exalts the flesh, the world, and those who "help" you 'liberate' yourself from the father's authority, deciding that 'liberty' of the flesh, not from it, is the way of life, turning you against the father, his authority, and those who honour his authority, serving the facilitators of  'change,' i.e. hating and killing the father along with those who believe in and honour his system in the end instead (you can see this dialectic pattern being used in almost all history books these days).  The Word of God warns us: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 16:25 

While we are to recognize and honour the fathers' authority over his family, property, and business, recognizing and defending his inalienable rights, under God, the gospel does not call us to worship him, but to worship and serve our Heavenly Father and His Only begotten Son, Jesus Christ instead (where labor, i.e. works salvation and/or national defense, i.e. the taking of life in the name of the Lord, does not exist). Thus while physical defense can be exercised in regard to the father's authority over his family, it can not be used in regard to the gospel, which even divides the father from the son—when one chooses the Heavenly Father over the earthly father (leaving the father's authority system in place), where true and everlasting liberty, peace, and life reside.  The Lord himself said, in regard to the earthly family (not the family system), "I have not come to send peace but a sword." Matthew 10:34, knowing that true and lasting liberty, peace, and life only resides within Him and His Heavenly Father.  Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and George Hegel (rejecting God) understood this, knowing that it was the system of the father's authority which had to be destroyed, i.e. that 'change' had to take place in the child's life, not because of the child's turning to the Heavenly Father (leaving the system, with the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for sinning in place) but because he turned to his own carnal nature (which destroys the system of the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for sinning against God with "shaming" taking its place instead), 'creating' "worldly peace" where facilitator's of 'change,' i.e. controlling the hearts and souls of the children (including those in men's bodies), live off of "the peoples" labor instead.

The dialectic process creates the "Can't we all just get along," "I'm OK, You're OK," "If it feels good, just do it," dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (con-sensual __fill in the blank__) way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating known as a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change.'  The dialectic process (the consensus process) 'liberates' the child's feelings, thoughts, and action from the father's authority, allowing him to be himself again, from and for the world Only (commonly referred to as "theory and practice," where the child's/man's thoughts, which are subject to his feelings of the 'moment,' are put into practice, i.e. into social action over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority).  Dialectic 'reasoning' 'liberates' the child's thoughts and actions from the affects of the father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong""do right and not wrong according to my standards 'or else,'" preaching and teaching, "prejudiced," "judgmental" authority structure, i.e. the "old" world order or way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating known as a Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. where the father/Father (the earthly father/the Heavenly Father) 1-gives commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, 2-blesses those children who obey and get it right, 3-chastens those children who do not obey and get it "wrong," so that they might learn to obey and get it right, and 4-casts out those children who reject 1, 2, and 3, i.e. who disobey the father's/Father's commands and rules, question his/His facts and truth, and challenge his/His authority, i.e. who, because of their revolutionary behavior, i.e. loving the pleasures of the world over and against loving the father, the father cuts off from verbal and financial support, refusing to support their carnal ways (living by sight, i.e. determining right and wrong according to the/their sensuousness of the 'moment,' i.e. "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment,' thinking and acting according to their "self interests"), that they might repent, casting them out of the family to protect the family from their revolutionary praxis"Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."  James 4:2, 3 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."  2 Corinthians 6:14-18

If I want to create unity, i.e. "community" out of twenty students in a class, who's fathers rules, commands, facts, and truth differ from one another, then it is imperative that I 'liberate' all twenty children from the father's authority.  If the class is based upon established doctrine, agreed upon by the parents, i.e. in loco parentis, then I can not use dialectic 'reasoning,' I can only preach and teach doctrine.  While I might disagree with the parent's position on an issue I can only preach and teach my position, running the risk of being fired, leaving the parents "top-down" authority system in place.  But if the class is based upon "human relationship building," i.e. upon "community," which requires 'compromise' (setting aside the parent's differing standards "for the 'moment'"), then I must use dialogue to elicit the children's personal opinions regarding how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' regarding the personal-social issue/s being discussed.  If I dialogue with the children, regarding their opinion about the issue at hand, i.e. how they would respond to it, I destroy the parent's authority system in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions in the process.  When the child is 'liberated' (is "helped," by the facilitator of 'change' to 'liberate' himself, i.e. to 'actualize' his "self-interest") from the father's/Father's authority structure—from his/His system, paradigm, or way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating—'liberating' himself and 'emancipating' others from the father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" paradigm, the child's "guilty conscience" (for disobeying) is negated (in his feelings, thoughts, and actions) allowing him to participate in the social action (praxis) of negating the father's/Father's authority not only within himself but also within his relationship with others, i.e. within the "the group," i.e. within the "community," i.e. within "society," i.e. within the world.  No longer seeking the "approval" of the father/Father (because the father's/Father's "I'm right and your wrong," "Because I said so." authority structure stands in the way of what "the group" approves or desires) but instead seeking "approval" from "the group," i.e. "the community," i.e. "society," the child is 'willing' to unit himself with "the group," etc. (which he perceives as being in agreement with and supportive of his "self-interest") in the praxis of initiating and sustaining the seduction, deception, and manipulation of other children, getting them to join with him in negating (neutralizing, margining, and "removing," or "looking the other way," i.e. being silent for the sake of "self-interest," i.e. for the sake of "group approval" while others "remove") the father and his/His authority structure from "the group," i.e. from society, i.e. negating all who refuse to "confess" and "repent" of their "old" way of feeling, thinking, and acting, i.e. who refuse to be "converted" to the "new" world order of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. who instead continue to honour the father's/Father's authority and obey the father's/Father's commands and rules, retaining their faith in his/His facts and truth—thereby perpetuating his/His paradigm, i.e. his/His way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with others, within society, doing all this, i.e. participating in the 'change' process, i.e. "removing" the unborn, the elderly, and the resistor of 'change' without having a "guilty conscience."  "‘Every renunciation [submission to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. setting aside one's feelings of the 'moment' in order to do the father's/Father's will]... becomes a ... conscience; every fresh abandonment of gratification increases its severity and intolerance ... every impulse of aggression [against the father's/Father's authority] which we omit to gratify is taken over by the super-ego and goes to heighten its aggressiveness (against the ego).' [By 'liberating' the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions from parental authority, i.e. from the father's/Father's authority, reattaching them to the "community"] ‘That which began in relation to the father ends in relation to the community [instead of denying the flesh, i.e. putting it to death daily, in order to do the father's/Father's will, the father and those who honor his authority are put to death instead, i.e. for the sake of initiating and sustaining "community" i.e. 'justifying' the flesh].'" (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

Through the praxis of generalizing (called "general system theory") the father's authority is tied to all social "ills" of society, including and especially Nationalism (correlated to Fascism), i.e. prejudice (judging people according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth).  "Authoritarian submission [the child/man submitting himself to the father's/Father's authority] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "The power‑relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem [the negation of Fascism, i.e. prejudice, i.e. right-wrong thinking]."  "Techniques for overcoming resistance [overcoming those who remain 'loyal' to the father's/Father's authority], developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale."   (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  All socialist systems focus upon building "community" (which is based upon 'compromise' for the greater good, i.e. 'circumventing' the father's/Father's rules, commands, facts, and truth which get in the way of 'change').  Whether Fascist, Communist (which is perceived by Globalists, i.e. Transformational Marxists, i.e. social-psychologists, as being Fascist in structure, i.e. "top-down"), or Globalist, all socialist systems must negate the father's/Father's authority if they are to prevail.

The uniting of all nations as "one" is accomplished through the praxis of 'liberating' all children from parental authority (using their classroom experience to 'change' their way of communicating with one another, i.e. from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is to the dialoging of opinion to a consensus).  By negating the sovereignty of the home in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, the sovereignty of the nation is negated as well.  The creating of "community" transcends national borders, negating "Mine. Not yours" and "Yours. Not mine," replacing private with "Ours. Not just yours," i.e. "The King's horses are the peoples horses." (Karl Marx) as "God's tree" is everyone's tree (the master facilitator of 'change' in the garden in Eden).  By using the classroom, the Trojan Horse of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics, has now taken captive the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, using them to initiate and sustain global dominance, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the fear of God, in the process. "There is no fear of God before their eyes."  Romans 3:18   "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  "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil."  Proverbs 16:5, 6  "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."  Proverbs 1:7 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"  Romans 1:22

The Soviet—a diverse group of people (of children, in the case of the "group grade"), some farther along the spectrum of 'change' than others, dialoguing their opinions (there is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness"), over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a predetermined outcome (that no decision affecting the "community," i.e. "the group" can be made without this procedure)—guarantees that policy will not be made according to (influenced by) the father's/Father's authority, 'liberating' all participants ("the group," i.e. the "community") from the father's/Father's authority and therefore 'emancipating' all the children from the father's/Father's restraints.  From the Federal to the local, this process 'liberates' all 'willing' participants from having a "guilty conscience" for doing unconscionable and abominable things, in the name of "building relationships," i.e. initiating and sustaining "community," i.e. negating individuality, i.e. sovereignty, i.e. inalienable rights (where right of life comes first and foremost, including the unborn and elderly), under God.  When all agencies or departments (policy setting and enforcing agencies) in government use the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, limited, representative, constitutional government is circumvented,, i.e. replaced, i.e. negated with a Politburo system, with all branches of government no longer separated but united as one in the praxis of negating the father's/Father's authority (negating private rights, i.e. "Mine. Not yours") in all policy setting and enforcing environments.

As revealed by their responses to the three temptations of the flesh, the eyes, and the pride of life, i.e. the woman's temptations in the garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-5, and the Lord's temptations in the wilderness, i.e. Matthew 4:1-11, we are graded by God and the world according to whether we are 1) living according to the father's/Father's words (will) or according to our personal and/or social "felt" needs ("self interest") of the 'moment,' i.e. living according to the spirit or according to the "lusts of the flesh," 2) who or what we are worship, i.e. who or what we are constantly talking about (praising), i.e. either the father/Father and His word or that which is of ourselves and the world, and whether we 3) are seeking the approval of the father/Father, taking our thoughts and actions captive to his will or we are seeking the approval of the world, finding our thoughts and actions taken captive by it, i.e. tempting the father/Father to choose between his Word and His love for us.  What comes out your mouth (especially when you find yourself in a crisis situation) reveals what is in your heart (either God, i.e. the Father or "the group" grading you as being either "good" or "evil" based upon what they say is "good" and "evil," with "good," in the case of God, being His Word, or, with the world, being the flesh, i.e. of and for "human nature").  "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."  "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."  Luke 6:45; 12:34  "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."  Psalms 119:11  "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.  For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."  Matthew 12:36, 37

You either wrest the "silent majority" from the jaws of tyranny or else they, in their silence, desiring the approve of men and the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e. who,  focusing upon their "self interest," abdicate themselves, and therefore you, to the praxis of tyranny.  The "silent majority," i.e. those who are silent in the midst of unrighteousness and abomination, i.e. those who "tolerate ambiguity" in their silence, i.e. those who "unit themselves with deviancy" in their silence, i.e. those who "build relationship upon self-interest" in their silence (perceiving, i.e. deceiving themselves in believing that they are doing none of these), are the greatest enemy of a free and civil society.  While they might consider the events of life as being academic or political they do not realize that it is all spiritual.  Rejecting the Lord in their response to the things around them, they finding themselves subject to the prince of the power of the air instead.  If we do not start with the Word of God, in our response to all that is going on around us, we end up abdicating our lives to the carnal nature of man.  "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."  (2 Timothy 3:1-5)  "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.  Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;" (Ephesians 6:10-18)  Without this truth we will find ourselves in distress, in despair, forsaken, and destroyed. "We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; case down, but not destroyed;" (2 Corinthians 4:8-9)

All this is done, i.e. the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of the child's carnal nature ("human nature") over and against the father's authority, i.e. the father's restraint, in order to 'encourage' the child to be himself again, of "human nature" Only ("only when it [i.e. the child's feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others] proceeds from Nature."  Karl Marx), i.e. as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth and threat of punishment/condemnation for disobedience, i.e. carnal, i.e. subject to his own feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' i.e. responding to the current situation according to his own "human nature," i.e. according to the laws of the flesh, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain (loving pleasure and hating restraint, i.e. hating the restrainer, i.e. hating the father's/Father's authority), i.e. relating to "all that is of the world" instead of obeying the father/Father and honoring his/His authority.  If you create an environment where the child is "helped" in 'liberating' himself, i.e. 'emancipating' his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationships from the father's/Father's authority, you create a child who establishes himself ("human nature," i.e. "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life") over and against the father's/Father's authority, who then is 'willing' to put into praxis (into social action with others of like feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship) the negation of the father's/Father's authority (and anyone who supports it), loving the world and hating the father/Father, taking that which is his/His for himself/themselves without having a guilty conscience.  While the father chastens the disobedient child and casts out those children who challenge his authority, the "children of disobedience" kill the father and the children who honor his authority, claiming all that is his as their own.  This is the hallmark of socialism, national and global.

If you build "relationship upon 'self interest'" it is imperative that you negate the father's/Father's authority (Godly restraint) which inhibits or blocks it.  Concurrently when you build society upon the love of pleasure ("self interest," i.e. "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life") you 'create' a society which hates the father's/Father's authority which inhibits or blocks it.  You can not have the one (love of the pleasures of the 'moment') without the other (hate of the father's/Father's authority which restrains it).  As already quoted above: "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."  Luke 16:13

By 'creating' a society built upon "self interest" you 'create' a people who hate Godly restraint (and those who preach and teach it), 'liberating' themselves (their "self") from having a "guilty conscience" when they kill the innocent, the helpless, and the righteous (those made righteous in Christ) in the name of  building "human relationship," i.e. "serving and protecting" "the group," i.e. "the people," i.e. "the community" and the environment.  While we are to love one another we are not to love one another over and against our love of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father and has called us to do the same, i.e. doing His Heavenly Father's will, through Him.  Man's love is out of "self interest," i.e. carnal, i.e. of the flesh.  God's love is pure and holy, i.e. of the Spirit.   "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  Matthew 10:37  "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

As you will see (or are now seeing): government built upon "self interest," i.e. "humanist relationships" always turns on its citizens, removing those citizens who slow down or get in the way of socialist progress, especially those who live according to principle, i.e. under God.  It is a government replacing inalienable rights with "humanist rights," i.e. private property, private business, etc. with "public-private partnership," all done in the name of 'progress,' i.e. for the 'purpose' of 'change,' legalizing immorality and abomination.  Government built upon "self interest" is a government of vanity, envy, covetousness, and pride, using vain words (deception) to manipulate its citizens, treating them as "natural resource," turning them into "human resource" so that they can be merchandised for its own gain.  Like looking for gold with a friend, when you find it, you had better watch your back, your friend's "self interest" could cost you your life.  Rome fell because the citizens abandoned principle, basing their "relationship" with one another upon "self interest."  If you go into battle with soldiers who base their relationship upon "self interest," (militia, policemen, educators, politicians, etc. of "self interest" are mercenaries) ... well you get the point. 

Love of pleasure is love of money, which, like drug money, is simply stored up pleasure.  Those of "self interest" when they say that they "care about you, your children, your property, your business, your freedoms, your rights, the environment, etc." (as "care takers") will "take care of you" (or stand back, i.e. refuse to step in and come to your aid and protect you while others "take care of you") if and when you no longer provide them, or take away, or get in the way of "their" drug money.  It is like trying to talk addicts who are out of taking that which is yours, using it for themselves when they need their fix, i.e. their "felt" needs satisfied right now, in the 'moment.'  Having control over you and pleasure ("self interest") having control over them, they can not stop themselves from robbing, raping, killing you (or your loved ones), claiming all the while that they are doing it because it is their job, their duty to serve and protect society, i.e. "the people," i.e. "the group," i.e. "the community," the environment, etc. when in the end it was simply the result of their having built relationships upon "self interest," with their feelings and thoughts focused upon pleasure, i.e. what they could get out of the situation (their relationship with others) for themselves, in the 'moment,' i.e. working with others as a "team," like a pack of wolves, until they run out of "game" to steal from, rape, and kill, devouring one another in the end. 

Like Lawrence Kohlberg's "life raft dilemma," make sure your are not the "odd man out."  After all, in the process of "relationship building on self interest," i.e. the "group grade," the children are learning that it is their duty to silence, steal from, or kill somebody (including the unborn or elderly—government sanctioned murder 'justifies' murder, calling it 'justified' "self interest" ), necessary for the "good" of "self interest" and "the group," i.e. for the "good" of "the people" and the world.  "Making the world safe for democracy" ('liberating' the children from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. negating the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationships of "the people") is not a good thing.  History has shown us that democracies always end up in tyranny (or that socialism in any form, i.e. national or global, ends up oppressing the citizens), with unprincipled men (fatherless/Fatherless children with no Godly restraint) serving and protecting their "self interest" (in the name of "the people"), creating a world of unrighteousness and abomination in the end.  While we are told it is all about academics and "getting along" in the world, in truth it is all spiritual, with you and your children's soul (where you and they will spend eternity) on the line.  "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood ["human nature," i.e. the carnal nature of the child] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." 1 Corinthians 15:50

The "new" world order (the dialectic process, i.e. the "group grade") is all about changing how the child feels, thinks, and acts toward the father's/Father's authority (parental authority—which engenders individualism, parochialism, i.e. local control-Nationalism, i.e. in the form of a 'limited,' 'representative,' 'majority vote,' 'constitutional,' 'republic' form of government, to prevent government from encroaching upon the father's authority over his home, property, and business, under God).  Dialectic 'reasoning,' the 'reasoning' of the "new" world order 'encourages' the child to feel, think, and act in relation to himself, others, and the world according to his own "human nature," i.e. according to his impulses, urges, and "felt" needs ("self-interests") of the 'moment', so that he (along with all the children of the world) can be himself (themselves), i.e. of the world Only, negating the Father's authority in his (their) feelings, thoughts, and actions, affecting all institutions of life, including the home and the "church" in the process.  To prevent "maladjustment" (going off in rebellion, only serving his own interests) or returning to his father's/Father's authority only now on a Nationalistic scale (equated to Fascism) his 'liberation' is not done in isolation but is done in "the group setting," with the facilitator of 'change' making sure the child's reattachment (from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e. local and/or National control) is to society and its causes (socialism, globalism, environmentalism, in the form of democratization, conscietization, synergism, etc.) and not to God, i.e. to the Heavenly Father, and His son, Jesus Christ. Instead of trusting in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. "... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 3:1), through dialectic 'reasoning,' children are being conditioned to trust in themselves and the world, i.e. becoming "world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost" in the process.  (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature)

Instead of the child learning self-restraint and self-control, i.e. humbling and denying himself (his-"self") at the father's/Father's hands, dialectic 'reasoning' engenders "self-esteem" in the child.  Dialectic 'reasoning' 'liberates' ('justifies'), in the mind of the child, his "self-interest" (thinking about his "self," i.e. what he can get out of the situation for his "self," depending upon the approval, i.e. validation of "the group" to get it) from the father's/Father's authority (individualism under the father/Father, i.e. under God) so that he can find his identity within his "self," i.e. within his carnal nature and society (the carnal nature of "the group"), building "relationship" upon "human nature" and the common-ist "interest" of "the group" (the "community"), i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuation pain, i.e. that which is of the world Only.  Instead of the child suspending his carnal desires of the 'moment,' in order to fulfill his father's/Father's will (the "old" world order), he "suspends" his father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, in order to fulfill his (and allow others to fulfill their) carnal desires of the 'moment' (the "new" world order), i.e. 'actualizing' his and their "self interests," i.e. known as "self-actualization."  The key to dialectic success is not to force the outcome, outwardly negate the father's/Father's authority, which would only reinforce the father's/Father's authority system, but to create the right environment (an "open ended," "non-directive," i.e. "We can talk about anything," i.e. therefore perversity (deviancy) must be given voice and "I'm not going to tell you what is right or wrong," i.e. right and wrong will be determined by everyone's "self interest" of the 'moment,' knowing when to step back and let nature, i.e. "the peoples" (the children's) \"self interest" take its course, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process.  Like cattle, if you can get them lined up following one another, i.e. their sense of securing (their "self interest" of the 'moment') being found in their relationship with one another, you can drive them into the slater house, i.e. to their death.

There is "I," "me," and "myself" and "you" and "yourself."  While you can talking to me, you can not talk to my "self," i.e. dialogue with my "self."  Only I can talk to (dialogue with) my "self" (either reproving, correcting, or rebuking my "self," i.e. preaching to my "self," teaching my "self" to do what is right and not wrong, or attempting to exalt, i.e. 'justify' and "esteem" my "self," talking to my "self," i.e. dialoguing with my "self" about my desires of the 'moment' and my dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority, i.e. his/His "Can not,"  "Thou shalt not," "Because I said so," "It is written ...," etc., i.e. which restrains me—both conditions encapsulated in the word "ought," as in "Well, I 'ought' to be able to ...," with me voicing my opinion internally to my "self" in response to the father's/Father's "Can not,"  "Thou shalt not," "Because I said so," "It is written ...," etc(You/I can not have an "ought" without a "can not" and you/I can not have a "can not" with an "ought").  Only I can humble, deny, control, discipline my "self."  You can not.  You can only humble, deny, control, discipline (chasten) me, "encouraging" me to humble, deny, control, discipline my "self."

The same is true for you.  And while I can talk to you, I can not talk to your "self," i.e. dialogue with your "self."  Only you can talk to (dialogue with) your "self" (either reproving, correcting, or rebuking your "self," i.e. preaching to your "self," teaching your "self" to do what is right and not wrong, or attempting to exalt, i.e. 'justify' and "esteem" your "self," talking to your "self," i.e. dialoguing with your "self" about your desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority, i.e. his/His  "Can not,"  "Thou shalt not," "Because I said so," "It is written ...," etc., which restrains you—encapsulated in the word "ought," as in "Well, I 'ought' to be able to ...," etc.).   Therefore while we can humble, deny, control, discipline our "self," the one in authority can not.  They can only humble, deny, control, discipline (chasten) us, "encouraging" us to humble, deny, control, discipline our "self."  We are made in the image of God, in our ability to evaluate, either evaluating our "self" in the light of God's Word or evaluating God's word in the "light" of our "self" (and its love of the world).   (One and one-half hour audio on "self and the Father's authority.") 

Since "self's" interest is to approach pleasure and avoid pain, whenever authority prevents us from having our way it is our nature to talk to our "self" 'justifying' our desire to have whatever it is that we want.  When we want the object of pleasure of the 'moment,' it is for the 'purpose' of dopamine 'emanciaption' or 'liberation.'   Dopamine is a chemical (called a neurotransmitter) our nerve endings (posterior ends) naturally produce and release into a gap (called a synaptic gap) conveying information onward to the next nerve endings (anterior ends) on the way to or within the brain, making us aware that we have come into contact with something that is gratifying to our flesh.  By nature we look into the environment to locate what it is that stimulated pleasure, i.e. dopamine 'emancipation' within us.  Once located, we use physical action to apprehend and control it for the 'purpose' of more dopamine 'emancipation' or 'liberation.'  Dopamine 'liberation' or 'emancipation' (the pleasures of the 'moment') thereon becomes not only the child's 'drive' but also the 'purpose' of life as well.  While it might appear that the child is in love with the toy, in truth he is in love with the dopamine 'emancipation,' i.e. the pleasure of the 'moment' the toy stimulates.  Eventually growing tired of the toy, which no longer provides gratification, i.e. when dopamine 'liberation' is satiated, he begins looking for "new" toys to play with.  This is true for all men, i.e. called the "lust" of the flesh.  It is here, in dopamine 'emancipation,' i.e. in pleasure, i.e. in enjoyment, i.e. in the lust of the 'moment' that "self" and the world find oneness.

When the child is prevented from having access to the object of gratification, i.e. preventing dopamine 'liberation,' he can imagine, with his minds eye, having relationship with the object of gratification, stimulating dopamine emancipation again.  Called daydreaming, he can satisfy his "lust" for pleasure, overcoming the barrier to pleasure for the moment.  But when caught, i.e. not doing his homework, he is forced (by threat of pain) to abandon his hearts desire (dopamine 'emancipation') and do his homework instead.  It is here, in his "ought," as in "I ought to be able to (for the purpose of dopamine 'emancipation') be able to do what it is I want."  Like being on a drug (all drugs of pleasure are associated with dopamine, i.e. stimulating its release, imitating it, or preventing its re-uptake, leaving it in the synaptic gap longer), as a drug addict he will use any means to attain access to the object of gratification, using violate force if necessary (if he perceives he can get away with it) perceiving the restrainer as being unreasonable, irrational, uncaring, unloving, hateful, etc. 'justifying' his "habit" and his actions taken to continue it instead.  It is in his dialogue, i.e. his relationship with his "self" that he is able to initiate and sustain his "lust" for pleasure, using his imagination (entertaining his "self") in order to continue dopamine 'emancipation,' transcending the restraints of authority.  It is here, in the child's "ought," his continued association with his carnal desires, in defiance to authority, that dialectic 'reasoning' finds it 'drive' for 'change.'  Thus with the emphasis upon "imagination" (innovation, 'change,' etc.) today in education, not only can the child be 'motivated' to 'liberate' himself, i.e. his "self" from parental authority, he can learn how to facilitate 'change' in others, "helping" them 'emancipate' their "self" from parental restraint as well ('liberating themselves from self discipline and self control under parental authority), eventually, through dialectic 'reasoning,' 'liberating' society  from Godly restraint, ('liberating' man from having to humble and deny himself before God), being 'justified' in his own eyes, i.e. with dopamine 'emancipation' or 'liberation' (pleasure, enjoyment, lust) becoming not only the 'drive' but also the 'purpose' of life.

If you make "self," i.e. "self-consciousness" the standard for life (viability), i.e. defining the soul as your ability to talk to your "self," with "self-awareness," "self-interest," and "self-actualization," i.e. the 'liberation' of "self" from  the Father's authority becoming the 'purpose' of life, then consciousness or even unconsciousness is no longer defended as a right of life, thus justifying the taking of the life of the unborn, the child who has not yet become conscious of his "self," the elder, the weak, and even those who humble themselves before God, refusing to become, inhibit or prevent, or fight against "self-actualization," i.e. those who put into praxis the "purifying" of society, "purging" it of the "unfit," having no "guilty conscience" while doing so.  By 'discovering' a persons "self-interest" ("helping" them to 'discover' it for themselves in order to build relationship with others upon "self") those of dialectic 'reasoning' start their victims down the road of 'change,' while they, thinking to "themselves" that what they are doing (or are going to do) is "good" for not only themselves but the rest of mankind, participate in the praxis of destruction and death.  Good or pleasure to "self" is always "good" in the eyes which "are never satisfied."  "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20 

"The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  By gaining access to the child's desires of the 'moment,' i.e. what his "self interest" is, i.e. what he is dialoguing with himself about in the 'moment,' I can guarantee his attending to what I am doing, seducing him into participation.  By gaining his trust, i.e. his perception that if he participates in what I am doing he can attain what it is that he is desiring as well, i.e. dopamine 'emancipation,'  I can thereby deceive him into believing that it is his "interest" that I am interested in, when in fact it is my interest to use him as a resource to satisfy my interest, like natural resource, manipulating him into sustaining my interest, i.e. dopamine 'emancipate' within me, not only through gaining his approval for what I am doing, which 'emancipates' dopamine within me, but supporting me (through volunteerism, donations, etc. to "our" common cause) while I pursue my desire to 'liberating' not only him but others from the father's restraint of dopamine 'emancipation,' so that I can use the father's children and money (via tax dollars) to support my "interests," 'liberating' children from the father's authority to support my carnal "habits."  All facilitator's of 'change' have this in common, the 'liberation' of children from the father's authority so that they can use the children and the father's property for their own gain, i.e. for their carnal pleasures.  After all Immanuel Kant taught that hope is found in happiness, and happiness is found in pleasure, and pleasure is found in the mind (now we know of dopamine), therefore hope is found in the flesh and the world becoming "one," when in truth our hope is to be found in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (the Father and His obedient Son), who give us everlasting Joy, Peace, and Love as fruits of the Holy Spirit, rather than the never satisfying pleasures, conflict and tensions, and carnal desires of the flesh, which the world, which is passing away, stimulates.

Only through the dialoguing of our opinions (sharing our 'ought's' with one another, i.e. you and I openly sharing with, i.e. dialoguing with one another what we are talking to, i.e. dialoguing with our "self" about) is it possible for me to know your "self" and you to know my "self," i.e. our "self interest" (what "depth of knowledge" is all about).  What we have in common in the dialoguing of our opinions (our sharing with one another regarding what we are talking to our "self" about, i.e. how we are "feeling" and what we are "thinking" in the 'moment') is our desires (love, pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts," "self-interests") of the carnal 'moment' and our dissatisfaction toward (hate of) the father's/Father's authority which prevents us from enjoying its pleasures.  "Self" loves pleasure, i.e. "all that is of the world," and hates anything or anyone who stands in the way of it, preventing pleasure from having its way. It is in this condition of love and hate, i.e. love of pleasure and hate of the father's/Father's authority that 'change' is initiated and sustained.  It is within the child's "group grade" experience in the classroom (being placed under the pressure of 'compromising' for the sake of "group approval") that his degree of love of pleasure vs. hate of the father's/Father's authority (or love of the father's/Father's authority and hate of pleasure) is revealed and graded, "helping" the facilitator of 'change' know what next steps are necessary (what classroom environment he needs to create next, i.e. what issues as well as what "appropriate information" is needed to be brought up in the classroom in order to increase "group approval" in the mind of the child and what "inappropriate information" is needed to be excluded in the classroom in order to negate the child's need for the father's/Fathers' approval) in order to continue the child's propensity to 'change,' i.e. to grow in the things of the world, 'liberating' himself (his "self") and others from the restraints of the father's/Father's authority.  The "group grade" being: where along the spectrum or continuum of 'change' in the 'moment' (in time and space) does the child's love of the world and hate the father's/Father's authority, i.e. his "play behavior," i.e. being "positive," i.e. being a part of "the group," i.e. embracing and promoting 'change'' vs. love of the father's/Father's authority and hate of the world, i.e. his "barrier behavior," i.e. being "negative," i.e. alienating himself from "the group,"  i.e. resisting and fighting against 'change' reside?  This can only be done (the grading of the child's embracing of the 'change' process can only be accomplished) through the child dialoguing his opinion with other students, to a consensus, 'compromising' his father's/Father's authority for the sake of "the group," i.e. for the sake of "relationship," i.e. for the sake of apprehending the pleasures of the world ("self interest"), not only putting his newly 'liberated' feelings and thoughts into action (into praxis) in "the group" (through the "group task"), i.e. in the present, i.e. in the 'moment' but in the home (when he gets home in the future) as well.

Being labeled as being "in denial" is simply another way of saying you are denying your "self" (your carnal desires) in favor of the father's/Father's authority.  As Carl Rogers explained the 'change' process, i.e. the dialectic process: "Prior to therapy [before the child learns to evaluate his "self" in the "light" of his own "human nature" and the world, i.e. through the eyes of the "group" learning to "esteem" his "self"] the person [the child] is prone to ask himself  'What would my parents want me to do ?' [evaluating his "self" in the light of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. learning to discipline, control, deny, humble his "self"] During the process of therapy [during the "group grade" experience] the individual [the child] comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me ["How do I 'feel' about it?" and "What do I 'think' about it?" i.e. learning to validate his "self," i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. his "opinion" in the "light" of the current situation over and against the father's/Father's authority]?'"  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the father/Father telling him how to live his life, i.e. "It is written ...," "My Father says ..."] nor that authority of the church [His obedient Son leading the way] in order to know good and evil."  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its TheoristsCritical Theory means "to liberate human beings [to 'liberate' the child] from the circumstances that enslave them [from the father's/Father's authority]." Max Horkheimer, i.e. Jürgen Habermas explains CT in Knowledge and Human Interests; where "emergence" is not only the child but all of mankind 'liberating' himself from the father's/Father's condition of "domination," i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting according to his/His established rules, commands, facts, and truth instead of feeling, thinking, and acting according to everyone's "felt" needs of the 'moment,' with man placing his hope in pleasure, i.e. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, instead of in the Lord, i.e. the hope of glory, with man no longer establishing commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrains his "self" but instead making rules, commands, facts, and truth always subject to the "light" of the 'moment,' i.e. always being "adaptable to 'change,'" "tolerant of deviancy," i.e. ever 'changing')  The scriptures warn us: "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness."  Luke 11:35 where man depends upon his "human reasoning" (dialoguing his opinion not only with his "self" but with others of like opinion, feeling, thinking, and acting according to his and their "self interest") to 'justify' "human nature" over and against the father's/Father's authority: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."  2 Timothy 3:7  "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  The truth is not established in man's (the child's) carnal nature, but in the Lord himself, subject to the Father's authority.  "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." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 5:19; 12:49 

This is the heart and soul of the so called "new" world order, 'liberating' the child's "self" from the father's/Father's authority so that all children can come to know them "self" as they are, i.e. carnal, i.e. of the world Only (loving the pleasures of the world and hating the father's/Father's authority).  The Objective of using dialectic 'reasoning' ("human 'reasoning'") to 'liberate' the child's "self" (and the facilitator of 'change') from the father's/Father's authority is to "help" all children come to know themselves as "one," i.e. as "team players," working together as "one" in the praxis (social action) of negating the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order based upon the nature of the child, i.e. "human relationship" Only, i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, i.e. negating the father's/Father's authority (in its many applications, i.e. in the workplace, in the classroom, etc.) which comes between the child (the worker, the student, etc.) and the pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts" (Eros), of the 'moment,' with the child (the worker, the student) 'justifying' ("serving" and "protecting") unrighteousness and abomination ("human nature") in the process.

 A brief overview and chart might be helpful as you read the article Diaprax Exposed, explaining dialectic 'reasoning' and its use in "team building" (praxis) to 'create' a so called "'New' World Order" (using a method for 'change' as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6).  The dialectic process not only affects you, it affects those who you love as well, negating the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) in their thoughts and actions, i.e. negating faith in God, putting trust in man instead, i.e. using "human' reasoning'" (dialectic 'reasoning') to 'justify' "human nature," i.e. to 'justify' man's carnal desires, making him subject to the laws of the flesh over and against the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the law of God (Romans 7:14-25—which reveals man's need for salvation from condemnation and eternal death) engendering unrighteousness and abomination instead.  It is why we are witnessing such rapid 'change,' i.e. disregard for parental (the father's) authority and an advancement of unrighteousness and abomination in this nation and around the world today. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."  " Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is."  Jeremiah 17:5, 7  "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8

Diaprax Exposed explains how the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (dialectic 'reasoning') negates the Heavenly Father's authority, i.e. negates Godly restraint in the thoughts and actions of men (with men no longer willing to set aside their desires of the 'moment' in order to do the Father's will) by negating the earthly father's authority, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience," i.e. the voice of the father in the child, restraining the child's thoughts and actions (with the child no longer willing to set aside his desires of the 'moment' in order to do his father's will), paving the way for 'change,' i.e. where order is no longer based upon the father's/Father's "top-down" authority but in the child initiating and sustaining "equality" with other children, i.e. thinking and acting according to his/their carnal nature, i.e. basing 'reality' upon the deceitfulness and wickedness of their heart ("human nature") instead. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9  It is why God flooded the world.  "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."  "for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" Genesis 6:5; 8:21  It is in the child's/man's "imagination," i.e. in his phantasies, that dialectic 'reasoning' find's its modus operandi.

It is the 'purpose' of Common Core, with its use of "Bloom's (Marzano's, Webb's*) Taxonomies" in the classroom, i.e. the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (the dialoguing of opinions, concerning "self-interest" and the father's/Father's authority which restrains it, i.e. 'liberating' "self interest" by negating the father's/Father's authority), to turn the classroom into a "Training Laboratory," 'changing' how the children feel about, what they think about, and how they act toward parental authority, i.e. turning their hearts away from the father's authority ('liberating' them, in their thoughts and actions, from the father's restraint), negating the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for doing wrong (for turning away from or against "tradition"), thereby, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' turning man's heart away from the Father's authority ('liberating' man, in his feelings, thoughts and actions, from Godly restraint), negating the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for sinning.  Dialectic 'reasoning' redefines "sin" as man creating and sustaining any condition which "represses" him, i.e. which turns him against his own nature, and "alienates" him from others, i.e. turning him against the world (and the world against him)—"sin" is therefore the father's/Father's authority, with his commands, rules, facts, and truth holding his children accountable to belief, "prejudicing" them against their own nature and the nature of the world, i.e. "repressing" them, "alienating" them from the other children of the "community."  Repentance is no longer man turning from his wicked (carnal) ways to doing the Father's will, i.e. asking the Father to forgive him for his wicked ways, but turning to his wicked (carnal) ways, asking others to forgive him for getting in their wicked (carnal) ways, i.e. repenting before them for trying to get them to do the Father's will.

*Norman L. Webb's Depth Of Knowledge-DOK "Taxonomy," building upon Bloom's/Marzano's "Taxonomy," is based upon knowing how "deep" the child's "knowledge" (skill) is in seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others, i.e. as a "scientist," using Higher Order Thinking Skills-HOTS to 'change' their ethics from obedience to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. refusing to 'compromise' to "get along" with others, to the ethics of the 'changing' times, i.e. 'compromising' to "get along" with others, knowing how to get them to 'compromise' as well, transforming their way of thinking and acting so that they can be "adaptable to 'change'" in the present and the future 'changing' society.  The "Taxonomies" evaluate the child's, i.e. the "groups," i.e. society's 'change' from "fixity" to "adaptability" using Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis, i.e. Obama's "Power Analysis," evaluating the degree of 'change' (along a spectrum or continuum), the child, i.e. the "group," i.e. society has made and the type and amount of seduction, deception, and manipulation that is necessary to move him/them/it further down the pathway of 'change.'  "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible.  But [through a] continuum from fixity [from the child honoring the father's/Father's authority, obeying his/His commands and rules] to changingness [to the child following after his own carnal urges and impulses, responding to the carnal situation], from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy "A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism [the children honoring the father's/Father's authority] to extreme liberalism [the children, united as one, negating the father's/Father's authority] and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  It is what the "group grade" in the classroom is all about, evaluating the child's emotional, mental, and physical ability to 'change,' i.e. his 'willingness' to 'compromise' for the sake of unity, i.e. for the sake of initiating and sustaining "the group," i.e. for the sake of initiating and sustaining "community," i.e. for the sake of initiating and sustaining society.

"If an individual wishes to maintain a position of arbitrary authority [if the father/Father wishes to maintain his/His position of authority], then it behooves him to inhibit the development of any rules permitting reciprocal process observation and commentary [the father/Father must prevent the child from having the "right" to openly evaluate, i.e. dialogue his opinion regarding the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and behavior with other children, i.e. questioning the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, resulting in challenging his/His authority in the home]."  (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  If the father dialogues his opinion with his children, i.e. to restore his children to his authority, he abdicates his authority to his children's opinions instead.  Maintaining authority entails discussion, i.e. not setting aside one's position while attempting to persuade others of its importance.  The dialectic method is man "rationally" dialoguing his opinion with his "self" and with other men,  'justifying' to his "self" and to others his disobedience against God (rejecting God's authority over his life), i.e. the child "rationally" dialoguing his opinion with his "self" and with other children,  'justifying' to his "self" and to others his disobedience against the father (rejecting the father's authority over his life), finding identity in his "self" and the children of like feelings, thoughts, and actions instead. 

The dialectic process is known for its "thesis," "antithesis," and "synthesis" cycle of 'change.'  If you start with the father's authority, making the father's authority the "thesis," then the child's nature, i.e. his natural inclination to become at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment' (at odds with the father's authority) becomes the "antithesis."   With the father's authority to chasten the child, i.e. to restrain him from following after his natural inclination to become at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' and to cast-out the child who questions his commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenges his authority, "synthesis" is averted and (as György Lukács put it) the "dialectic method" is "overthrown," preventing 'change.'  But if you start with the child's nature, making the child's desire to become at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' the "thesis," then the father's authority, restraining the child's nature, becomes the "antithesis."  Lukács wrote: "For to accept that solution [evaluating everything through the child's eyes, i.e. according to his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment'], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [observing the world from the child's perspective] other than that of the bourgeoisie [the "top-down," "I'm above, You're below," "Mine. Not yours." "I can, You can not," "I am right, You are wrong" way of thinking and acting]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely [which would effectively negate the father's office of authority]."  "... as soon as the bourgeoisie [the father (and those who support his way of thinking and acting)] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [considering the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" in deciding actions to be taken, i.e. creating "equality" through the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. participating in the consensus process], it is lost."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?With the help of the facilitator of 'change' (protecting the child from the father's authority so that he has a chance to "think" for himself, i.e. "rationally" 'justify," along with others, his "human nature" over and against the father's authority) the child is able to become at-one-with (achieve synthesis with) the world (with society) in pleasure, in the 'moment,' negating the father's authority in this "feeling," "thoughts," and "actions" in the process.

While the father/Father demands no 'compromise' (regarding his/His principles), "community" is initiated and sustained by 'compromise,' i.e. "tolerating deviance," i.e. putting aside principles, i.e. the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth ("for the 'moment'"), for the sake of unity, especially when dealing with a "community 'crisis'" (as well as national, international, and environmental 'crisis,' as every 'crisis' is used to promote and fund those programs and people who train both children and adults in dialectic 'reasoning,' negating the father's/Fathers authority, i.e. taking his funds away from him to support and advance dialectic 'reasoning' in the process). When you set aside principle (the father's/Father's authority), to "tolerate deviancy," i.e. when you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness,  deviancy (unrighteousness) becomes the "norm." i.e. 'justifying,' in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of "the people," the silencing of principle/righteousness, i.e. negating the father's/Father's authority (and those who support it) for the sake of "community."  As the first National Training Laboratory manual clearly stated the dialectic objective: "We must develop persons [children] who see non-influencability of private convictions [other children who hold faithfully to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth] in joint deliberations [in the consensus process, i.e. in the "group grade"] as a vice rather than a virtue."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change

By placing the child in the "group grade" environment (with the teacher, i.e. the facilitator of 'change,' seducing, deceiving, and manipulating him into dialoguing his opinion, along with "the diverse group" of students, to a consensus) rather than in the traditional classroom environment (with the teacher up front inculcating, i.e. preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be learned and applied as is) his way of feeling, thinking and acting is 'changed.' "Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."  (Wilbur Brookover,  A Sociology of Education)  Kurt Lewin edited the Transformational Marxist's, i.e. the "Institute of Social Research" journal (Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung) while he and they were still in Germany, before coming to the states in 1933, i.e. due to Hitler becoming Chancellery of Germany then).  Lewin stated, regarding education in America: A "hierarchy of leaders has to be trained which reach out into all essential sub-parts of the group."  "Hitler himself has obviously followed very carefully such a procedure."  "The democratic procedure will have to be as thorough and as solidly based on group organization."  (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  Abraham Maslow, following along the same line of 'reasoning' as Lewin, wrote: "For Marx, man's [the child's] being & consciousness are determined by the structure of his society [the classroom environment]." "Marxian theory ["the group"] needs Freudian-type instinct theory [therapy] to round it out. And of course, vice versa."  "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood."  "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.)" "The new Zeitgeist is value-full (value-directed, value-vectorial), human-need & metaneed centered (or based), moving toward basic-need gratification & metaneed metagratification--that is, toward full-humanness, SA, psychological health, full-functioning human fulfillment, i.e., toward human perfection as the limit & as the direction."  "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm."  "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings."  (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of A.H. Maslow)   "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture [the father's/Father's authority equated, dialectically to Nationalism]. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature)

The famous Marxists (Transformational Marxist, i.e. those who merge Marx with Freud or visa versa) György Lukács (founder of the "Institute of Social Research") defined the dialectic method by defining its nemesis: "The dialectical method was overthrown [by the children honoring the father's/Father's authority, i.e. obeying the father's/Father's commands and rules, accepting his facts and truth as given, by faith]the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within themselves, i.e. within "the group," i.e. within the "community," i.e. within "society"]."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)  Karl Marx explained it this way: "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual [man made in the image of God (to evaluate himself, i.e. his "self" and the world from His standards) as the child is made in the image of the father (to evaluate himself, i.e. his "self" and the world from his standards)]."  "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations ['discovering' common-ism, i.e. "self interest" within the "community"]." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6)   "It is not individualism [the child being personally accountable to the father for his actions as a man is personally accountable to God for this thoughts and actions] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [man's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature" (that which all men have in common)] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx"Only within a social context [only within the ever 'changing,' i.e. diverse, i.e. deviant nature of "the group," with everyone 'compromising' ("tolerating deviancy") for the sake of initiating and sustaining "community," common-unity] individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being ['justifying' his "self" as he 'justifies' other's "self," 'liberating' his "self" and other's "self" from the father's/Father's authority in the process]." (Karl Marx,  Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)   "The more of himself man attributes to God [being made in the image of God, subject to righteousness], the less he has left in himself [being made in the image of carnal man, subject to sensuousness]." (Karl Marx, Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy"The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, i.e. by the child recognizing and honoring the father's/Father's authority, i.e. obeying the father/Father, i.e. doing his/His will instead of satisfying his own carnal desires of the 'moment,' he not only "represses" that which is of nature only, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' he "creates" the father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" authority structure (the "old" world order) which then] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)  In this way of thinking, instead of the child being a child of the father/Father, i.e. an individual, under God, he becomes a child of the world, i.e. a socialist, subject to "the group," i.e. to the "community," i.e. to society, subject to the facilitators of 'change,' i.e. to socialists-globalists-environmentalists (common-ists), i.e. to those who "helped" 'liberate' him from the father's/Father's authority so that he could become himself again (as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of punishment/condemnation for disobeying), i.e. so that he could become at-one-with the world, subject to the process of 'change' itself, i.e. subject to "human nature" (and those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate him through it) Only.

When man, as a child, uses dialectic 'reasoning' ('self-justification') to 'liberate' himself from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. thinking (perceiving) that he is in control of the world, he does not realize that it is the facilitator of 'change,' i.e. who seduces, deceives, and manipulates him with the world, who is in control of him instead.  Rejecting "right-wrong" thinking and acting, i.e. the father's/Father's authority as a way of thinking and acting, refusing to repent of his way of thinking and acting before the father/Father and turning back to him/Him, the child is only left with "human nature," i.e. "the approaching of pleasure and the attenuating of pain,"  i.e. his "lusting" after the gratifying things of the world and his hatred toward the father/Father and his/His authority when he/He prevents him from having his way, and "human 'reasoning," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' his thoughts and actions, i.e. 'justifying' the thoughts and actions of his "friends" to silence the "guilty conscience," i.e. the voice of the father/Father within him.  Rejecting the father's/Father's authority as the way of life, he (with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change') embraces "human 'reasoning'" 'justifying' "human nature" (dialectic 'reasoning') as the way of life instead, which leads love of self and the world (unrighteousness and abomination), hate of the father/Father and his/His authority, and destruction (unlike God, for man to 'create,' i.e. to innovate, i.e. to 'change,' he must destroy what is), murder (taking the life of the innocent, helpless, and 'resistors' of 'change,' when they get, or are perceived as getting in the way of "social progress," i.e. getting in the way of the carnal pleasures of the life of "the people") and death/eternal death.  "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23   "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness [thinking and acting according to the Father's will], and going about to establish their own righteousness [thinking and acting according to their own carnal desires, i.e. "felt" needs, i.e. pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts"], have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  Romans 10:3  "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 16:25  

Dialectic 'reasoning' turns "My garden.  Not your garden.  Do what I say or else." (which engenders private property and private business, i.e. individualism, i.e. "My children. Not your children."  "My property.  Not your property."  "My business. Not your business." under God), into "We working for us." turning the hearts of the children from the Father (obedience and righteousness) to all that is of the world (to disobedience and sensuousness), i.e. to unrighteousness and abomination instead.  1 John 2:15-18   The 'change' process is subtle and complex, surviving in our 'compromises,' i.e. in our "ought's" of the 'moment, i.e. in our carnal "thoughts" over and against the father's/Father's "Not's," where we least notice its affect upon us, gaining control over our heart and actions. 

While earthly fathers are not perfect (righteous in and of themselves), some are downright tyrants, the office they serve in is perfect, under God.  According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' you must negate the earthly father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children (including the "benevolent" father) if you want to negate the Heavenly Father's authority (religion) in the thoughts and actions of men, i.e. if you want to 'create' a "new" world order where the children, or rather, where facilitators of 'change,' who seduce, deceive, and manipulate the children, rule instead of the father, i.e. where facilitators of 'change' (socialist "engineers") rule over God's creation instead of God.  Rousseau wrote (in defiance to God, hating the father's/Father's authority): "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society [where the citizens recognize and honor the father's authority (his right to rule) over his own children, business, and land, i.e. private property] ... the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody [instead of "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) with God giving man (individual man) "dominion" over it, under Him (Genesis 2:26)]." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality

When "the people" reject the father's/Father's authority (actually his/His "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting), when they 'justify' to themselves that sinning (disobeying/compromising/"setting aside" the father's/Father's commands and rules, when they go against or block the desires, i.e. the impulse and urges of the 'moment') is the "norm," i.e. that man is of "human nature" only, they make righteousness, i.e. doing the father's/Father's will a non-issue, i.e. "moot."  Norman Brown explained it this way, tying it to the "garden experience" (Genesis 3:1-6): "To experience Freud [psychology] is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit."   "But Brown [Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History] believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin—namely, that alienation [the children divided amongst themselves on the issue of right and wrong, i.e. "My father is right and your father is wrong"] would be overcome, and the return of the repressed [the children ('liberated' from the father's/Father's authority), united as one, i.e. upon "human nature" only] completed, rendering problems of sin [disobedience against the father's/Father's authority and having a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for sinning] permanently moot." (Mike Connor). Brown's contemporary, Herbart Marcuse, quoting Sigmund Freud, put it more succinctly: "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 as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  It is the "duty" of psychoanalysts, i.e. the "children of disobedience," i.e. those of dialectic 'reasoning' to unite the world as one, turning it against the Heavenly Father, annihilating any who worship Him and His only begotten Son.  "One day, the brothers who had been driven out came together, killed and devoured their father and so made an end of the patriarchal horde" (Sigmund Freud, Totem and taboo)  When "the people," as "children of disobedience," reject the father's/Father's authority, God lets them have their hearts desires, turning them over to their own demise: "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable."  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."  Isaiah 3:4-5, 12  It is where we find ourselves today.

While our framing father's rejected the father's authority over this nation (a king), as well as over the states, the counties, the townships, and the cities (dividing government into three branches, separated from one another, to prevent his reappearance), they, unlike the French Revolution, retained the father's authority in the home (recognizing his inalienable rights, establishing the bill of rights so that the father could protect his family, property, and business), thus guaranteeing a "guilty conscience" in the citizenry (engendered from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the children's fear of judgment and punishment from by father for doing wrong).  A representative, limited, majority vote (Constitutional Republic) form of government is based upon the father's/Father's authority.  The representative is figuratively a child who is sent to the store (in the place of the father) to "re-present" the father (the constituents), i.e. his/their principles as he purchases the father's needs.  The limited is the authority of the father, i.e. the authority of the constitution's to remove the child (the representative) from representing him when the child misappropriates the father's money (no longer "re-presenting" the father and his principles), spending it on himself, i.e. on his own interests or his "friends" interests instead.  The majority vote, is so that the fathers (the citizens), who differ from (who disagree with) one another on principles, will safeguard the representative, limiting form of government, i.e. preventing those who they disagree with from forever ruling over their lives (enslaving them), i.e. encroaching upon and removing their right of private property and business.  With the negation of the father's authority in the home, representative, limited, majority vote government is being replaced with a Directorate (of the French Revolution) form of government (and the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc. revolutions which followed), i.e. government run by "consensus."  "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..."  (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

Government by consent (consensus, i.e. i.e. "with 'feelings,'" i.e. government lead by "feelings," i.e. determining right and wrong according to the situation, i.e. the 'crisis' of the 'moment') negates government by conviction (conscience,  i.e. "with science," i.e. doing right and not wrong according to established facts and truth), with freedom of the conscience being replaced with freedom from the conscience, i.e. by freedom of the "super-ego" (which determines right and wrong according to the "feelings," i.e. "self interests", i.e. perception, i.e. opinions, i.e. theories, i.e. what "seems to be" right for the 'moment').  Through the use of the consensus process (bypassing/circumventing, i.e. usurping, i.e. negating the representative, limited, majority vote form of government), a government of children—"representatives" who no longer "re-present" the father's (singular/individual) principles but their own (plural/socialist) "self" interests instead—is now in place, placing itself over and against (usurping) the father's authority, using the father's money (property, business, and family) as well as his credit card for their own personal pleasures instead, putting him into debt, saying they are doing it "for the 'good' of the people"—creating laws to remove the father (along with those who support his way of thinking and acting) if and when he (or they) get in the way.  This is why democracy (government run by children) always ends up in tyranny (despotism).  George Washington warned us: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one [through the use of the consensus process], and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.  A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.  The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern;  some of them in our country and under our own eyes.  To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."  (George Washington, Farewell Speech)

For more on the subject of 'change,' i.e. the dialectic process, i.e. the 'liberation' of children from parental authority, i.e. from the father's/Father's authority (the 'liberating' of mankind from Godly restraint), i.e. the "new" world order, i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy," read the article Higher Order Thinking Skills (still in draft form) and the issues The Key to 'Change' and The Dialectic Process.  See the issue It's all about your Father and His authority. Period! for the briefest overview of all. 

There is no father's/Father's authority and therefore no "guilty conscience" for being unrighteous and abominable in dialogue.  You can not say "That is wrong" in dialogue (that would be preaching), you can only say "I don't feel like" or "I don't think that that is right."  Through the dialoguing of opinions (how a person "feels" or what he is "thinking" in the 'moment,' i.e. subject to his "feelings" which are subject to the situation of the 'moment'), to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" with others on the same issue, not only is the father's/Father's authority negated, the "guilty conscience" (which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority) is negated as well.  Therefore all 'willing' participants can do unconscionable things while not only negating the father and his authority but also negating those who recognize and honour his authority as well, i.e. purging society of "resistors of 'change,'" i.e. of those who refuse to be "team players," i.e. of those who insist upon remaining individuals, under God, who instead of compromising (for the 'good' of the "community"), insist upon doing things right according to the father's/Father's will. Through the praxis (social action) of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, "right-wrong" thinking and acting is replaced with "human-ist 'rights,'" i.e. "rights" determined according to (and therefore protective of) the child's carnal "lusts," "enjoyments," i.e. pleasures, i.e. desires, i.e. "'felt' needs" of the 'moment.'  "I ought," i.e. dialoguing with oneself and/or with others one's opinion, negates "I must," i.e. preaching to oneself and/or to others the need to recognize the father's/Father's authority and obey him/Him.  Hegel wrote"When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him."  (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)  Instead of the traditional response against the father's/Father's authority of "fight or flight," with fighting or fleeing keeping the father's/Father's authority in place as much as "submitting," dialectic 'reasoning' creates in the mind of the child the father's/Father's authority as being "irrational," resulting in the child treating it as being "irrelevant," with the child doing "his own thing" (civil disobedience) despite the father's/Father's response, 'changing' society in the process.

In this way crime can be used in the defense of (and advancement of) socialism, i.e. in the name of "community," i.e. initiation and sustaining 'change.'  Since the father has what the facilitator's of 'change' want, i.e. money, land, children, etc. i.e. that which can finance or satisfy their carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through "self-social 'justification" the father and his authority can be negated in the thoughts and actions of the children, with the facilitators of 'change' taking those things that they want (for their pleasures, i.e. to satisfy their "felt" needs of the 'moment'), in the name of the children, i.e. in the name of "community," with impunity (with no "guilty conscience").  The dialectic idea being: don't force children into doing what you want, seduce, deceive, and manipulate them into doing it, turning them against the father and his authority (for the pleasures of the 'moment') instead, thereby they will give their inheritance to the facilitators of 'change,' 'willingly' supporting and working for them (for the "good" of "the community"), neutralizing, marginalize, and removing those father's (and children) who resist.  If society, i.e. "community" becomes the measure of all things, then anyone who can not (or refuses to) contribute to its growth (is perceived of as being or possibly being detrimental, i.e. a 'liability' to it's "health"), including the unborn, the very young, the old, and anyone in between, is expendable for the "good" of all.

Teachers are being fired ("right-sized") for knowing and sharing this information.  Even "Christian" schools, colleges, and universities are censoring this website, labeling it as being "extremely offensive" material because they do not want the parents (as well as teachers) knowing how the methods being used in the classroom are 'changing' the children's feeling, thoughts, and actions toward parental authority.  One of "Bloom's Taxonomies" states: "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  While teachers are trained in how to use these "Taxonomies" (Book 1 Cognitive Domain and Book 2 Affective Domain), many do not like them, sensing something is wrong with them, but continue to use them (fearful of losing their job if they resist), ignorant of their intended "Educational Objective."  Teachers can not be "certified" and schools can not be "accredited" unless they use these "Taxonomies" (updated by Marzano) in the classroom.  Saying "There is more 'right' in them than 'wrong'" is like engraving upon the demolition experts tombstone, "He was more right than wrong."  The results are the same.  Boom! 

According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. according to Hegel, Marx, and Freud, negating the father's authority over the children accomplishes the negation of the Father's authority over society, thereby allowing unrighteousness and abomination ("human nature" 'liberated' from Godly restraint) freedom to reign.  Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)   Freud believed: "'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 [whether the biological father is present or not in the home does not matter, what matters is that the father's "top-down" authority, i.e. his "right-wrong" preaching and teaching way of thinking and acting no longer resides within the home, i.e. influencing the children's' feelings, thoughts, and actions (in this way the "parents" can be two or more women or men) ]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)   According to Hegel, the child's nature ("human nature" 'liberated' from the father's authority) is the core of 'reality,' from which "Common Core" is based. "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 'liberated' from the father's authority]."  According to Hegel, when children and the parents become "equal" (where all, i.e. the "husband, the wife, and the child" are subject to "human nature," the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain Only), that which belongs to the parents becomes the property of all, especially of those who "helped" 'liberate' the children (and the "parents") from parental authority and restraint. Sounding more like Karl Marx than Marx himself, Hegel wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)  In this way the "cast-out ones," i.e. the "children of disobedience" can take over and control the father's property, business, and family, and take his and his unborn children's life with impunity.  

The "Educational Objective" of "Bloom's (Marzano's, Webb's) Taxonomies" is not only to use the classroom (the "group grade") to change the child's behavior toward the father's authority but to use "social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child" as well.  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  In the second "taxonomy"—in the "affective domain" book (the child's feelings book)—we read: "The affective domain [the child's feelings 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. "human nature" 'liberated' from Godly restraint] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which, once opened, once 'liberated' from the father's authority, can not be closed].'"   "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found.  The affective domain [the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. to have the gratifying things of the world, i.e. the child's "lust" for pleasure, and his resentment (hate) toward the father's authority when it prevents him from attaining it] contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  'Change' the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions toward the father's authority and you 'change' the world.  It is what the 'change' process (dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. Common Core is all about.  Concerning this fact alone, that the "Taxonomies" are based upon the works of Erick Fromm, and Theodore Adorno, i.e. both who were members of "The Frankfurt School" (a band of Transformational Marxists who came to America in the early 30's—who merged Marxism with psychology, i.e. Marx with Freud, hiding Marxism in psychology, i.e. advancing the principles of Marxism through the praxis of psychotherapy, i.e. "group therapy," i.e. the "group grade"),  it is no wonder education establishes the child's carnal nature, i.e. the carnal nature of man ("human nature") over and against the father's/Father's authority (Godly restraint), 'changing' the way the citizens of this nation now feel, think, and act toward parental authority, marriage, the unborn, the elderly, private property and business, etc. and Godly restraint, advancing unrighteousness, immorality, and abomination instead.  "Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry [which prevents the child from questioning and challenging the father's/Father's authority] is guilty of violent oppression." (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

Negating the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children (negating the "guilty conscience") 'changes' all facets of society, i.e. 'changes' the social order of things ('creating' a "new" world order) from the home to the workplace, the police, the military, the medical profession, the government, the media, entertainment, etc., even the "church."  Through the children (including those in adult bodies) dialoging their opinions to a consensus, over social-individual (public-private) issues, in a facilitated meeting, "equality," i.e. a totalitarian state (subject to the child's carnal "human nature" only) is created, 'justifying' its use of force (coming between the citizens and local control, i.e. coming between the children and parental authority) to "serve and protect" unrighteousness and abomination, anarchy and revolution, i.e. "civil disobedience," i.e. disrespect for and contempt toward parental authority (private property and business) for the "good" of "the people."  To produce children with a "guiltless conscience" (who feel, think, and act without Godly restraint, i.e. who feel, think, and act according to "human nature" only, i.e. with faith becoming subject to sight, i.e. with belief being treated as an opinion and facts and truth as a theory, etc.) the education system, the work place, the police force, the military, the medical profession, the government, the media, entertainment, and even the "church" must "tolerate deviance," i.e. "protect" unrighteousness and abomination from the father's/Father's authority, in the name of "community." 

"Having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears" (Karl Marx), disrespect for authority and the killing of the innocent and helpless (the unborn and elderly) for the "good" of society is going on all around us, coming from the heart of the fatherless/Fatherless children.  "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 

"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."  Matthew 13:14-16

"... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1   After all the gospel message is not just about the obedient Son. "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."  John 5:30  "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49  It is about His Father as well, sending His only begotten Son to 'redeem' us from His wrath upon us for our disobedience, to 'reconcile' us to Himself instead.  It is about the Son, in essence saying "I want you to meet my Father."  "I want you to know my Father's love for you."  To reject the Father is to reject the Son.  "I and my Father are one." John 10:30   You can not have one without the other.  Deny the one you deny the other.  The One came that we might know and have fellowship with the Other: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."  Matthew 6:9-13 

A Fatherless Christ is a "Christ" made in the image of man, Fatherless in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, 'redeeming' man from the Father, 'reconciling' him to the world ("human nature") instead. "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."  1 John 3:22   All facilitator's of 'change' must, as Satan (the master facilitator of 'change'), come between the Father and His children, 'liberating' the children from the Father's authority in the name of "community."

Christ came to bring all children and parents, individually under His Heavenly Father's authority.  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  "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  "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  "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  "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

"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."  1 Peter 1:17-23 

© Institution for Authority Research  Dean Gotcher 1997-2014