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 Dialectic Process:
how it affects you.

by

Dean Gotcher

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

Part I

Georg Hegel's philosophy was built upon the primes that "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 the child (the "child's nature" to approach pleasure and avoid pain, i.e. loving pleasure and hating anything or anyone restraining it in the 'moment—which is common to all the children of the world) is 'liberated' from the parent's authority, i.e. once the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and his relationship with other children are 'liberated' from the earthly father's and the Heavenly Father's authority he can be himself again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command and rules (to be obeyed) and facts and truth were preached and taught (to be accepted as is, i.e. by faith), i.e. he can be of the world again, i.e. "Only of Nature" (Karl Marx)]."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

 Karl Marx's philosophy was built upon the primes that "once the earthly family [with the children honoring their earthly father's authority, i.e. obeying their father by faith (with the wife submitting the desires of her heart to her husband)] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with man's honoring of the Heavenly Father's authority, i.e. obeying the Heavenly Father by faith (with the Son, Jesus Christ obeying His Heavenly Father in all things commanded], the former [the earthly father's authority] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [that is, the father's authority must be negated in "theory and practice," i.e. negated in the child's, the wife's, and even the husband's (in all individual's) feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their social relationship with one another and the "community"]."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)

Sigmund Freud's philosophy was built upon the primes that "'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 [that is, the father can stick around as long as he no longer produces "neurosis" in the children (where the children have to do their father's will over and against their own will in the 'moment,' "repressing" their carnal nature, "alienating" themselves from the world)]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

In a nutshell: Hegel, Marx, and Freud believed that the child's nature ("human nature," the love of pleasure and the hate of restraint) had to be 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. that the child's nature had to be exalted over and against the father's authority if he was to become at-one-with himself and the world again (becoming "in and for himself").  They believed that in the praxis (social action) of "building relationship" upon "self interest" "worldly peace and socialist harmony" (global governance, i.e. globalism, i.e. "Making the world safe for democracy") could become a 'reality.'  By replacing the preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed ("or else") and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) with the dialoging of opinions (there is no father's/Father's authority in the act of dialoguing and in an opinion), i.e. with the children sharing (dialoguing) with one another how they are "feeling" in the 'moment' and what they are "thinking" (talking to themselves about) in the 'moment' (which is subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment'), not only can the child be 'changed,' i.e. be 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. no longer influenced by his commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. feeling "guilty" for doing wrong, i.e. to be himself again (carnal, of himself, i.e. of nature only) but the world can be 'changed,' i.e. 'liberated from the Father's authority, i.e. no longer influenced by His commands, rules, facts and truth, i.e. feeling "guilty" for doing wrong, to be itself again (carnal, of itself, i.e. of nature only) as well.

We do it every day, i.e. we talk to ourselves—imagining or daydreaming about, i.e. "reflect" upon what we want (the objects in the environment that engender pleasure, i.e. dopamine 'emancipation,' including the pleasure which comes from others who approve what we want) and our resentment towards authority which blocks or inhibits us from having or enjoying what we want or desire, i.e. the pleasures of the 'moment'—i.e. we philosophy about how the world "is" ("negative" when it comes to what we desire or "lust" after in the 'moment') and how it "ought" to be ('liberated' from authority which prevents us from having what we want or desire in the 'moment' and in the future).  "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  The issue was how to create an environment where children (mankind) could feel safe (without fear of reprisal) in sharing what they are talking to themselves about privately, i.e. their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e. how to create an environment where children could "build relationship" with one another upon their common "self interests," so that they could 'discover' what they all have in common, so that they could come to consensus (unity) based upon the approval of "the group" (the many, i.e. society) instead of upon the approval of "the father" (the one above), negating the father's/Father's authority in the process, i.e. putting their love of the world and hate of restraint into social action (praxis)—deceiving themselves while taking pleasure in seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others, 'creating' a world of unrighteousness and abomination.

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."  1 John 2:17  "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 heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9  "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."  2 Timothy 3:13  Romans 1:21-32

"As the Frankfurt School [a group of Marxist's (known as Transformational Marxists) who, coming to America in the early 30's—along with Kurt Lewin and Wilhelm Reich who edited their journal, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (while they were all still in Germany)—set up shop in our Universities, i.e. Columbia, Berkley, San Diego, Iowa, MIT, Michigan, etc., training professors and advisors to legislators, judges, presidents, governors, mayors, school administrators and educators, military and corporate leaders, etc., i.e. "human resource personnel," "facilitators of 'change,'" etc., on how to influence Federal policies regarding education, the workplace, government, and even the "church"] wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx' [since "hard line" Communists ("Traditional Marxist") had entrapping Marxism within traditional, "top-down," Nationalistic tendencies, thus failing the "purpose" of Marxism, i.e. global dominance], they 'found the missing link in Freud [by circumventing nationalism (by focusing upon the individual himself, through the praxis of psychotherapy, i.e. group psychotherapy to be more exact, by utilizing "therapy groups,"  "T-groups," "youth groups," "consensus groups," etc.—which incorporate J. L. Moreno's "role-playing" techniques, a "Transformational Marxist" who came to America, from Austria, in the late 20's) they were able to bring Marxism into the American classroom, workplace, government, and even the "church" through the praxis of psychology, 'changing' how policies, i.e. how decisions are made, 'changing' the participants (and the world) in the process].'"  (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950)  Their input into our Federal government (through the use of National Training Laboratories and "think tanks") now affects everything in your life, i.e. your education, your workplace, government, entertainment, health, etc.  Far fetched?  Not so—as Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's statements will show.

The issue was (and still is) the antithesis (the conflict and tension) between the father's authority (which Marx wanted to negate by force) and the child's nature (which Freud wanted to 'liberate' through counseling), i.e. how to use (manage) antithesis (crisis) in such a way that synthesis is 'created' (where the child's nature, i.e. to approach pleasure, including the pleasure of approval from others, and avoid pain, including the pain of missing out on pleasure, i.e. including the pain of rejection from others—which is common to everyone in society—is established over and against the father's authority, i.e. negating doing right and not wrong according to the father's standards in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child) before the father's authority becomes permanently established as the thesis in the mind of the child (and therefore in society)—which would sustain antithesis (the father's authority over the child), preventing synthesis, i.e. preventing 'change,' i.e. preventing the child (and therefore) society from becoming "adaptable to 'change,'" i.e. "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e. "tolerant of deviancy."  The issue was how to not only negate the father's authority (in society) but also how to 'liberate' the child's nature (in the individual) at the same time, initiating and sustaining (guaranteeing) 'change.'  As Marx stated it (most quoted statement by Marx summing up his cause—other than religion, i.e. the Father's authority being an "opiate"): "The philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is change itself." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)  In other words, the children (dissatisfied with the way the world is, i.e. not being able to do what they want to do in the 'moment,' having to do what their parent's tell them to do instead, thinking about how the world "ought" to be, i.e. where they can do what they want to do when they want to do it) "have interpreted the world" according to the father's way of thinking and acting, i.e. "top-down," i.e. "When I grow up I will be able to do what I want to do when I want to do it, ruling over what is mine," "the objective is to change" the way the children feel, think, and act and relate with one another. Without changing the child, i.e. how he relates with his "self" and society, and how society relates with him at the same time, the child will reinstate the father's "top-down" authority over himself, his children, and society when he grows up.  The key was how to perceive the "role" of the child, i.e. either being subject to the father's authority (insisting that the child does right and not wrong according to the father's standards and will) or subject to society (insisting that the child "builds relationship" with his "self," with "the group," i.e. with "the community" and with "the world").   While the traditional father treats each child under his authority as an individual, dialectic 'reasoning' perceives all children as being potentially the same, i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with one another according to what they all have in common, i.e. their carnal nature (their "lust" for pleasure) seeking 'liberation' from the father's authority (which inhibits or blocks pleasure, where pleasure is in pleasing the father, i.e. pleasing the one above, what Freud called a "substitute-gratification," i.e. what Marx called an "opiate," instead of pleasing "self" and others, i.e. pleasing the many below).  Whether the father is a tyrannical father or a benevolent father is not the issue, the issue is the father's office of authority itself.  The idea being the more "in and for" his "self" and others the child is, i.e. enjoying the pleasures of this life, i.e. living in the 'moment,' the farther he is from the father's authority, the "healthier" he (and society) is becoming.  Without focusing upon the child's nature, i.e. making it the "norm," i.e. making it the thesis, the father's authority will remain in place (in the individual and in society) and antithesis (the conflict between the father's authority and the child's nature) will never be resolved, i.e. synthesis (the child's nature, i.e. the law of the flesh, what all men have in common, the root of common-ism, i.e. common core) will not become 'reality.'  The truth is: while dad and mom may not be perfect (or may not have been perfect), i.e. they may be (or may have been) down right tyrants, the office they serve(d) in as parents is perfect, it having been given to them by God.

"Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2  Refusing to return to the "old paths," rejecting the Father's authority instead, God has turned this nation over to its childish ways, feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with one another without Godly restraint, doing unconscionable and abominable things along the way. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  Romans 1:21-32

After all you might be a "Marxist," i.e. loving the pleasure of the 'moment' and hating the authority who is inhibiting or blocking it, i.e. you might be a "child" of ("in and for") the "new" world order where the Father's authority, and therefore the "guilty conscience" (for disobedience) is negated and not even know it.  Or you might not be willing to admit it to yourself.  At least (by reading the following) you can know what Marxism is, and if you are a Marxist (or becoming one) you can know not only how it happened (or is happening) and what you can do about it if you do not want to be one, i.e. if you want to return to "the old paths" instead (the "old" world order, which is under the Father's authority) and "find rest for your soul." "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  His life (and death on the cross and His resurrection) was all about His Heavenly 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  It is the same authority we are, as believers in Christ, to come under, in order to inherit eternal life, spending it with Him in His  glory, glorifying Him: "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 

It is why the gospel (righteousness) is so hated by those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. hating the father's/Father's authority, they have to create a savior made in their image (which all men can experientially, i.e. rationally, i.e. practically relate with), 'liberating' themselves (and the world) from the Father's authority—which is a secularized form of Gnosticism, i.e. in dialectic fashion man 'justifying' his love of "justice and beauty," i.e. "peace and affirmation," i.e. "pleasure," "lust," or "enjoyment" (man's understanding of love, i.e. of loving and being loved according to "human nature") as well as his resentment towards external authority which "represses" him and "alienates" him from others who have what he wants, i.e. that which is common to all men, i.e. loving the pleasures of the 'moment' and hating restraint.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' only the "illuminated" have knowledge of, i.e. have Gnosis of their common-ism with the universal and the universal with them.  It is the father's/Father's authority which prevents the universality of mankind.  "The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness; What is Orthodox Marxism?)  More commonly Gnosticism (all which was one, becoming one again through dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. through 'liberation' of self from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. becoming "self actualized") is secularized in gestalt theory as: "The whole is other than the sum of its parts" where "human nature" (man's love of pleasure and hate of restraint) becomes the catalyst from which the "divine spark" (the universality or "oneness") in all men becomes realized, and then actualized in the praxis of 'liberating' the material (man's "feelings," his "sense experience") from the spiritual (from religion, i.e. from the Father's authority) where the "divine spark," i.e. that which is universal in all men (his love of pleasure and hate of pain, with the approval of others being pleasure and the prevention of it being pain), can become known to all men, uniting them in the love of "self" (which is that which is common to all others, i.e. Eros, i.e. common-ism), with all mankind becoming "one" again, as they were before the Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth which divided them from themselves, only this time becoming one "experientially," becoming at one with one another in the 'moment,' with self becoming "actualized" in the whole, i.e. in the "consensus" 'moment'—with nothing (external to the cosmic 'moment' of "oneness," i.e. external to the "consensus" 'moment') being 'reality.'  "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. 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)

Kurt Lewin knew that "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately ["group dynamics," i.e. our desire for approval from others can (and often does) influences us in our decision making, i.e. our desire for approval from others is that part of us, which, according to Lewin, can be used to "unfreeze, change (move), and refreeze" us within the process of 'change']."  (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  "The group" itself is not the issue.  The issue is how the members of "the group" are making decisions, it is how "the group" is being "managed."  "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)   A leader who, like a traditional father, 1) preaches and teaches rules and commands to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), 2) blesses (rewards) those who obey or do things right, according to his instructions and standards, 3) chastens those who disobey or do things wrong, to encourage them to obey and do things right, and 4) casts out those who disrespect, i.e. question and challenge his authority, in order to maintain his authority will produce different followers than the leader who, as a facilitator of 'change,' encourages 1) a diverse group—who have to include the deviant, to 2) dialogue their opinions to a consensus, 3) over social issues, 4) in a facilitated ("non-judgmental") meeting, 5) to a pre-determined outcome, i.e. that no major decision is to be made without the forgoing procedure (which negates the traditional father's authority).  "The group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions" (Kurt Lewin, Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics)   If "the group" is ruled by an authority figure it will produce individuals who are subject to authority figures.  If it is managed by facilitators of 'change' it will produce individuals who are subject to their own "felt needs" and the "felt needs" of society.

According to Lewin (the architect of "force field analysis"), the former leader (using the "force field" of a father's authority, i.e. overt force) produces individuals who seek, follow, serve, and therefore sustain overt, i.e. "top-down" authority, resulting in individuals who initiate that type of leadership wherever they go, using it for their personal gain, the latter "leader" (the facilitator of 'change,' using the individual's desire for pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from the approval of "the group" as the "force field," i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating all 'willing' group participants) produces socialists who seek, follow, serve, and therefore sustain covert, i.e. seductive, deceptive, manipulative leadership, resulting in individuals who initiate that type of leadership wherever they go, using it to 'change' the world.  The former leader produces a "guilty conscience" in the individual (when they are thinking about doing, are doing, or have done wrong or not done right—according to the rules, commands, facts, and truth which are established by the leader), the latter produces a "super-ego" in the individual (where the "right and wrong" of the 'moment' is influenced by and therefore subject to the "positive-negative feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to "human nature" and the immediate environment or situation—with "positive," i.e. the augmentation of the pleasure of the 'moment' being right and "negative," i.e. the restraint or blocking of the pleasure of the 'moment' being wrong, making "right-wrong," i.e. morals, ethics, and values forever subject to the immediate situation, i.e. forever subject to the 'moment,' i.e. forever subject to 'change.'  Which teaching environment (classroom curriculum) is your child sitting under today?  It directly affects how they will respond to the father's authority when they get home, whether they will honor it or question and/or challenge it.

An overview (the next six paragraphs) on how Marxism is being applied in the classroom, 'changing' how the children feel, think, and act toward parental authority: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  (Benjamin Bloom)

Since the 50's and 60's all "certified" teachers have been trained in how to use (what are called) "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom (now called "Marzano's Taxonomies" or "Webb's Taxonomies"—which is the bases for Common Core).  All schools, including private schools, as well as all Colleges and Universities (both religious and secular) are now being "accredited" based upon their use of "Bloom's/Marzano's/Webb's Taxonomies."  The "Taxonomies" (which are built upon the ideology or world view, or as Bloom called it "Weltanschauung" of the Frankfurt School) read in part: "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [the teachers ability to 'liberate' the student's "feelings" in the classroom in order to help them 'liberate' themselves from parental authority in the home] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues [to dialogue their opinions with one another to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness")—there is no father's authority in the act of dialoguing or in an opinion, i.e. in the child's "thoughts" of the 'moment,' which are influenced by his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. his desire for or "lusting" after the "feeling" of pleasure, including the "feeling" of pleasure which comes from the approval of others, 'justifying' his feelings, thoughts, and actions]."  "The affective domain [the heart of the child, i.e. the carnal nature of the child] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box' [a mythological box which was full of evils, which, once opened, could not be closed—the lid of the box being parental authority, i.e. the father's authority, i.e. Godly restraint]."  "It is in this 'box' [the child's "feelings" of the 'moment'] that the most influential controls are to be found [it is where the child can be most easily seduced, deceived, and manipulated]. The affective domain [the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. his desire for pleasure and the approval of others] contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people."  "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children [that is: when the child comes home from his or her classroom experience (which is based upon the teachers use of "Bloom's Taxonomies") the home environment "explodes," which has been happening since the 60's]."  (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"This is not to suggest that education in an open [in a "Transformational Marxist"] society does not attempt to develop personal and social values. It does indeed. But more than in traditional societies [based upon parental authority] it allows the individual [the child] a greater amount of freedom in which to achieve a Weltanschauung [to achieve a view of the world which is different than (and therefore questioning and challenging of) the parents world view, with the child rejecting the parent's traditional way of thinking and acting]."   Bloom writes in a footnote, that "Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm" (two members of the Frankfurt School) represent his "Weltanschauung."  Without the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' i.e. a psychotherapist and the group experience in the classroom, Bloom admits that the child could not come together with other children and unite as one in 'liberating' themselves from parental authority. "Often this is too challenging a goal for the individual to achieve on his own ['liberating' himself from parental authority], and the net effect is either maladjustment [the student becomes a social misfit, running after the pleasures of the 'moment' without any benefit to society] or the embracing of a philosophy of life developed by others [seeking an authority figure he ends up following after a "Hitler"]."  (ibid.)  Thus the need for a facilitator of 'change,' a psychotherapist in the classroom to "help" the child through his transition from being an individualist, under parental authority to becoming a "socialist," working for "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy," i.e. working to "'liberate' all children from parental authority."  

"Objectives [the 'changing' of how the student feels, thinks, and acts, and related with others, i.e.  from parental authority-Nationalism to socialism-globalism-environmentalism] can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other."  "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed,  many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized [the key to "brainwashing" was to isolate the solders (the students), Warren Bennis called it, in his book The Temporary Society, creating an "experiential chasm," cutting off their contact with any outside source which would support their "old" way of thinking and acting, in the current learning environment, i.e. learning a "new" way of thinking and acting: "Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance."  "The environment undermined the (soldier's/the student's) self-image." "Once this process of self re-evaluation [from "the group's" perspective] began, the (soldier/the student) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others."  (Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, et al, Interpersonal Dynamics:  Essays in Readings on Human Interaction)  Carl Roger's wrote: "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to disintegrate a man's personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another. … brainwashing {where the child's brain is washed of the father's authority}." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard) ]."  (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places."  (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)  Karl Marx said: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred."   Bloom admitted that the "Taxonomy" was a "psychological classification system," i.e. a product of the contemporary psychology being practiced in the 40's and 50's, i.e. that of the Frankfurt School's.  "Members of the taxonomy group spent considerable time in attempting to find a psychological theory which would provide a sound basis for ordering the categories of the taxonomy."  "Only those educational programs which can be specified in terms of intended student behaviors can be classified."  "By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable [augmenting pleasure-attenuating pain] rather than the more customary [doing right and not doing wrong] types of behavior." (ibid.)  In other words, according to Bloom's (i.e. Adorno's) works, all students must be subjected to psychological testing (evaluation), i.e. psychoanalysis in the classroom in order to identify who is willing to work to 'liberate' themselves (and society) from parental authority, i.e. from their Nationalistic (Fascist) tendencies and who is not, and where along the spectrum (continuum) of 'change' they reside at any given 'moment.'

BSTEP (Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program; a review of the final report of US dept. of HEW contract no. OEC-0-9-320424-402 (010), by Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Dec. 31, 1969—where Kurt Lewin was teaching when he died in 1947) is a Federally mandated program (applied in all Federally funded or assisted educational institutions) on how to produce "a new kind of school teacher ... engaged in teaching as clinical practice," where teachers "function as a responsible agent of social change ... promot[e] an understanding of human behavior in humanistic terms" in the classroom.  "The BSTEP information retrieval system will store records on the personal characteristics of all BSTEP students." It will be a "comprehensive program" using "the most modern technology available" in "information storage and retrieval," "tracking" the "behavioral attitudes and achievements" of all teachers and students, "restructur[ing] the total curriculum" through the establishment and utilization of departments such as "ERIC" a "Clearinghouse on Teacher Education."  "System analysis" (Kurt Lewin's force field analysis) is to be used to produce "Systems Thinking" (where everyone evaluates the other person based upon whether they are conservative, i.e. initiating and sustaining parental authority, i.e. 'judging' others based upon their morals and competence or liberal, i.e. negating parental authority and 'judgmentalism,' i.e. negating the "prejudice" which comes from right-wrong thinking) in all participants in the consensus process, i.e. "Rand use[d] the 'Delphi' method in which a wide range of experts have confrontations and arrive finally at a near-consensus."  It was found that "during the period of innovation [during the consensus process of 'change'], an environment is invisible [the control of the facilitator of 'change' over the participants, their 'change' in values and belief, and their 'change' in how policy is to be (is being made) is not apparent to the participants during the consensus process, i.e. they might know something is wrong but they do not know what it is].  The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it [the participants "feeling" of the 'moment,' i.e. their focus upon "solving" the "crisis" of the 'moment,' and their desire for approval from others while doing so have blinded them to what is happening to them and others in the room].  It becomes visible [the 'change' in a persons values and beliefs regarding how policy is to be made, i.e. the replacing of the father's authority and doing right and not wrong  (no compromise) with the facilitator of 'change,' "group approval," and tolerance of deviancy (compromise) becomes apparent] only when is has been superseded by a new environment [only when it is to late to 'change' the outcome, i.e. "the group" has sold its soul to the "new" world order]."  (BSTEP)  "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief in parent, nation, or God] in the face of apparent group unanimity." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group."  (Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  Any Federal funds "granted" to any educational institution mandates that all of its teachers and students must come under the conditions of BSTEP, i.e. must come under psychological evaluation and be tracked for life.  BSTEP made predictions on where (along the pathway of 'change') the world would be by the year 1984, 2000, and 2100.

"A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism [obedience to parents or God] to extreme liberalism ['liberating' children from parental or Godly restraint] and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  "[T]he only authority necessary is the authority to establish certain qualities of interpersonal relationship. . . . in the direction of the 'open society [socialism],'. . ." "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [from one belief to another], though such a process is indeed possible.  But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from status to process [from obedience to the father, i.e. honoring his authority to 'liberating' all the children of the world from his authority]."  "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience [to his carnal nature].  It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity.  His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity [deviancy, unrighteousness, abomination]."  "At one end end of the continuum [the traditional end] the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end [the socialist-humanist-environmentalist end] he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing—he has become an integrated process of changingness." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  "History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower [above-below, the parents ruling over their child, the boss ruling over the worker, the King ruling over the citizen, God ruling over man], but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency [with man becoming, as god, i.e. "righteous" in and of himself, i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with the world around him according to his carnal nature alone]." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)  The use of the "continuum" 'liberates' the child from the father's authority, i.e. from absolutes, i.e. from the sacred, i.e. from a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. 'liberates' him from anything which is established outside of the sensuous (carnal) 'moment.'

While Karl Marx focused upon 'changing' society through the use of outright force and Sigmund Freud focused upon 'changing' the individual through therapy, both based 'reality' upon George Hegel's interpretation of 'reality,' i.e. upon the child's carnal nature (as stated below).  Without the child's use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. his use of "self" 'justification' to 'liberate' his carnal nature—his natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain, i.e. his desire to live in the 'moment'—from the father's authority—having to endure the pain of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment' in order to do the father's will, i.e. to do right and not wrong according to the father's standards—the child (and society) would remain subject to the father's authority, with each individual child remaining subject to the father's authority (which, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' engenders "individualism," under God).  The problem was how to bring the individual (the child) and society (the group) together in the 'moment,' as one, without telling the child and the group how they are to behave—which would sustain the father's authority. "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes."  "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  Instead of producing (in the next generation) a desire for freedom of the father's authority (freedom of private family, private property, private business), freedom of the "conscience," freedom of religion, dialectic 'reasoning' engenders a generation of children (in adult bodies) working to 'create' a "new" world order based upon freedom from the father's authority, freedom from the "guilty conscience," freedom from religion.

Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child being personally held accountable for his actions (before the father) as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions (before God, the Heavenly Father)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [based upon what all children have in common, i.e. their carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. their love of pleasure, i.e., their love of the pleasure of the 'moment' and their hate of pain, i.e. their hate of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment,' a society based upon children "building relationship" upon their "self interest" of the 'moment,' working together as "one," in the 'moment,' to augment pleasure and attenuate pain, not only for themselves, but for all the children of the world as well] is the necessary framework through which freedom [freedom from the father's authority] and individuality [with each child being himself, i.e. of "Nature" only, i.e. carnal, not having a sense of "guilty" for being "normal"] are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)  The Frankfurt School knew that while Marx understood "the problem," i.e. that God's authority over man was the result of society's acceptance of the father's authority over the child, it was the leaders use of outright force as the solution, i.e. making everyone subject to him "or else" (even while promoting Marxism), that re-instilled the father's authority back into society, keeping the father's authority in the mind of the people. "The individual is emancipated [from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. from taking on the image of the father] in the social group."  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

The Frankfurt School's idea was: if the father's authority engenders a "guilty conscience" (the voice of the father in the child) for disobedience, i.e. for being "normal," i.e. for sinning, then instead of just killing the father's authority (religion) in society, leaving the "guilty conscience" (the father's authority, i.e. sin) still in place in the child (Marx) or removing the "guilty conscience" (the father's authority, i.e. sin) in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the individual child, leaving the father's authority (religion) still in place in society (Freud), i.e. by merging Marx and Freud, i.e. by not only removing the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") in the child's relationship with himself, but also by removing the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") in all the children that the child is relating with in the 'moment,' i.e. in "the group" (through the use the group experience, i.e. group psychotherapy) then all the children (by 'justifying' themselves, i.e. by 'justifying' their love of pleasure and resentment towards restraint, i.e. by 'justifying' their love of the world and hate of the father's authority) can 'create' a "new" world order where all children can become "normal" again, i.e. can do unconscionable (abominable) things without having a "guilty conscience," i.e. can sin with impunity.   As Herbart Marcuse (a member of the Frankfurt School) wrote: "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man [engendered by the father's authority over the child] can ever be redeemed by freedom [the child's "right" to be of his nature only], then the 'original sin' [questioning and disregarding the father's authority] must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge ['justify' "human nature" over and against the father's authority] in order to fall back into the state of innocence [so that the child (living according to his own nature) can become "normal" again].'" (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  The Word of God (explaining why we have become the nation we are today) says: "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

George Hegel wrote: "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, through the use of psychotherapy, the child is 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. 'liberated' to be himself again, i.e. carnal, i.e. only of "human nature" again, as he was before the father began 1) preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), 3) chastening the child for disobedience, i.e. for doing wrong, i.e. for choosing the pleasure of the 'moment' over (and therefore against) doing right, i.e. doing the father's will, and 4) casting the child out (cutting him out of the will) for disrespecting, i.e. questioning or challenging his authority—with 2) being the father blessing (rewarding) the child for obedience, i.e. for doing the 'job' right according to the father's directions, i.e. according to the father's will]."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)  Even if the father is benevolent, i.e., he blesses his children, i.e. he cloths, feeds, protects, and loves them, his authority structure itself is the issue.  It is what has to be negated.

According to Hegel (and, as you well see, according to Marx and Freud as well) the "health' of a society is based upon the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others in the 'moment,' i.e. how much he is 'liberated' from (and resistant toward) the father's authority, as well how much he is approving of and living in his own (and others) carnal nature (impulses and urges) of the 'moment.'  In other words, the more the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others is approving and supportive of the father's authority, i.e. the more he is in denial of and resistant toward his own (and others) nature, the less "healthy," i.e. the less "natural" he (and society) is.  Therefore the "health" of the person, the "group," the "community," the state, the nation, and the world is based upon to how far along (down) the spectrum or continuum of 'change' (of how much resistance against "human nature," i.e. support of the father's authority vs. how much resistance against the father's authority, i.e. support of "human nature"—resistance against 'change' vs. participation in 'change') the person, the "group," the "community," the state, the nation, and the world is at any given 'moment.'  According to Hegel, the closer the child and society are to one another, i.e. the child seeking after the pleasures of the 'moment,' which includes the approval of others, and society approving the child as he is, i.e. carnal, i.e. deviant, the "healthier," i.e. the more "pure," "perfect," or "right" (physically, mentally, and socially) the relationship between child (the Particular) and society (the Universal) become. Conversely, the closer the child and the father are to one another, i.e. the child seeking the approval of the father, doing the father's will as he commands, honoring, supporting, and propagating the father's authority ("repressing" his own nature, "alienating" himself from those who are not in agreement with his father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which he has now made his position), the less "healthy" the child (and society) is.  Hegel explained it this way: "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)  Thus, according to Hegel, when the father quits telling his children what is wrong behavior (what is evil), when he no longer "prejudices" his children with his standards, when he no longer trains them up to live according to his right-wrong way of thinking and acting, when he (abdicating his authority) allows them to live according to their own "human nature" instead, only then can the child and society become "healthy" again.

It is therefore imperative, for 'change' to become a 'reality,' that those in control of society use "social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child" (since the parent's would not do it on their own) in order to 'create' not only "healthy" children but a "healthy" society as well, i.e. engendering a new world order 'created' out of the child's nature, i.e. 'creating' children void of parental restraint, i.e. 'creating' a society void of Godly restraint.  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  "Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)   "For to accept that solution [basing 'reality' upon the child's nature], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the child's perspective] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parent's authority].  And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely."  "... as soon as the bourgeoisie [the father's authority] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [upon the child's nature], it is lost."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

In agreement with Hegel (concerning the father's authority), Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [with its honoring of the father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with its obedience to the Heavenly Father's authority], the former [the earthly family with its honoring of the father's authority] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [that is, the father's authority must be negated in "theory and practice," i.e. negated in the child's, the wife's, the husband's (the individual's) feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their (social) relationship with one another and the "community"]."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)    As Karl Marx (socialists) put dialectic 'reasoning' into social action, i.e. into praxis 'liberating' the people, i.e. 'liberating' the proletariat from the King's authority—removing the King, along with the bourgeoisie's (the middle-class) who honor, support, and propagate his authority, from society, Sigmund Freud (psychologists) put it into individual action, 'liberating' "the child within," i.e. 'liberating' the individual from the father's authority.  "The basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to dialectics." "His finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'"  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)   The key to dialectic 'reasoning' is the use of dialogue to come to know the truth, i.e. to 'discover' the 'truth,' i.e. to know what is 'real' and what is not (experientially).  There is no father's authority in dialogue.

In agreement with Marx (concerning the father's authority, i.e. concerning the negation or "annihilation" of it), Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the "father' can stick around as long as he no longer produces "neurosis" in the child (where the child has to do the father's will over and against his own will, "repressing" his carnal nature, "alienating" himself from the world)]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)   "Freud speaks of religion [honoring the father's/Father's authority over (and therefore against) the nature of the child/man] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'"  "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion.... Psychoanalysis must treat religion [the father's/Father's authority] as a neurosis."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  The common thread between Hegel, Marx, and Freud is that antithesis is created by the conflict and tension between the child's nature and the father's authority, with the child's nature, not the father' authority, being the "ground" from which synthesis (Universality, i.e. world unity) is to be achieved.

Dialectic 'reasoning' must begin with (and end with) the child's nature (in all of us, i.e. our ability to 'justify' our natural attraction to the pleasures of the world) or it will fall "victim" to the father's authority (correlated to making man subject to God's authority, i.e. to the Heavenly Father's authority).   Marx understood that the father's authority was "an alien and hostile force" to the nature of the child.  He wrote: "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3, pp. 83-84)   According to Marx, when the child honors the father's authority he 'creates' the father's authority, i.e. he creates an "alien" body which is "hostile" to his nature and the world.  Instead of the child submitting to the father's authority according to Paul Tillich it would be better for the child to challenge it and die in the process: "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will."  (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)   Therefore, the solution lies within the child.  If the child 'creates' the father's authority he can "uncreate," i.e. negate it as well, providing he is given the right education in how to do it as well as the right conditions, i.e. support in which to do it with.  Theodor Adorno (a member of the Frankfurt School) explained the situation and the solution this way. "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them."  "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting himself to the 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 [removing "right-wrong" thinking, correlated to prejudice, correlated to Nationalism, correlated to Fascism from society]."  "Techniques for overcoming resistance [overcoming those who remain 'loyal' to the 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)

The issue for Hegel, Marx, and Freud was how to 'liberate' the child's nature, i.e. society (a society of "impulses and urges" which are common to all children, making all children "equal" in personal thought and in social action, i.e. in "theory and practice") from the authority of the father, i.e. from the authority of the King, i.e. from the authority of God the Father (all three being the same in structure: "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong").  Yet all three (Hegel, Marx, and Freud) had a different way in approaching it. i.e. Hegel through 'reasoning,'  Marx through social 'change,' Freud through individual 'change.'  What the Frankfurt School saw was that Hegel's Universal (the healthy society) could only be 'created' from the Particulars (from the individual children) coming together in group settings, freely (without fear of reprisal) dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, initiating and sustaining "common ground" upon their love for pleasure and hate of restraint, putting their "common-ism" into social action (into praxis), negating the father's influence not only in themselves but in society as well, in the process.  By focusing upon the child's "felt needs" over and against the father's authority, society could be turned against the father's authority, perceiving it as being a barrier to innovation, creativity, and imagination, i.e. standing in the way of the child's future, i.e. preventing 'change' and progress.

Only by gaining access to the child's internal dialogue with his "self," i.e. his talking to his "self" about his desires of the 'moment' and his resentment towards the father's authority which restrains it, can the child within, i.e. man's affection for pleasure and hatred toward restraint be shared with others, i.e. can man become united as one (through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus), united not only in 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority but 'liberating' the whole world from the father's authority as well.  Adorno added: "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations."  (ibid.)  Only by the facilitator of 'change' gaining access to the individual's desires of the 'moment' (his "feelings" and "thoughts," which are subject to his "feelings," i.e. his "self-interests," i.e. his "lust" for pleasure and his desire for approval from others—who affirm his desires) as well as his resentment toward authority which blocks him or restrains him from attaining it, 'discovering' the common desire of the 'moment' and resentment toward authority within "the group," uniting "the individuals" in "the group" upon their common desires ("self-interests") of the 'moment' and resentment toward authority, and remain within "the group's" common desires of the 'moment' (which are ever changing according to changing situations and constellation of the individuals within "the group"—thus the need for incessant consensus meetings, assessment tests, polls, surveys, feedback loops, etc.) and resentment toward authority can "the individual," "the group," and eventually "the community," "the nation," and "the world" be 'willingly' moved (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) down the pathway of 'change,' i.e. moved toward globalism without resistance, negating the father's/Father's authority along the way.  Only by "helping" the child recognize and then 'liberate' his "self-interest," i.e. 'liberate' his "feelings" of the 'moment' from his "private convictions," i.e. from his parent's standards (which he entered the room with) can he be perceived by "the group" as being at-one-with them, i.e. can he, through learning to compromise, become at-one-with "the group" and "the group" become at-one-with him, promoting the process of 'change.'  "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change—which is based upon the works of  J. L. Moreno, a "Marxists" who came to America from Austria in the late 20's, who advised Freud that therapy needed to be done in a group—that people live in groups, not in isolation—introduced Role Playing and sociograms into education, the workplace, and government, and Kurt Lewin, known for his work in forced field analysis, group dynamics, and unfreezing, moving, and refreezing or changing, who helped set up the first National Training Laboratory in Bethel Maine just before he died in 1947)

Education, government, the workplace, and even the "church" is now using psychoanalysis (group therapy, i.e. the merging of Marx and Freud) to 'liberate' children from the father's authority in an effort to 'create' a "new" world order, i.e. an order of the world which is void of the Heavenly Father's authority, i.e. void of Godly restraint (fulfilling the scriptures above).  If, through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, the father, mother, and children are made as "equals" (according to their carnal nature), then, according to Hegel (sounding more like Karl Marx than Marx himself), the idea of sovereignty (the "old paths"), i.e. "Mine not yours," i.e. "My children, Not yours," "My wife, Not yours," "My property, Not yours," "My business, Not yours," "My nation, Not yours" etc., i.e. private passes away (is subjugated to public).  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 the end, according to Hegel, Marx, and Freud (through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the 'justification' of the child's nature over and against the father's/Father's authority) facilitators of 'change' (psychoanalyst's) can live off of the children's inheritance as they "help" the children 'liberate' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. turning them against their parents authority, negating the father and his authority without having a "guilty conscience" while doing so—since they are doing what comes naturally.  If you love all that is of the world, i.e. if you love "human nature" and its "lust" for pleasure, you, by nature, have to hate the father's/Father's authority (which restrains you, i.e. inhibits or blocks you from having access to all of its pleasures in the 'moment'). "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."  1 John 2:17 "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."  Luke 16:13  "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."  1 John 2:15

If you like the way the world is going this website may not be for you—it will only help you better understand how policy is being made today, in education, in the government, in the workplace, and even in the "church," i.e. showing you how facilitators of 'change' are able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate you into initiating and sustaining the process of 'change.'   If you have not repented of your sins (before the Lord),  if you have not invited Him into your heart, if you are not into the Word of God (reading it daily, applying it to your heart, i.e. evaluating your "self" and the world around you from it, as Adam and Eve were supposed to do, in their case having only one "negative" command, i.e. restraining the flesh, to obey), walking in the Spirit, letting Him, in agreement with the Word, direct your paths, i.e. if you are not denying yourself (daily dying to your "self," i.e. first thing in the morning giving up, i.e. confessing to the Lord that you can not do His will in and of your "self," humbling your "self," letting Him direct your steps ["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], i.e. letting Him, by His Holy Spirit, do His will through you instead), picking up your cross (enduring the rejection of men, even rejection from your "friends" for preaching and teaching the Word of God, i.e. for bringing them under conviction, i.e. for making them "feel guilty" before God for their sins, desiring that they come to know and serve Him, with them, choosing to love the world, turning on you instead), and following the Lord (as His brother, sister, or mother, i.e. doing His Heavenly Father's will)—if you do not know the Lord, i.e. if the Lord does not know you—it will only be an intellectual exercise in futility—all it will do is make you "smarter," i.e. more "intelligent"—many of the books I have read (and quote in this website) are required reading for a PhD in education and management today—regarding how the so called "new" world order is 'liberating' you and those around you from the Word of God, i.e. 'liberating' your "self" and the world from Godly restraint (by 'liberating' children from parental authority), leaving you as you are, in your sins, i.e. as a "child of disobedience" walking down the broad pathway of pleasure and "group approval," i.e. seeking after "the approval of men," esteeming your "self" as God, i.e. 'righteous' "in and for your 'self,'" (your effort to 'rid' your "self" of unrighteousness, i.e. of the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. of the guilt of sin by 'justifying' your "self," i.e. 'justifying' sin, i.e. 'justifying' "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' your "lusts" of the 'moment,' i.e. 'justifying' your natural love of the world, establishing it, i.e. your "self" and the world, over and against the Father's authority) which leads to eternal death. "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:15-18  "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."  I Corinthians 8:6  "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1

There were those who ridiculed Jesus on the Cross.  Refusing to walk by faith, they, walking by sight, justified themselves instead.  "He saved others; himself he cannot save.  If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.  He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God."  Matthew 27:42, 43  Jesus did not come to "save himself," (he did not need salvation as he did not sin), he came, as an obedient Son to His Heavenly Father (obeying His Heavenly Father in all things commanded of Him), to 'redeem' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our sins, to 'reconcile' us, in His resurrection, to His Heavenly Father instead.  Justifying themselves, in dialectic fashion, there are those who would seek to negate the Heavenly Father Himself, i.e. those of the spirit of the Antichrist, i.e. following after the Fatherless "Christ," i.e. the "Christ" of "socialist harmony and worldly peace," i.e. the "Christ" of the flesh and the world only.  Rejecting the Law of God they refuse to recognize that Jesus came to fulfill it, not negate it.  While the law itself can not, in itself, save anyone, it is still in place, bringing man under judgment and conviction for his sins, with faith in Christ Jesus being the only way to fulfill it, with His righteousness being imputed to those of faith in Him alone.  While you can try to obey to "prove" your faith (living in vanity), true obedience is engendered by (is the result of) faith.  It is the work of the Holy Spirit, who is in agreement with the Father and the Son (who will not break the Law of God), that empowers us to do the Father's will.

If there was any uniqueness to America it was that our framing father's limited the power of government so that the parent's (with the father being the head of the home) could train up their children under their (his) authority, with each soul (husband, wife, and children) being personally accountable to God, i.e. subject to His authority (based upon the Protestant principle of "the priesthood of all believes," with every soul "doing their best as unto the Lord"—every child (individual) who is subject to the father's/Father's authority, which engenders a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, results in a nation of men (individuals) sustaining the father's/Father's authority, having a "guilty conscience" for disobedience. "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung)  While God, the Heavenly Father offers grace to the repentant of heart before Him (maintaining the individuality of the soul), Hegel's ideology can not, only being able to offer the annihilation (negation) of the individual who resists and fights against his universality with carnal man.  Instead of offering freedom of the conscience (recognition of the individuality of the soul before God), Hegel offers freedom from the conscience (where the individual can only find his identity within a society which 'justifies' the child's carnal nature) instead.

The Lord God is not interested in "saving" America (per se).  As Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36   If His kingdom was of this world He would have to rule over it according to the carnal nature of the child, i.e. according to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e. according to that which is common to all men, instead of according to His Father's (and His) will and nature, i.e. righteous, holy, and pure.  He is interested in you.  He is looking at you (whether you are following after Him, doing His Father's will, inheriting eternal life, or "lusting" after the things of the world, doing your will, i.e. following after the carnal nature of the child, dying in your sins) to determine what to do with America.  Is it worth "saving?"  "For God [the Father] sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world [for it was condemned already]; but that the world through him might be saved [through Him be 'redeemed' and  'reconciled' to the Father]."  "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness [themselves and the world] rather than light [the Father and His Son Jesus Christ], because their deeds were evil [of, by, and for themselves]."  John 3:17, 19  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."  Ephesians 2:8, 9

Part II

Back in 1996 I was invited to speak everywhere, explaining the dialectic process (the child/man 'justifying' his "self" before other children/men, i.e. 'justifying' his carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' and his relationship with that which is of and those who are of the world only, i.e. that which "only proceeds from Nature"—Karl Marx, 'justifying' his natural desire for, i.e. love of pleasure, including the pleasure or "feeling" of being "loved," which comes from the approval of other children/men—where individuality and "community" find common identity, i.e. "common-ism," and his natural dissatisfaction with, i.e. hatred toward the fathers/Father's authority when it restrains him, i.e. when it prevents him from satisfying the pleasure of the 'moment, i.e. ' fulfilling' his "self interest" and "building relationship" with those of like "self-interest"—if you loved the one who uninhibitedly grants you pleasure, you knowingly or unknowingly resent or hate the one who restrains, i.e. blocks or inhibits you from attaining it)—explaining my teacher training (which was based upon 'liberating' the students from parental authority instead of reinforcing their honoring of it, which I had to repent of)—revealing why and how teachers are being trained in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'liberating' children from parental authority in their thoughts and actions, through their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," now "Marzano's, Webb's Taxonomies" {"What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating the child's "feelings," i.e. the child from the restraints of parental authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues [discussing issues with others who are questioning and challenging their parent's "fixed beliefs" and standards, with their children "building relationship" with those who the parent's would not approve of]."  "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)}, indoctrinating their students in the ideology of Hegel, Marx, Freud, Lukács, Gramsci, Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse, Brown, Habermas, Lewin, Moreno, Bennis, Rogers, Maslow, Yalom, etc.  The dialectic process is the praxis of negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority) and Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience") through the use of Genesis 3:1-6—'justifying' the children's/man's nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. "feelings," i.e. approaching-augmenting pleasure and avoiding-attenuating pain over and against the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the Word of God, i.e. righteousness, i.e. doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will—"bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"  (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Whether secular ("the earthly family") or sacred ("the Heavenly Family") the pattern, i.e. the paradigm is the same for the earthly father and the Heavenly Father (called a Patriarchal Paradigm).  While the earthly father is not perfect (he might be or may have been a down right tyrant—using the office he serves/served in for his own pleasure), the office itself is perfect—given to him by God, who is perfect.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' when you succeed in negating the earthly father's authority in the child's (in the individual's) feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others you have succeeded in negating the Heavenly Father's authority in man (in society), or conversely, by negating the earthly pattern (in society) the Heavenly pattern is negated (in the individual).  The pattern (or paradigm) of "the earthly family," i.e. the earthly father and "the Heavenly Family," i.e. the Heavenly Father (being the same) is the father 1) giving (preaching and teaching) commands and rules to his children to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as given (by faith), 2) blessing the children when they obey (or do things right), in order to encourage them to continue doing things right, 3) chastening the children when they disobey (or do things wrong), in order to encourage them to do things right ("engendering a peaceful fruit of righteousness"), and 4) casting out the children who disrespect, i.e. question and challenge his authority, in order to maintain order (his authority) in the home.

We are made in the image of God.  Being made by God a "living soul" (Genesis 2:7-10) we are able to evaluate, i.e. to know right from wrong, good from evil.  We either evaluate according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (by faith, reasoning deductively, i.e. from an established truth, i.e. according to an a priori) or we evaluate from our "self" (by sight, reasoning inductively, i.e. according to the situation, i.e. according to our "sense experiences").  In the garden in Eden, the latter became the way of life (leading to death), with Adam and the woman (and eventually their children, i.e. all of us) determining right from wrong, good from evil according to the sensations (pleasures or pains) of the 'moment,' with pleasure being "good" and pain being "bad," including the "pain" of missing out on pleasure.  Instead of repenting of his sins before God, as a child repents before his father, man has used his ability to evaluate to 'justify' his "self," making his "self " god," i.e. becoming righteous "in and for himself" in his own eyes, i.e. 'reasoning' dialectically, i.e. establishing his "self" over and against the the Father's authority.  Only Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God has overcome "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," doing His Heavenly Father's will in all things (giving us the right responses to the temptations in the wilderness; Matthew 4:1-11), doing what all of mankind can not do, i.e. not yield to sin, i.e. not yield to the temptations of the world.  "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15  While those who 'reason' dialectically say 'truth' can only be known in the child's nature (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain), the truth is it can only be known in Christ Jesus, the obedient son of God, doing the Father's will in all things commanded. "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  "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Then I was invited to speak less often when I began exposing its language, i.e. making the dialectic process personal to my audience by explaining the "Not," "Why?" "Is," "Ought," "Thought" sequence of "self" 'justification'—which begins with the child's desire to approach or apprehend something of pleasure in the environment, being then restrained by the parent's preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truths to be accepted as is, by faith, i.e. "You can not _(fill in the blank)_," with the child's responding with "Why?" to get the parent into dialogue (there is no parental authority in dialogue, only "equality"), then the parent's "Because I said so," the parent's command, rule, fact, or truth being reinforced with the threat of chastening for disobedience, cutting off dialogue, then the child dialoguing with his "self" regarding his desire, his "ought," i.e. his opinion of the 'moment' revealing his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, then, if provided the opportunity in the classroom, his dialoguing with other children of like desires and dissatisfactions, 'justifying' his "self" in a room full of "self's," i.e. 'liberating' his-their "self" from parental authority, putting their "self" actualization into social action, i.e. praxis, negating the father's/Father's authority in society.

It appears that even "Christian conservatives," in their effort to "save" America, don't want their 'justification' for 'compromise' (becoming like 'liberals') being exposed, i.e. their setting aside the gospel, i.e. not bringing up God's judgment upon sin and salvation through Christ Jesus, i.e. not bringing up man's need to repent, i.e. his need to change his way of thinking from 'justifying' his "self" to now putting on the mind of Christ (doing His Heavenly Father's will in all things commanded), in order to not "offend" others (bring them under conviction) and "chase" them away.  Thinking like 'liberals,' i.e. with money for (and participation in) the "cause" being the issue of the day, "conservatives" no longer see the issue of the day as being the soul of man—where he will spend eternity and with whom he will spend it (in Heaven with the Lord or in Hell with Satan).  "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 

I have come to realize that most people (including my own children and grandchildren) do not want to hear what I have to say because it would interfere with their plans for the day, i.e. "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment.'  Thus the statement "Only a dead father is a good father" (because when he is around he is to much of a father, i.e. preaching, teaching, and disciplining or not enough of a father, i.e. not loving, feeding, clothing, protecting, supporting enough) has been transcended (in praxis) by Irvin Yalom's statement: "The current generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to learn from grandparents;" (Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) since, in the dialectic twist of things, there is no "good father" or "grandparent" "to learn from," i.e. the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others and the world around him having usurped their relevance (other than the parent's giving birth to him and they, along with his grandparents supporting him in his worldly pleasures, i.e. feeding, clothing, protecting, and loving him, i.e. loving him being equated to letting him be permissive, i.e. become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment' without contaminating him with their commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. that which is of the "past" which creates "neurosis," i.e. "repression" and "alienation").  The same is true of contemporary man (and the "contemporary church").  With the Heavenly Father and His authority (casting man into Hell for being "a child of disobedience," i.e. for being "normal") no longer considered as being rational (and therefore relevant) in man's feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world around him, the true gospel message (the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father's authority) is negated in his feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world around him.  Hegel's "equality" of the family, i.e. turning the mother and the children over to their natural impulses and urges (inclination) to become at-one-with one another in the 'moment,' i.e. over to nature, i.e. to being "normal," negates the father's authority, i.e. negates capitulation ('liberates' the wife from the husband's authority and the children from parental restraint), engendering "common-ism," i.e. "common-unity," negating private property and business in the process.  Without the father's authority, the children, the mother, and the "humanized" (neutered) husband/father rule as "equals," 'creating' a "new" world order without any semblance of Godly restraint, i.e. a "new" world order where men, women, and children base right and wrong upon the positive or negative "feelings" they are getting from one another in the 'moment,' "right" being positive, i.e. permissive, "wrong" being negative, i.e. authoritative.

While sin (disobedience, i.e. love of the world, i.e. love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e. hate of anything or anyone who inhibits or blocks the pleasure of the 'moment,' and "self" 'justification') comes naturally to the child/man, righteousness (obedience, i.e. doing the Father's will) does not.  We talk to our "self" regarding two things, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, i.e. what we want or desire in the 'moment,' i.e. pleasure,  and what we do not want in the 'moment,' i.e. anything or anyone who inhibits it or blocks it.   "Self" loves the pleasures of the 'moment.'  It placing hope in initiating ('creating') and sustaining the environment (the world) which stimulates it, not only throughout the day but throughout the rest of life.  It is here, in "self's" love of pleasure and hate of restraint that "human nature" and the Father's authority (doing right and not wrong, according to His commands, rules, facts, and truth) collide, with the child having to decide which world order he will embrace as reality, i.e. the world of the child, i.e. sensuousness (living by sight, i.e. disobeying the father, i.e. esteeming/actualizing his "self") or the world of the Father, i.e. righteousness (living by faith, i.e. obeying the father, i.e. humbling and denying, controlling and disciplining his "self").

Since, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child's world is sensuous, i.e. since his nature (what is is talking to his "self" about—since "self" ties us to the surrounding environment of the 'moment') is influenced (stimulated) by sight (by all that is of the world, i.e. stimulating the child's "feelings" of the 'moment') it is imperative that the Father's authority be negated (be removed from the world, i.e. be removed from sight, i.e. be removed from influencing the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others, removing who he is talking to his "self" about or who's commands, rules, facts, and truth he is preaching to and teaching his "self" about, i.e. reproving, correcting, rebuking his "self," humbling or denying his "self" to obey) if the child is to become "normal" again, i.e. if he is to be uniting with all the children of the world in the praxis (social action) of initiating and sustaining "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. uniting with all the children of the world in "actualizing" their "self" (self-actualization, conscietization, democratization, etc.), basing 'reality' upon "human nature," with his unrighteous feelings, thought and actions (his 'relationship' with his "self") and his relationship with others and the world, 'justifying' abomination, i.e. "tolerating deviancy," i.e. what he is doing "in his self" already (in defiance to the father's/Father's authority).  "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: .... There is no fear of God before their eyes." "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"  Romans 3:10-18 (excerpts), 3:23  The child/man is no longer concerned with where he will spend eternity because he is infatuated with filling the next 'moment' with pleasure.

We are not righteous in and of our "self," righteousness has to be imputed to us by faith in the Father and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, i.e. the obedient Son, whose obedience to His Heavenly Father, i.e. dying on the cross, i.e. shedding His blood to cover our sins, 'redeems' us from the Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience, with His resurrection 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father.  The gospel message (why Jesus came, i.e. why He was sent by His Heavenly Father) is clearly stated in scripture and it has to do with the Father's authority and His Sons obedience to it.  It is in essence the Son saying: I want you to know my Father.  I want you to know His love for you—His wanting you to spend eternity with Him in His glory and holiness.  "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."  "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."  Matthew 7:21, 12:50, 23:9

Now, not even "the church" (its leadership) will let me speak within its walls since I began exposing the dialectic process for what it is, i.e. the praxis of unrighteousness, i.e. of man 'justifying' himself before men, i.e. making himself as god, i.e. 'righteous' in his own eyes, as a child 'justifying' his desires makes himself "equal" with (and therefore greater than) the father's authority, i.e. establishing his "feelings," i.e. his opinion (aufheben) of the 'moment' over and against the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, negating the father's authority, i.e. negating (setting aside or disregarding as irrational and therefore irrelevant) any command, rule, fact, or truth which inhibits his feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' (thereby overcoming "repression") and which interfere with his relationship with others (thereby overcoming "alienation").  The "churches" "drive" and "purpose" is now based upon dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. upon man's opinion, i.e. upon his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' interpreting (cutting, rearranging, and pasting) God's Word in the 'light' of men's opinion, i.e. in the 'light' of his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. exonerating "sensuousness" ("sense experience"), i.e. augmenting pleasure, i.e. promoting "human relationship" and "human 'reasoning,'" i.e. basing 'righteousness' upon man's approval of man, i.e. upon consensus.

Thus, God is no longer God because He says "I Am that I Am" (righteous in and of His self) but because the "church" says He "is" (made in his, i.e. in man's image, i.e. concerned about pleasing his "self," pleasing man, i.e. participating in man's social agenda of augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain), i.e. subject to 'change,' i.e. subject to man's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to his opinion of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to "I think, therefore I am [god]," or rather "I can talk to my 'self,' therefore I am [god—since no one on the face of the earth, (only God) can hear what I and my "self" are talking to one another about in the 'moment']," or in context to "the group," "We can dialogue with one another, therefore we are [god—since sharing with one another what we are talking to our "self" about in the 'moment' makes "the group experience," i.e. the sensation of "oneness" (the consensus 'moment,' i.e. the sacrificing of "self" to the group, i.e. the worshiping of "self" as a thing "in and for itself") god]."   The "contemporary," i.e. the dialectic "church" is growing itself through its use of polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and feedback loops, i.e. basing "truth" upon "group approval," i.e. upon what man has in common ("self's" love of pleasure and hate of restraint AKA common-ism) instead of upon faith (with us evaluating, i.e. reproving, correcting, and rebuking our "self," i.e. our feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. our desires of the 'moment,' and the world around us according to the Lord's commands, rules, facts, and truth, with His righteousness being imputed to us by faith, i.e. according to His work alone, 'redeeming' us, by His blood, from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our sins, 'reconciling' us, by His resurrection, to His Heavenly Father instead, with us weighing our "self," others, the world, and His Word with His Word, with His Holy Spirit confirming it, directing our steps, i.e. directing us to warn others of the wrath to come, to repent of their sins, to turn from their ungodly and unrighteous ways, and, following after the Lord, inherit eternal life instead).  "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."  Romans 5:9  "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."  John 3:36  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"  Romans 1:18

Likewise, after years of speaking on radio programs across the nation (at both conservative and liberal stations), I have not been invited to speak on any radio shows since I spoke on the father's/Father's authority and righteousness some two years ago.  Speaking on righteousness (the father's/Father's authority) in a dialectic world (where man 'justifies' himself before men, seeking man's approval, i.e. where the child's "feelings" are 'justified' over and against the father's authority) is like speaking into an empty barrel, not even hearing your own voice come back.  The hatred toward righteousness these days is palpable, i.e. manifested in laws created by men in order to 'justify' abomination, i.e. to "esteem" "self" over and against God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. negating the authority of His Word in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of men, i.e. 'liberating' "self" from Godly restraint. 

It is impossible to please God without faith.  It is impossible to keep your faith (to be justified in Christ, i.e. to be approved of the Father based upon your faith in His Son, with you repenting of your disobedience, i.e. of your sins, with the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things, i.e. His righteousness being imputed to you by faith, i.e. finding joy and peace in His Word, by His Spirit) and 'reason' dialectically (to 'justify' yourself, i.e. to be approved of men, based upon approaching-augmenting pleasure and avoiding-attenuating pain, i.e. establishing pleasure and enjoyment as the "drive" and "purpose" of life).  Despite your best effort to serve the Lord (dying to yourself daily, individually before God) and serve man at the same time ('justifying' your "self" through the approval of men), trusting in the Lord (being justified by faith in the Lord, i.e. basing truth upon His Word—confirmed by the Holy Spirit, i.e. having the Father's approval) and leaning to your own understanding (being 'justified' by sight, i.e. basing 'truth' upon "sense experience," i.e. finding consensus with self, others, and the world, according to nature—conforming yourself to the world, with the approval of men) are anathema to one another.  Dialectic 'reasoning' can only 'justify' "self," i.e. the carnal 'moment,' negating the soul, i.e. eternity in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of men.  The word of God, when shared as your opinion becomes just some more noise (another opinion) in a noisy room (in a room full of opinions).  Not until you silence (humble and deny) your "self" and share the word of God as is (preaching it as is, not dialoguing it as an opinion), can those in the room hear it for what it is, i.e. the truth, more than likely turning on you for preaching to them.  The "brilliance" of dialectic 'reasoning' (if you want to call it that) is that it does not reject the Word of God itself outright (although it does), it rejects the means by which it is to be received, i.e. having to believe it as is when hearing it preached.  "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  Romans 10:17   "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness .... it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (excerpts of 1 Corinthians 1:18-29)   "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  Romans 12:2

It is impossible to "serve God and mammon," i.e. to be subject to the father's/Father's authority and the child's nature at the same time.  If we start with the father's/Father's right and wrong, then we have to make our "self's" natural "lust" of pleasure, i.e. natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain subject to the father's/Father's authority.  Since his/His right and wrong are unadaptable to 'change,' i.e. unadaptable to our "feelings" of the 'moment,' "self's" love of pleasure and hate of pain is negated as the foundation from which to determine right and wrong from.  But if we start with pleasure, i.e. with our "self's" natural inclination to love pleasure and hate of pain, we have to make right and wrong subject to our desires, i.e. making right and wrong adaptable to 'change,' i.e. subject to our "felt needs" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to the given situation), negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. his/His right and wrong in the process.  In dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. in the sense of invincibility, i.e. in the pride of life which, comes with "self-social-worldly" 'justification' (consensus), you can not see your lose of eternal life, i.e. your inheritance (in Christ Jesus, i.e. in His obedience to His Heavenly Father) because you (as a "child of disobedience") are getting what you want in the 'moment' (at least in your imagination), i.e. the pleasures of this life, including and especially the approval of men (that which makes you "complete" in this world only).   "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God [the one above, i.e. the truth established forever] and mammon [the many below, i.e. your "feelings" which are forever 'changing,' i.e. subject to the environment around you]."  Matthew 6:24  Why would a "minister" turn to the methods of the world (dialectic 'reasoning') to promote (market) the gospel?  Because he is still in love with the things of the world, i.e. serving "mammon." 

Dialectic 'reasoning' deceives us into believing that we can have it both ways, i.e. serve God (refusing to compromise His Word, doing right and not wrong according to His Word, despite the given situation, i.e. reproving, correcting, or rebuking unrighteousness in our "self" and in others despite the rejection, i.e. despite the persecution which comes from them, i.e. humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining our "self" in order to be approved of God, i.e. being "ridged," "negative," "unadaptable to 'change'" when it comes to the Word of God) and serve man (willing to compromise to be approved of men, i.e. doing "right" and not "wrong" according to the given situation, i.e. being silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e. not reproving, correcting, or rebuking unrighteousness in our "self" and in others, i.e. esteeming our "self" and their "self" in order to be approved of them, being "flexible," "positive," "adaptable to 'change'" when it comes to the flesh and the world), only leaving us with "mammon" ("human nature" and "human 'reasoning,'" i.e. self 'justification,' i.e. "self-actualization," i.e. aufheben, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') in the end.  It is not just the loving of "mammon" that is the problem it is the hating of God (and those who believe in Him) that ensues (if you love "mammon," i.e. your "self" and the world, you have to hate God, i.e. the Father's authority), with those of dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' in their minds the negation (killing) of those of faith in the Lord (at least turning their heads the other way as others do it), in the name of 'creating' "worldly peace and socialist harmony."   "Making the world safe for democracy" (safe for the tyranny of the masses, safe for the flesh) would not be such an issue in this life (being just some rhetoric) if it was not for the violence and bloodshed that ensues, i.e. the lack of tolerance that it engenders, i.e. that it 'justifies' in the name of 'change.'  

Behind love is hate.  If you love God you hate sin.  If the child loves the Father he hates his sinful nature to disobey.  If you love sin, i.e. your "self" and the world, you hate God.  If the child loves his sinful nature he hates the Father's authority.  In the former God has taken care of sin by faith in Him, i.e. in Him and in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  In the latter (making the world "safe for democracy," i.e. safe for sin, i.e. safe for the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain as being the only foundation from which to determine right from wrong from, i.e. thinking and acting according to the given 'moment') you have to kill those who love God (who preach and teach right from wrong according to God's Word), or at least let others do it for you as you turn your head the other way as though nothing has happened, doing so without having a "guilty conscience," since that comes from love of the father's/Father's authority, which you have negated in your feelings, thoughts, and actions and in your relationship with others (seeking the approval of men over and against the Lord God, i.e. rejecting, persecuting, and negating those who believe in God, i.e. who deny their "self," pick up their cross, i.e. willingly face the rejection of men, even their own "friends," and follow the Lord, in obedience to His, now, in faith in Christ, their Heavenly Father).  For example: Roe vs. Wade was based upon the Supreme court's 'shift' from right-wrong (Christianity, i.e. accountability to God, the eternal consequence of one's thoughts and actions) to pleasure-pain (Stoicism, accountability to man, the sensuous 'moment' of pleasure) as being the foundation from which thought and action (theory and practice) is to be based.

When you negate (set aside or no longer recognize, i.e. perceive as being "irrational" and therefore treat as "irrelevant") the father's/Father's authority, i.e. no longer do right and not wrong according to his/His standards, which engenders a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. where the soul (righteousness/doing right and not wrong and eternity/inheritance) is the concern of life, replacing his/His authority with facilitators of 'change' "helping" children actualize their nature, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. which engenders the "super-ego" where the flesh (sensuousness and the carnal 'moment,' i.e. "self" and the world) is the concern of life, making the "drive" and "purpose" of life the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain (including the pain of missing out on pleasure—because of having to submit to the father's authority, doing right and not wrong according to his will, i.e. which is "negativity" to the flesh, i.e. inhibiting or blocking you from your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. that which is of nature) you end up doing unconscionable things in the flesh (putting into praxis "self" 'justification,' that which all children/men have in common, making it "self-social" 'justification') which "war[s] against the soul," with the universal (that which of the world, i.e. the child's carnal nature, i.e. the flesh of man) negating the heavenly (that which is of the father/Father, i.e. God, i.e. His law, Word, and Holy Spirit and the soul of each individual man accountable before God) in the feelings, thoughts, and actions (in the values) of men.  "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" 2 Peter 2:11  "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world [the approval of man, which is temporary, in the 'moment' only, passing away], and lose his own soul [the approval of God, which is eternal]?"  Mark 8:36 

Once the universality (the commonality) of all fruit is learned, the individuality of each particular fruit (the almond, the apple, the orange, etc.), according to Karl Marx (The Holy Family), is never seen the same way again, the individual fruit only being perceived through the universality of "The Fruit" from then on.  In the same way the child (in "group therapy," i.e. in psychoanalysis) no longer perceive himself as being under the father's/Father's authority, individually isolated from the universal, i.e. "alienated" from all the children of the world, i.e. with all children being divided from one other according to their father's/Father's standards (commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. belief, i.e. bearing the fruit of righteousness), but now perceive his identity as being "equal" (common) with all the children of the world, i.e. with their desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e. 'liberated' to openly share their theory or opinion of the 'moment' without reproof, correction, or rebuke, i.e. bearing the fruit of unrighteousness and abomination over and against the father's/Father's authority (correlated to parochialism, individualism, nationalism, i.e. isolationism).  Thus individuality (the soul of man, i.e. the child/man doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, engendering the "guilty conscience") is sacrificed to universality (the carnal nature of the children, i.e. with all children/men augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, engendering the "super-ego"), 'liberating' the child/man to do unconscionable things in the name of universality, i.e. "Making the world safe for democracy."

There was a time when we were horrified when we learned of German solders killing our soldiers (after our soldiers had surrendered to them) as well as their own solders (who were wounded), because they were perceived as being a drain on their resources, but today we are not horrified when we kill the innocent and the helpless (the unborn and elderly) because they are perceived as being a drain on ours.  Socialism, whether national or global, has this common epitaph, "I was simply doing my job" (without a conscience).

Mimesis (dialectic imagination, "dialectic phantasies," Martin Luther) is man's ability to take something and make it into what it is not (as a child, in his mind, turns a broom into a horse, man can, in his mind, turn another man's wife, another man, a child, etc. into his object of sexual pleasure, imagining them as his, i.e. turning good into evil and evil into good) in order to get pleasure out of them for himself, 'justifying' his feelings, thoughts, and actions (based upon pleasure as being the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life) in the process. "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."  Genesis 6:5  "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Luke 17:26  "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 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 10:3-6

It is difficult to see the dialectic process ("self" 'justification') for what it is, i.e. evil, because it is such a big part of your life, i.e. your ability to talk to your "self," which draws you to the world, for example: talking to your "self" while crossing a steam, i.e. deciding which rocks to step on so as not to fall in—which is not evil (unless someone is telling you which rocks to step on, who knows, and you, in defiance, refuse to listen), or talking to your "self," i.e. deciding for yourself how you are to relate with your "self," others, the world, and God, i.e. 'justifying' your "self," i.e. 'justifying' your carnal desires of the 'moment' over and against the father's/Father's restraints, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the "guilty conscience" in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with others in the process, which is evil.  The dialectic process is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6—where the first facilitator of 'change' "helped" two "children" 'justify' their heart's desire of the 'moment' over and against the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority) and Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience") in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with one another in the process.  The "guilty conscience" can only be resolved through Christ Jesus' obedience to His Heavenly Father, His obedience (righteousness) being imputed to us through faith in Him.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' if you can negate the "guilty conscience" (for disobedience to the Father), you can negate the Christ of the gospel, keeping only Christ the man—'liberating' the oppressed of the world, leaving man's hope in the world only, seeking after pleasure only.

When you talk to your "self," 'justifying' your feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' (disregarding Godly restraint in the 'moment,' i.e. refusing to talk or fellowship with the Lord in the 'moment' for direction, i.e. refusing to humble, deny, control, discipline your "self" before the Lord in the 'moment' to listen to what He is telling you, i.e. not reproving, correcting, rebuking your "self" in the 'moment' regarding what you have done, are doing, or are thinking about doing that is wrong or evil, i.e. not weighing your "self" in the 'moment' according to His Word) you become "as god" yourself, weighing your "self," others, the world around you, as well as God Himself and His Word according to your "felt needs" ("feelings") of the 'moment,' i.e. from your "lusts" of the flesh and eyes, and pride of life, i.e. from the world (your flesh, i.e. the law of the flesh and sin), which the "self" loves, with you directing your own steps in the 'moment' instead of the Lord.  Your soul is eternal, i.e. you are eternal, i.e. subject to God.  Your "self," left to its "self," is subject to the environment in which your body finds itself in the 'moment.'  Unless you humble, deny, control, discipline your "self" under God, i.e. reproving, correcting, rebuking your "self," making it subject to God (doing right and not wrong according to His will), your "self" will make you subject to the world alone ('justifying' itself, i.e. seeking after pleasure and avoiding pain, including avoiding the pain of standing alone for truth, i.e. missing out on pleasure as well as having to endure the pain of rejection).

Your ability to talk to your "self" in the 'moment' makes you an individual in the world ("a particular in the universal," i.e. a "thing in itself" according to Hegel), i.e. the center of concern, weighing what is going on around you from your "self," making you as a god, 'righteous' in and of your "self," determining right from wrong according to your nature, i.e. according to your natural inclination of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. according to the sensuous 'moment.'  The same is true for every person who is on the face of earth at this very 'moment,' judging all the world around them (including you) from their talking to their "self," 'justifying' their "self," making themselves as god, weighing what is going on around them in the "light" of whether it will bring them pleasure or pain.  Apart from God, i.e. the Father's authority, man perceives himself as being god, determining right from wrong based upon the survival of his flesh.  But man is not god (singularly or collectedly with others, i.e. "thing for itself," or universally, i.e. "thing in and for itself"), being by his nature, i.e. his flesh, subject to this world only, i.e. "Only from Nature" (Marx).  God is God, i.e. "I Am that I Am," with man (his soul) depending upon God and His Word for eternal life.  "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."  Matthew 4:4  While man seeks to find life in the world, which is temporary, i.e. of the 'moment' only, which leads to eternal death, God seeks for man to find life in Him, who is eternal, i.e. who is everlasting, i.e. "the same yesterday, today, and forever" with "no shadow of turning," which leads to eternal life.

'Justifying' your "self" with "group approval," even "in the name of the Lord" does not change a think.  Every one you meet today (who is not walking in the Lord, not having "fellowship with the Father, and with His son Jesus Christ") is talking to their "self" in the 'moment,' i.e. 'justifying' their "self" in the 'moment' (thinking about what they or others have done, are doing, or are planning on doing that might affect them "positively" or "negatively"—bring them pleasure or pain) according to their "felt need" of the 'moment' (concerned with how other's are feeling or what they are thinking about them that can affect their pleasures of the day—especially the pleasure that comes from the approval of others who are providing pleasure in the 'moment' and/or have the potential of providing pleasure in the future for them).   Everyone is running to and fro, seeking to control the world so that they can have pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from the approval of others, making their "self" the center of the world, becoming as god in their own eyes (in their imagination).  The truth be known no man controls the world, the world controls him, making his feelings, thoughts, and actions subject to it.  When the "feeling" of pleasure which comes from the approval of men (made manifest though dialogue, i.e. where everyone is openly sharing what they are talking to their "self" about, uniting on a common opinion, i.e. the common desire for pleasure and hate of restraint—where the individual is transformed from being a god in himself alone to where the "group," including him, becomes as god collectively, or rather the facilitator of 'change' becomes god in the eyes of all 'willing' participates), i.e. the "feeling" of "group" approval, i.e. the "feeling" of consensus, i.e. the "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. "We working for Us," i.e. "We working for 'God'" becomes the "drive" and the "purpose" of life, the "church," even doing "wonderful things in the name of the Lord," becomes apostate, approving (esteeming) its "self" according to the approval of men instead of letting the Lord God direct its steps (with each individual member doing God's will in the body, i.e. thinking and acting) according to His Word, lead by His Holy Spirit with God getting the glory.  The individual (talking to his "self") who finds his identity in "the group" is 'liberated' from the Lord.  He is no longer humbling and denying his "self" under God, but "esteeming" his "self" (even doing "wonderful things in the name of the Lord") with "group approval" instead.  "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished."  Proverbs 16:5

If you start with the child, i.e. with "human nature," i.e. with the "feelings" of the 'moment,' instead of with the father's/Father's authority, i.e. with his commands, rules, facts, and truth, then the father's/Father's authority (restraint) is negated and abomination (the child's carnal nature) rules.  If you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e. refusing to reprove, correct, or rebuke those who are unrighteous, in order to initiate or sustain relationship with them, unrighteousness rules (becomes the "norm").  If you are silent in the midst of the child's rebellious nature, i.e. refusing to reprove, correct, or rebuke him, in order to initiate and sustain relationship with him, the child's rebellious nature rules (becomes the "norm").  The Antichrist loves pleasure, i.e. including the approval (the worship) of all men, and hates Godly restraint.  Only by 'liberating' "the child" within all men can he 'create' a world where he can do as he pleases, with no "guilty conscience," i.e. with the approval of (the worship of) all men.

Dialectic 'reasoning' follows the line of "progression" ('reasoning') from the child's 1) consciousness of the world of pain and pleasure, becoming aware of the pleasure of the world (approaching it) and the pain engendered by the father's authority, i.e. learning to avoid the pain (chastening) which comes from the father by avoiding the pleasure which comes from the world, 2) self-consciousness, where the child privately talks to his "self" about his desire for pleasure, i.e. desiring that which comes from the world and his resentment toward pain, i.e. resenting the father's authority which restrains him, and 3) self-actualization (true 'reasoning,' Selbstveränderung, i.e. self-transformation) where the child is united with the children of the world in common "discourse," with all children openly dialoguing their opinions to a consensus with one another, 'justifying' themselves with one another (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint), to become at-one-with their nature, one another, and the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' thereby 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. negating the father's authority (rigidity, negativity) in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another and the world in the process, putting "class consciousness" (consensus) into social action, i.e. into praxis, i.e. uniting theory (opinion) and practice (social action), negating the father's authority from society (from the world), creating a "new" world order where facilitators of 'change,' ruling over ("guiding," "coaching") the children instead of the father, live off of the children's labor and inheritance ("surplus capital"), without having a "guilty conscience."

The "new world order" is initiated and sustained by facilitators of 'change' "helping" children 'liberate' themselves ('liberate' their "self" by esteeming their "self"), i.e. 'liberate' their affective domain (their "feelings," i.e. "felt needs" of the 'moment') from the father's authority, using what is not theirs, i.e. what is the father's (the children's inheritance) for their own pleasure in the end.  It is the praxis of psychoanalysis (the idea that when a child is forced to suspends pleasure, i.e. to set aside his carnal desire of the 'moment,' i.e. to reprove, correct, rebuke his "self" according to his father's/Fathers commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. to suppress his impulse or urge to become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment' in order to do the father's will, i.e. to satisfy someone else's pleasure, i.e. to capitulate himself to a foreign entity instead, he engenders capitalism, i.e. "neurosis," "repression," and "alienation").  Note: void any understanding (acceptance) of the work of God on the heart of man (with regenerated man walking in the spirit instead of according to the flesh) all that those of the world have to work with is man's carnal nature.  Starting with man's carnal nature all they can end up with is the 'justification' of man's carnal nature.  Psychoanalysis is the praxis of "helping" children learn how to use dialectic 'reasoning' in order to 'liberate' themselves (their "self") from the father's authority, from having to do right and not wrong (according to the father's standards)—where the children sustain the "old world order" based upon righteousness (at least the semblance of it) doing what is right (established by the father) despite the pain of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment,' where they must set aside their nature, i.e. the pleasure (the temptation) of the 'moment' to become at-one-with the world, i.e. resist the "eternal present," i.e. resist 'change' to do the father's will.  The "new world order" is based upon the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the child's carnal nature in order to get them to do their carnal will instead, i.e. moving them from approaching pleasure and avoiding pain while still submitting to the father's authority of right and wrong, engendering a "guilty conscience" for approaching pleasure, i.e. for doing wrong, to the augmenting of pleasure and attenuating of pain only (negating the father's authority) in the process, i.e. 'creating' a "new world order" based upon sensuousness only, i.e. based only upon the child's natural love of pleasure and hate of restraint (the affective domain).

When facilitators of 'change' teach children dialectic 'reasoning' (critical thinking, i.e. "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics) in order to "help" children 'justify' their carnal desires of the 'moment' over and against the father's authority, i.e. 'liberate' themselves from the father's authority, they "help" them negate (overcome) the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with one another, gaining jurisdiction over his property and business (in the name of "the people," i.e. in the name of "community," i.e. in the name of society), using it for their own carnal pleasures instead, doing so without having a "guilty conscience."  When children have no parental restraint (no father's authority) in their lives, i.e. when they have no "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, thinking through their "feelings" of the 'moment' instead (having a seared conscience, i.e. a "super-ego" instead, i.e. where "right" and "wrong" is based upon the "feelings," i.e. the "sensuous need" and "sense perception" of the 'moment'), i.e. 'justifying' themselves ('actualizing' their "self"), i.e. 'justifying' their "feelings" (their impulses and urges) of the 'moment' (being old enough to know the difference between right and wrong but refusing to recognize that what they are feeling, thinking, and/or doing is wrong), doing what they "feel" like doing in the 'moment' instead (disobeying their parents with impunity, i.e. with no fear of or concern regarding judgment, i.e. perceiving their parents commands, rules, facts, and truth as being irrational, i.e. out of touch with their carnal desires of the 'moment,' therefore treating them and their authority as being irrelevant), they end up tolerating or doing unconscionable/abominable things, i.e. praxis-ing dialectic 'reasoning' (diaprax).  By the facilitator of 'change' "helping" the children, i.e. "the group" 'liberate' themselves from the father's authority, the children, i.e. "the group" (united in consensus, i.e. united in a "feeling" of "oneness') will praxis negating (removing) the father and his authority from society (without having a "guilty conscience").  Our inheritance is found in the father's/Father's authority.   When we negate the father's authority we negate our inheritance, turning our lives (and our inheritance) over to those who helped us 'liberate' our "self" from the father's authority, having to spend the rest of our lives with them controlling our lives, doing unconscionable things to us (with no "guilty conscience").

The greatest barrier to compromise, i.e. to 'change,' i.e. to community, i.e. to socialism, i.e. to globalism is the child's "guilty conscience," i.e. the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, interfering with his relationship with those who are seeking after pleasure over and against the father's will.  If the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") remains in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others, the "new world order" can not be initiated and sustained.  It is therefore imperative, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' that the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") be negated in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others, if a "new world order" is to be initiated and sustained.

If you want to initiate and sustain world unity (globalism), diaprax is the procedure which is to be followed, i.e. teaching children how to build unity (how to "build relationship") upon what they all have in common, i.e. their love of pleasure ("self interest") and hate of restraint, 'justifying' their canal desires of the 'moment' (the "feelings" of the "present") as well as their resentment toward parental restraint (the standards of the "past").  With the help of facilitators of 'change,' children, doing what comes naturally, i.e. talking to themselves, i.e. 'justifying' their love of pleasure (including the pleasure which comes from others approving, i.e. getting pleasure out of their having pleasure) and their hate of restraint (their hate of the pain which comes from missing out on pleasure, i.e. including the pain which comes from being rejected by other children who they want approval, i.e. 'justification' from), can be united as "one."  By sharing (dialoguing) their desires (opinions), 'discovering' their common love of pleasure and hate of restraint (where they are willing to 'compromise'), they can (with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change'') learn not only how to 'discover' and unite upon their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. come to a consensus but also how to put their common "feeling" (consensus) into social action (praxis), negating the father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with one another (as well as in society), taking that which is not theirs to take (taking that which is the father's) for themselves, having no "guilty conscience," in the process.  "A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority [negates parental, i.e. the father's/Father's authority]."  "In fact self and interest are the same fact [focuses us upon nature only, i.e. upon the world only]; the kind and amount of interest actively taken in a thing reveals and measures the quality of selfhood [humanism-environmentalism-socialism-globalism] which exits."  (John Dewey, Democracy and Education)  "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture [have been 'liberated' from parental authority]. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens [subject to man's carnal nature and the world only], members of the human species [globalists] first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature)   "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture [parental authority] should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole [supporting the principles of "common-ism" and "human-ism"]." "Tax credits [money taken from private business] would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society [guaranteeing that private business, i.e. "pop and mom business" can not compete and survive], and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals [only socialist ideology, i.e. only "tolerance of deviancy" will be promoted and enforced in the workplace, i.e. the parent's or original owners standards, beliefs, or principles will no longer be allowed, i.e. be promoted and enforced over the employees]."  (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

When children negate the father's authority (parental restraint, i.e. the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong) in their feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' and in their relationship with one another, i.e. when they refuse the father's chastening of them (to restore them to doing what is right), thinking that they can do wrong with impunity, i.e. doing what they think ("feel") is right in their own eyes instead, i.e. evaluating themselves, the world, and their father's commands, rules, facts, and truth according to their "feelings," i.e. "desires," "lusts," "enjoyments," pleasures," i.e. their opinion of the 'moment,' they bring upon themselves the father's wrath in the end (being cast out of the home as a "child of disobedience," i.e.  being "cut out" of the will—that is, unless the father's authority is rejected by society, i.e. superseded by "community needs," with the community focusing upon the children's "felt" needs of the 'moment' (the children's "self interest"), with facilitators of 'change' uniting the children and the community ("building relationship") upon the social action (praxis) of 'liberating' the children and the community from the father's authority, i.e. taking what is the father's for themselves, forcing the children to follow them if they are to have access to what was the father's, i.e. his property and business (which was to become their inheritance), now in the hands of the facilitators of 'change' ("the children of disobedience"), being using for their own carnal gain instead.

What is true for the child is true for man.  Without Godly restraint, i.e. without Godly sorrow, repentance, and turning from his sins, man (as a child who 'justifies' himself over and therefore against his father's authority, i.e. sinning with impunity) engenders a world of unrighteousness and abomination, bringing upon himself God's judgment (the Father's wrath) in the end (being cast into Hell as a "child of disobedience," i.e. being "cut out" of the will).  "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no man deceive you with vain words [with words your fleshy/carnal mind wants (desires) to hear, 'liberating' yourself from Godly restraint]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.  Be not ye therefore partakers with them."  "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."  Ephesians 5:5-7, 11, 12  "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   "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."  Revelation 3:19-21

A persons use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' themselves according to their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. according to their desire for pleasure and their desire to relate with (not be rejected by) those they get pleasure from, i.e. who approve ('justify) their compromising of the truth in order to initiate and sustain that pleasure, prevents them from hearing you as you warn them of what is happening to them.  It is why they give you that "deer in the headlights look" when you share the truth with them, with them excusing themselves, having something (more) important (they just remembered) they have to do, "having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears" (Karl Marx), interested only in that which makes them "feel" good in the 'moment,' hating anything which might prevent them from having their carnal way.  Every effort is made to silence those who speak of righteousness—reproving, correcting, rebuking sensuousness—using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. self-social 'justification,' to silence anyone who might arouse a "guilty conscience" within them for their wicked ways. "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."  Matthew 13:14-16

Karl Marx (as did Sigmund Freud) knew that how children are taught (how they are educated, i.e. instructed) will have a direct affect upon how they will feel, think, and act and relate with one another.  They knew that children learning facts or truth being preached or taught (having to deny, humble, control, discipline themselves in order to memorize and apply information external to, i.e. restraining their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment') rather than sharing their feelings and thoughts (their opinion) of the 'moment' ('justifying,' esteeming themselves) would result in their honoring and obeying authority (rather than questioning and challenging it).  Children learning to reason didactically (deductively), i.e. evaluating themselves (their feelings, thoughts, and actions), their relationship with others and the world from an a prior,  i.e. evaluating from an established fact or truth will behavior differently than children learning to 'reason' dialectically (inductively), i.e. evaluating themselves (their feelings, thoughts, and actions), their relationship with others and the world from their own opinion, i.e. from their "feelings" or desires of the 'moment.'  Children, comparing what they are told with how they "feel" in the 'moment,' i.e. aligning themselves on the side of "feelings," i.e. upon "sensuous needs, "sense perception," and "sense experience," i.e. upon "Nature Only" (Karl Marx, The Holy Family), i.e. evaluating themselves, the world, and God's Word from their "feelings" of the 'moment' will 'justify' their carnal ways.  "Leaning to their own understanding" they will turn against "trusting in the Lord."   By learning to walk by sight rather than faith, they will treat all who walk by faith, i.e. who honor the father's authority as being irrational (anti-social, i.e. resisters of 'change,' i.e. intolerant of ambiguity/deviancy), perceiving themselves as being rational (social, i.e. adapting to 'change,' i.e. tolerant of ambiguity/deviancy) only, instead.  Therefore, those who walk by sight will regard those who walk by faith, including their information or input as being irrelevant ("inappropriate," i.e. "negative"), regarding themselves and their information as being relevant ("appropriate," i.e. "positive") only, instead.  Marx (as well as Freud) knew that the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted "as is," i.e. by faith produces a different child (culture) than the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus.  It is why Marx said "the educator himself must be educated,"  i.e. educated in what he called "revolutionizing practice," i.e. in the process of 'change.'  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #3)   Their agenda was to 'change' how parents feel, think, and act toward children as well.  According to their 'reasoning', by using "social-environmental forces" [the parents' desire for approval from the "community"] "the parent's behavior toward the child," the community, and the world could be 'changed.'  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

While Marx advocated the 'changing' of culture by killing those who preach and teach facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), i.e. 'liberating' society, i.e. "the peoples" relationship with one another from the "old" world order, i.e. the "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting through the direct use of force (using external perception, i.e. fear of lose of life, to 'change' behavior), Freud believed in 'changing' culture through the "counseling" of individuals, i.e. through the dialoguing of their opinions (using internal perception, fear of lose of pleasure, to 'change' behavior), 'liberating' themselves, i.e. their feelings, thoughts, and actions from those who preach and teach facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith).  Both had the same agenda, i.e. 'changing' culture, i.e. 'changing' society, i.e. 'liberating' the children/man from the father's/Father's authority, but had different approaches, one through violence (external violence to one's body), the other through seduction, deception, and manipulation (internal violence to one's conscience).  Both, united as one (in social-psychology AKA psychoanalysis—J. L. Moreno said he kept telling Freud he needed to do his "counseling" in a group setting instead of one on one), as you will see, made their agenda to 'change' culture (through the child's/man's love of pleasure, approved by and made accessible only through "group approval," i.e. lose "group approve" and you lose access to pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from "group approval," i.e. facing the pain of "group disapproval," i.e. rejection instead), 'liberating' children/man from the parent's/God's authority, literately undetectable and therefore unstoppable. "And Jesus [the obedient Son of God, i.e. obeying His Heavenly Father in all things commanded] called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,  And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me [turning them away from having faith in him, i.e. from obeying him, i.e. from following him in his obedience to his Heavenly Father, turning them back to their carnal nature instead], it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  Matthew 19:2-6

Those who follow after Marx and Freud know what they are doing, i.e. mockingly (foolishly) state: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation [where children/men have faith in and obey the Father and His Son], then Marx [children/men 'justifying' their carnal nature] must collapse into a bottomless abyss [spend eternity in Hell]." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)   Dialectic 'reasoning' finds its first use by the woman (with Adam, the man following) in the garden in Eden, as admitted by those of dialectic 'reasoning' themselves. "In the process of history man gives birth to himself ['liberates,' i.e. delivers himself from the Father's authority].  He becomes what he potentially is [of the flesh and the world only], and he attains what the serpent [the master facilitator of 'change']―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself [in man's case, evaluating and deciding for himself what is right and wrong behavior according to his carnal nature, i.e. his flesh, deciding what is right and what is wrong behavior according to his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' (aufheben)]."  (Erich Fromm, You shall be as gods)  Quoting Freud, the Marxist Herbart Marcuse wrote: "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.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  The Marxist, Normal O. Brown, explaining Freud, wrote: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book [Life Against Death] cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader."  Freud stated: "'Except ye become as little children [of the flesh only], ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven [here on earth]."  Freud believed: "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires."  "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression – in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body."  "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' [of the flesh and the world only, made possible only through dialoguing our carnal desires and our resentment toward restraint, with one another, 'liberating' ourselves and the world from the father's/Father's authority]."   (Normal, O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  Rejecting the Father's authority, those of dialectic 'reasoning' set out to 'create' a "new" world culture (order) made up of children (in adult bodies), following them (facilitators of 'change'), i.e. hating the father's authority, loving the pleasures of the world only, instead of following Christ, who obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things.

The difference in cultures is along the spectrum of (on one side) whether the child honors the father's authority, i.e. obeys his commands and rules without question and accepts his facts and truth as is (by faith) or (on the other side) negates the father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others—thus making it easier for him to not concern himself with what happens to the father (and those who follow and obey him) or to kill the father (along with those who follow and obey him) without having a "guilty conscience."  The disparity being between whether, on the one side, the child's affections are toward the father, i.e. setting his affections upon the father, i.e. restraining his urges and impulses of the 'moment' to do his father's will instead or on the other side, setting his affections upon the world, 'liberating' himself and others from the father's authority.  Gaining access to the child's affections, i.e. his opinion, i.e. what he is talking to himself about in the 'moment,' i.e. in the midst of a crisis, i.e. either reproving, correcting, and rebuking himself and others for thinking about or doing things wrong, i.e. "repressing" his feelings and the feelings of others, "alienating" himself from them and them from him, preaching and teaching, i.e. insisting that everyone do it the father's way (the right way), or 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'liberating' his feelings (his opinion) and the "feelings" (the opinions) of others from the father's authority, "building relationship" upon their common opinion (love of pleasure and hate of restraint) instead, reveals where along the spectrum of 'change' the child resides in the 'moment,' whether he is a resistor of 'change,' tolerant of it, or an initiator and sustainer of it, i.e. a facilitator of 'change.'  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. basing 'truth' upon the child's carnal feelings of the 'moment,' responding to the current situation or crisis from his one nature, those who believe in Christ, i.e. who walk by faith, i.e. who live in obedience to His Father's will in all things, are on the wrong side of the spectrum, needing to 'change' their way of feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others, i.e. needing to negate their faith or be negated themselves.  It is why the Affective Domain (Bloom's Taxonomies—who confessed that its Weltanschauung, i.e. its world view was based upon the ideology of two Marxists, i.e. Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm, "challenging the students fixed beliefs," opening "Pandora's box," i.e. a box full of evils, which, once opened, can not be closed, creating "conflict and tension between parents and children," changing the "individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people") is being used in the classroom today, "helping" the children 'change' their way of feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others, negating their faith in the father's authority, establishing themselves upon "human nature" and "the group" only.  Dialectic 'reasoning' is anathema to faith in the Lord, preparing the children to walk by sight and not by faith, setting their affections on things below, not on things above.  The Scriptures tell us to set our affection on things above. "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Colossians 3:1-4

The children (including those in "adult" bodies), following after Marx and Freud, i.e. following after "children of disobedience," i.e. learning how to 'justify' their urges and impulses of the 'moment' instead of trusting in and following after the Father's (God's) obedient Son, are now children of the world only, again, i.e. as they were before their father's first command, rule, fact, or truth—defending dialogue ('justifying' their opinions, i.e. the opinions of men) over and against preaching (the Word of God), justifying' their own 'righteousness,' i.e. that which is of the flesh, i.e. that which is in agreement with the world (made manifest through their own "sense perception," i.e. understood only by sight, satisfying their "sensuous needs," i.e. satisfying their "felt needs" of the 'moment') over and against that righteousness which can only come from God, i.e. which must be accepted by faith.  "For after that in the wisdom of God [His Word revealed by preaching, accepted by faith, confirmed by His Spirit] the world by wisdom [leaning to its own understanding, trusting in the flesh and sight, i.e. the sensuous 'moment'] knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 2:21   "Let no man deceive himself.  If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world ["leaning to his own understanding"], let him become a fool ["trusting in the Lord with all his heart"], that he may be wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.  For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."  1 Corinthians 3:18-19  "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14  "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law [which condemns man], but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith [which redeems man]:" Philippians 3:9  "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

We are a nation of children (in adult bodies), as Marx and Freud, intolerant of those who preach and teach righteousness—turning a deaf ear to those warning them (not only in the public arena but in the "church" as well) of their wicked ways and their need to repent before a Holy, Pure, Gracious, Merciful, Just God lest they die in their sins and spend eternity in Hell, loving and serving the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, inheriting eternal life instead.  Facilitators of 'change', i.e. "wolves in sheepskin" have brought the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (Marx and Freud) into the "church, turning it against righteousness (which can only be imputed by faith in Christ Jesus alone—who was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father's will, calling us to follow him in doing the same), turning the church to polls, surveys, and feasibility studies (to men's opinions, i.e. to the "feelings" and "thoughts" of children in adult bodies) for direction instead.

By first 1) observing and defining the attributes of the "earthy family" (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4), where the children do their father's will and 2) observing and defining the attributes of the "Holy Family" (ibid.) where the Son, and those who follow Him do His Heavenly Father's will (finding what attributes they both have in common, i.e. being "positive" in regard to doing the father's/Father's will, what Marx recognized as "true reason, i.e. of faith, of true love, i.e. of love of God, of true will-power, i.e. of will in Christ" (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) while being "negative" in regard to the lusts of the flesh and eyes, and his pride of life, i.e. of "human nature"), and 3) observing and defining the attributes of the child/man without a father's/Father's authority (being "positive" in regard to the lusts of the flesh and eyes and the pride of life, i.e. of "human nature"), and then (classifying that which is negative to the "earthly/Holy family" as being "positive" to the children, making that which is "positive" to the "earthly/Holy family" "negative," i.e. turning good into evil and evil into good) by 4) removing the attributes of the "earthly family/Holy family" from the classroom environment, i.e. by discouraging "negativity" (the preaching and teaching of right and wrong) amongst the children as they work on a "group project" (working together as "one") and encouraging "positivity" instead (freedom to dialogue their carnal desires, i.e. their opinions amongst one another—including their resentment towards authority which restraints them), the children can be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority as they unite with one anther (become as "one"), building "human relationship" upon their carnal nature, i.e. upon their lusts of the flesh and eyes and their pride of life, speaking against (mocking, spreading false accusations against, no longer supporting, cutting off relationship/association with, etc. to silence) anyone who restrains them, i.e. who supports the earthly/Holy family way of thinking and acting.

The objective is to 'create' the 'right' environmental conditions (called "climate control" in education)—using "force field analysis" ("power analysis"), i.e. parental authority vs. the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' (where along the spectrum of 'change,' i.e. resisting 'change' to initiating and sustaining 'change' the child resides in the 'moment,' with the child either preaching and teaching his parent's standards to others, to be accepted as is, or freely sharing, i.e. dialoguing his opinion, i.e. his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' encouraging others to do the same, in order to engender consensus, i.e. "equality"), "group dynamics," i.e. the child's desire for approval from the father, who restrains his carnal desires vs. the child's desire for approval from "the group," who 'justify' his carnal desires, and "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing" i.e. the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (allowing the child to share with "the group" and the group to share with him his/their desire for pleasure and his/their dissatisfaction toward restraint, finding what he/they has/have in common with them/him and what they/he have/has in common with him/them) to 'change' the child's/"the groups" paradigm.  (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change).  By 'liberating' pleasure (encouraging the child to openly share his desires) and 'restraining' pain (negating chastening, i.e. removing parental restraint) the child will naturally move in the direction of pleasure, 'changing' his paradigm, i.e. his way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with others, i.e. choosing "group approval" ("sensuality," i.e. being at-one-with his nature and the world) over and against "parental authority" (righteousness, i.e. doing the father's/Father's will) in the process.  "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (ibid.)  If it works on the child it will work on the adult as well.  Karl Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the Christian of faith] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith [in the Father and in His obedient Son], of true love, i.e., of love of God [the Son's love of the Father], of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ [of the Son's will to obey to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded]." [Therefore, Marx understood that the Christian (of faith) lives] "Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply. [But, supporting the child's carnal nature, i.e. his propensity to sin, i.e. "human nature," i.e. the child's desire to have relationship (oneness) with the world over and against righteousness, i.e. doing the father's/Father's will, Marx declares]  It is not sensuality [the child's sinful nature] which is presented ..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden ["human nature," i.e. the child's desire to become at-one-with his own nature and the world in pleasure, in the 'moment']." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)  Establish Christianity upon "human relationship" and you 'liberate' man from God, i.e. the child from the earthly father's authority (man from the Heavenly Father's authority).  "Are you a Marxists?"

Part III

The following is an exposé on how and why America has become the nation it is today—why every parent should know how and why our education system functions the way it does today.  Some aids to help in understand the following information: two half-hour audios Part 1, Part 2, a chart, two one-hour audios explaining the chart: Part 1, Part 2, and two YouTube's, YouTube1, YouTube 2, plus a handout (Pdf) & Power Point slides I use in some of my meetings.

A word of warning regarding false accusations made about me. While I have had liberals, i.e. those who do this process ('justifying' their carnal nature, placing themselves as being "equal" with, and therefore over/above, and therefore against God and His Word, treating it and those who believe in it as being irrational and therefore irrelevant), as well as those who have come out of this process (having, through faith in Christ Jesus, been liberated from its lie—that man will not be held accountable, before God, for his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions), confess privately to me as well as publicly (after meetings) that what I share here is factual (even liberals who dedicate their blog to mocking me have had their own reprimand them for not having done their "homework," confessing that what I write is factual, with them just not wanting to agree with me regarding the solution, i.e. Christ Jesus), it is "Christians" who, stirring up confusion and strife, falsely accuse me, for example, of being a member of the illuminati (Wow!  Anyone who knows me and understands what I write knows that that is slander—honestly I did not see that one coming, i.e. it is still incomprehensible to me other than someone "has an axe to grind"), of "supporting" Vision Forum (to my knowledge I have never met Doug Phillips nor have I ever "supported" Vision Forum), of being "pro-Constitution," i.e. perceiving America as being a "Christian Nation," i.e. treating the Constitution as the Word of God—while I teach classes on the Constitution, there is not such thing as a "Christian Nation," there can only be a nation influenced by Christians recognizing and establishing laws which allow the preaching of the gospel in the public arena, i.e. promoting freedom of religion and speech, i.e. preaching the gospel in the public arena without restraint, and freedom of the conscience (not freedom from religion, speech, and the conscience which has been put into praxis today), i.e. Patrick Henry fought against the Constitution's potentially unlimited powers—we would not have had the Bill of Rights without men like him, which/who put the power of government back into the citizens hands, which is now nearly gone as those in government have replaced our "inalienable rights," under God, with "human rights," under facilitators of 'change'), of being King James only (which I am not. I am Textus Receptus only), and the list goes on.  So what is new.  Throughout history those who have spoken the truth have been falsely accused.  There are many who have shared with me (publically and privately) their appreciation of my exposing the lie (the dialectic process of 'change') by the light of the truth (by the Word of God), having come out of the lie (the dialectic process) themselves (the lie being that man is basically "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" by doing "good" things for others, i.e. by making others "feel good"), this information encouraging them to continue to hold fast to the faith, i.e. to the truth (that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, needing salvation through Christ Jesus) in a world of lies (that man can sin with impunity).  It is for those who have come out of the lie (out of the process of 'change'), those who are in the process and do not know that it is a lie (still being deceived but knowing something is wrong), and those who are still in the process and want to come out, that I share this information.  At least they know that what I write about here is factual, pointing those who will listen (those who have ears to hear) to the way, to the truth, to life, i.e. to Christ Jesus, and to His Heavenly Father, i.e. for "truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1

It is not by accident that we have arrived at this level of depravity, i.e. of abomination we find ourselves these days.  It is the result of a well orchestrated agenda over a century in the making, using the classroom (as a "laboratory") to 'liberate' children from parental authority (parental restraint), i.e. from the earthly father's "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm), in order to 'liberate' man from Godly restraint, i.e. from the Heavenly Father's "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system (Hebrews 12:5-11), along with the "guilty conscience" which ensues (Romans 7:14-25)—done through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6).   If you doubt me, link to the following websites: ntl.org (noting especially its history), ed.gov/pubs/TeachersGuide, and read the Transformational Marxist training manuals Human Relations in Curriculum Change, and Laboratory in Human Relations Training (Transformational Marxist's are Marxist's who came to America in the early 30's, who merged (synthesized) Marx and Freud, i.e. used psychology to bring Marxism into the classroom, the workplace, government, the church, and the home)—built upon the works of Marxist's such as Kurt Lewin (known for his work on "group dynamics," "unfreezing, moving or changing, and refreezing," and "force field analysis"), J. L. Moreno, (known for his creation and utilization of role-playing and socio-grams to initiate, analyze, and sustain 'change'), etc. as well as other training manuals such as The Planning Of Change written by Warren Bennis, and Bloom's/Marzano's/Webb's Taxonomies which are used by teachers today to develop their classroom curriculum—for the purpose of 'changing' their students paradigm, i.e. changing the way they feel, think, act, and relating with one another, i.e. relate with the world as well as relate with their parents, i.e. the children regarding themselves and their parent's as being "equals," i.e. thereby questioning and challenging their parent's authority, i.e. their rules, commands, facts, and truth when it gets in the way of their and other's carnal desires of the 'moment.'  "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices [being applied in the classroom] are producing between parents and children [with the children learning in the classroom how to apply dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "self" 'justification,' to all areas of their lives (through the curriculum being using in the classroom), returning home to question their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, and challenge their authority]."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  How you think directly affects how you "feel" regarding your behavior, i.e. feeling guilty for doing wrong or 'justifying' your "self" instead.  Changing a person from "feeling guilty" for doing wrong to not "feeling guilty" for doing wrong requires practice (praxis).  The "Taxonomy" continues: "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment  [what Warren Bennis, in The Temporary Society calls an "experiential chasm"] which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed."  "...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern [the father's authority] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized."

Through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' the child is able to 'reconcile' himself to his carnal nature and the world, i.e. to be at-one-with himself and "the group" (what he has in common with it and it has in common with him—the heart and soul of common-ism), 'redeeming' himself from parental restraint (from the father's authority) in the process.  In this way of feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with "the group," he is able to 'liberate' himself, "the group," the "community," and the world from Godly restraint (from the Father's authority).  Instead of being 'redeemed' by the obedient Son of God and 'reconciled' to His Heavenly Father, the child/man, through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifies' his carnal nature, 'reconciling' himself to himself and the world, 'redeeming' himself and the world from the Father and His only begotten Son's authority (from Godly restraint) in the process, so that he can be himself again, as he was before the Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e. "of [human] nature Only," i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with himself and with others without having a "guilty conscience" for his and their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions.  (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

How "dumbed down" we have become as a nation (becoming a nation of 'children,' i.e. 'disobedient children' in adult bodies, 'justifying' our carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment') is made manifest by our inability to suspend (set aside) the pleasures of the 'moment' to take the time to think (to wade, i.e. to "endure") through material such as the following (regarding how and why dialectic 'reasoning' is being used in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the church to 'change' how we feel, think, and act, and relate with one another) in order to understand what is happening to us and our children and how it is being done.  It appears that most people do not want to know the truth, desiring the pleasures of the 'moment' instead (making them incapable of of knowing the truth because they are no longer able to think apart from their carnal feelings of the 'moment'), being "lovers of their own selves,"  "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God."  2 Timothy 3:2, 4

It is bad enough to have a people (forty year old men) playing with "toys" ("lusting" after the carnal pleasures of life with no Godly restraint, i.e. with no fear of judgment by God for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions), but the hate and violence that comes from them when their "toys" are taken away (or they fear they might be taken away) will destroy a nation. You can see this happening all around us today with government becoming a "police state," encroaching upon every aspect of our lives for the "good" of "the people," i.e. for a people who no longer have a "guilty conscience" for their carnal feelings, thoughts, and action and their abominable relationship with one another, i.e. following after facilitators of 'change' who initiate and sustain government which serves and protects ('justifies') their praxis of sinning with impunity.  George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud were desires of it, i.e. living in a world of children/men doing what they want to do in the 'moment' (doing what comes naturally), receiving approval from one another, approving one another, silencing any resistor(s) of 'change.'  

Next time you hear the word 'change,' remember this: Marx was all (only) about 'change.'  Marx wrote: "The philosophers [the children (including those in adult bodies), dissatisfied with the way the world "is," i.e. still subject to parental/Godly restraint (with the children still having a "guilty conscience" for disobeying their parents/God, i.e. feeling "guilty" for thinking and acting as "human beings," i.e. for being carnal), thinking about how the world "ought" to be, i.e. a world with children free to think and act according to their carnal desire(s) of the 'moment' with no "guilty conscience"—the "ought" has no parental/Godly authority (restraint) in it and therefore no "guilty conscience" in it] have only interpreted the world in different ways [insisting that their opinion is the right one, forcing all others to accept their opinion as given, and obey and follow them—a "forced" opinion is a position, restoring the father's/Father's authority and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience], the objective however, is change [never letting one child's opinion (position) control the others, i.e. control the individual, "the group," the 'community,' the state, the nation, the world, i.e. society, but letting all children, through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, 'discover' and then put into group or social action the right (common) behavior for the 'moment,' which, being subject to the present situation only, is ever 'changing,' i.e. subject to everyone's "'felt' needs" of the 'moment,' i.e. of the world (of "human nature") only]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)  According to Marx, "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's/man's carnal desires, i.e. pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment']; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)   The law of the flesh (the law of sin) is subject to the carnal situation, i.e. to the 'moment' of pleasure-pain, seeking pleasure in the midst of 'change,' while the law of God is established for ever, judging and condemning the flesh, thus, rejecting God, all Marx and those of dialectic 'reasoning' can do is 'justify' the law of the flesh, i.e. the law which is subject to 'change,' i.e. Hegel's "lawfulness [the law of the flesh] without law [without the law of God]."   'Change' requires that the past and the future be understood only according to the child's (man's) "sensuous needs" (Karl Marx) or "felt needs" (Abraham Maslow) and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' where the law of the flesh (human nature) and the carnal situation (the world) coincide (where the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e. his "lust" for pleasure, and the carnal nature of the world, its stimulating of pleasure unite).  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' in that 'moment' the father's/Father's authority (faith in God, i.e. the individual before God) is negated (no longer resides) in the child's (man's) feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others—with "the self" (the child/man) and "the group" (the world) becoming "one," i.e. 'justified' in the sensuous need/sense perceived 'moment' of the "feeling" of "oneness."  A "self-actualized" person is a person who is 'liberated' from the father's authority, committed to 'liberating' the world from Godly restraint.

Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [where the children are obedient to their father] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son is obedient to His Father], the former [the traditional family] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically  [in the "thoughts" and "actions" of the children, which are subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment'] and practically [in the laws of nature, i.e. in the laws of society, which, through the use of the consensus process, are readily adaptable to 'change']."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)   G. Brock Chisholm (Deputy Minster of Health, of the Department of National Health and Welfare of Canada), the founder of the modern Health and Welfare Department (speaking in Washington D.C. on October 25th, 1945), sounding like the first facilitator of 'change' in the garden in Eden, stated: "For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day care school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers, and others in a vested interest in controlling us."  "'Thou shalt not become as gods, knowing good and evil,' good and evil with which to keep children under control, with which to prevent free thinking, with which to impose local [familial] and national loyalties, and with which to blind children to their glorious intellectual heritage." "The mature person ... has the qualities of adaptability and compromise."  "Is the family, the school, or the church teaching in that direction?"  "The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainty of the old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy."  "Would it not be sensible to stop imposing our local prejudices and faiths on children and give them all sides of every question so that in their own good time they may have the ability to size things up, and make their own decisions."  "If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility."  "The fact is that most psychiatrists and psychologists and many other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely."  "Psychiatry must now decide what is to be the immediate future of the human race.  No one else can."  (G. B. Chisholm, Reestablishment of Peacetime Society: The Responsibility of Psychiatry)  Hegel wrote: "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]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)   Without the father's authority, children are under the influence of the seduction, deception, and manipulation of facilitators of 'change.'  Carl Rogers boasted: "We know how to influence the behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine."  "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow."  (Carl Rogers, On Becoming A Person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

The earthly father's system or paradigm (a paradigm is the way a person feels, thinks, and acts and relates with others) is the same as the Heavenly Father's system (Hebrews 12:5-11—the difference being the earthly father's "above-below," "right-wrong" system is subject to the flesh, i.e. sensuous, i.e. tempted by the pleasures of the world, and the Heavenly Father's "above-below," "right-wrong" system is Spirit, i.e. Holy, i.e. righteous in and of Himself), yet both produce individualism, i.e. rewarding, chastening, or casting out each child according to his personal behavior toward his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth.  Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning' (rejecting the Heavenly Father's authority, believing instead that man will not be held accountable by God for his thoughts and actions, i.e. the dialectic lie), if you can negate the earthly father's system (the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. the father's authority, i.e. the fear of being chastened for disobedience or for doing things wrong or being cast out for disrespecting, i.e. questioning and challenging the father's authority) in the thoughts and actions of the child (thereby negating individualism, under the earthy father), you can negate the Heavenly Father's system (the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. the fear of being chastened in this life or being cast out for eternity) in the thoughts and actions of men (thereby negating individualism, under God or the Heavenly Father, from which we derive our "inalienable rights"), 'liberating' man (society) from Godly restraint, i.e. replacing the "guilty conscience" for sinning (Romans 7:14-25—man's need for a savior) with the "super-ego," i.e. with the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment,' 'justifying' the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' you can engender a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' i.e. a world of children/men "lusting" after the flesh, finding approval from one another and approving one another for their wicked ways, 'justifying' their "selves," i.e. exonerating their "human nature," hating the father/Father and his/His authority for his restraint of their carnal desires (their "felt needs") of the 'moment.'   While in the Patriarch Paradigm the father/Father cast the "children of disobedience" out of the home/garden for their disrespect towards/disobedience against his/His authority, in the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' the "children of disobedience" kill the father/Father instead, i.e. silencing any and all children/men who believe in, have faith in, and obey the father/Father, i.e. who proclaim his position/His Word in public—engendering a "guilty conscience" in the other children/man for their/his disobedience/sins.

By simply 'shifting' ('changing') the classroom environment (changing the system or paradigm, i.e. the curriculum or method of instruction being used in the classroom) from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e. from the teacher preaching and teaching rules and commands to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is ("as given"), i.e. to be accepted by faith (which requires the children to disciple, control, deny, humble their "self") and the honoring of the teacher's position of authority in the classroom, to the teacher, as a facilitator of 'change,' 'liberating' the children from the father's/Father's authority system by promoting the dialoguing of opinions (which carries no father's/Father's authority/restraint in it, only the children's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' thus requiring the children to liberate, exalt, esteem, 'justify' their "self," i.e. to share with one another what they are talking to their "self" about, encouraging them to not only 1) share what they want or desire in the 'moment,' but also 2) share their resentment towards that which inhibits or restrains them from having it), 'change' can be initiated and sustained in the children.  In this way the children can be 'liberated' from parental/Godly authority while coming to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness"), i.e. "building relationship" with one another, uniting upon that which they all have in common (what they are talking to their "self" about), i.e. their "self interest," i.e. 'justifying' their "lust" for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which includes their desire for approve from one another—the pleasure of someone else having pleasure in their having pleasure)—self, interest, and the lusts or desires of the 'moment' (that counter the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) are all one and the same thing—and their resentment toward parental/Godly restraint/authority which inhibits or blocks them from enjoying or satisfying the pleasures ("lusts") of the 'moment.'  This applies as well in business where the family business, i.e. subject to the father's morals and standards, becomes a "community" business, serving the "interests" of the community, i.e. with the employs no longer being subject to, i.e. being 'liberated' from the original owners morals and standards.

The child's/man's nature of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, as well as his desire for approval from his parent's or the father/Father, results in his "talking to his 'self'" regarding his desire to attain the pleasure of the 'moment' and his resentment toward his parent's or the father's/Father's commands and rules, facts and truth which prevent him from attaining it (who does not receive pleasure in his pleasure of the 'moment,' creating conditions which prevent it instead).  The child's/man's "talking to his 'self,'" i.e. 'justifying' his carnal desires while seeking approval (and not getting it if he disobeys) from his parents, leaves him in a state or condition known as neurosis, i.e. behaving in a way (obeying his parent's to gain and retain their approval, i.e. receiving pleasure in their having pleasure in him obeying them, while not having the pleasure of the 'moment' which the world offers, i.e. pleasure being therefore found in the one above nature, restraining nature, i.e. spiritual, and not in nature itself, i.e. temporal) which goes counter to his carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. which goes counter to "human nature."  Neurosis is a condition where the child's practice or behavior, i.e. obeying his parents in order to sustain the pleasure of their approval (what Sigmund Freud called a "substitute gratification" and Karl Marx called an "opiate") not only "represses" him, not being able to satisfy his carnal urges and impulses of the 'moment' but also divides (alienates) him from theory , i.e. from his ability to dialogue with them regarding ('justifying') his desired pleasure of the 'moment,' i.e. the parent's "Because I said so," in response to his "Why?" (his effort to draw his parent into dialogue with him) preventing it, having to dialogue with his "self" instead, in secret.  Dialectic 'reasoning' unites theory and practice, i.e. restores the child's carnal thoughts (talking to his "self," 'justifying' his "feelings" of the 'moment') and his carnal actions (initiating and sustaining relationship with, i.e. approval from others who participate in or at least tolerate his urges and impulses of the 'moment,' receiving pleasure in his having pleasure).  Dialectic 'reasoning' negates, in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with others, the parent's (the father's) authority, i.e. the source of neurosis in the child.  When a father (or whoever is in authority) acts like a child without a father's restraint, the child will act like a child without a father's restraint. The dialectic idea is: if, according to the Father, the conflict between law of the flesh ("human nature," i.e. the child's carnal desires of the 'moment') and the law of God (that which is spiritual, i.e. of the Father's authority which is established for all times) can not be resolved (except through Christ Jesus, the obedient Son), by making the child's nature, i.e. his "lust" for pleasure (his "self interest," i.e. his "feelings" of approaching/augmenting pleasure and avoiding/attenuating pain) and his desire for approval from others (of the same nature, "lusts," "self interests," "feelings") the "drive" and "purpose" of life, the law of the flesh (the child's carnal desires of the 'moment') can be 'justified,' negating the law of God (the father's/Father's authority) in the process.

By adding the "affective domain," i.e. the deceitful and wicked heart of the child/man, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' (what the child is talking to his "self" about in the 'moment,' i.e. approving/'justifying' his carnal desires over and against the parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth) to the "cognitive domain," i.e. to the information which is to be learned in the classroom, the child's desire for approval from his parents (his loyalty to, i.e. relationship with his parents) can be replaced (displaced) with his desire for approval from "the group" ('shifting'/'changing' his loyalty, i.e. his relationship from his parents, who restrain his carnal desires of the 'moment' to "the group" which is in agreement with, i.e. in consensus with his carnal desires of the 'moment,' at least in their silence not judging it, as his parents would, as being "wrong," 'justifying' it in the mind of the child).  "The affective domain [the heart of the child] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evil which, once opened, can not be closed]." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain)  If Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood how dialectic 'reasoning' (the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. 'liberating' the child's heart from parental restraint) worked, i.e. how it initiated and sustained 'change,' i.e. 'liberated' children/man from parental/Godly restraint, should not you know how it works as well—so that you can understand why you should not put your children under its influence, retaining your God given authority over your children, your property, and your business, under God, instead?  Once the parent's question their position of authority over their children, i.e. become "uncertain" regarding "how best to prepare their children for the future," the father's authority (the traditional family) is "moribund."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

Dialectic 'reasoning' is a formula (procedure or method) being used in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the church to initiate and sustain (facilitate) 'change.'  The dialectic process of 'change' (dialoguing opinions to a consensus) is so hard to see (until the deed is done, i.e. until it is to late to respond to it, i.e. to stop it—"it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun," ibid.) because it is such a big part of our thought process, i.e. because of our desiring for 'change,' i.e. desiring 'liberation' from our parent's restraints, i.e. "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, which includes the approval of others who stimulate pleasure in us, drawing us to stimulate pleasure in them and visa versa (all three being the same).  It simply means 'liberating' the child/man (his "lust" for pleasure, i.e. his "self-interest") out from under the earthly father's/the Heavenly Father's restraints, negating the earthly father's/the Heavenly Father's authority (removing his hand of protection) in the process.  Since both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father are the same in system (in pattern), i.e. "top-down," "right-wrong" in structure, i.e. where the father's/Father's commands and rules are to be obeyed and his/His facts and truth to be believed (accepted "as given") by faith, "or else" (you will be chastened or, if necessary, cast out), the dialectic idea is (the "democratic" ideal is): if you can negate the earthly father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children (in the classroom, and therefore in the home) you can negate the Heavenly Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of man (in society, i.e. in the workplace, in government, and even in the church), 'liberating' the child/man to be himself again, i.e. as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e. carnal, i.e. of the world only—making it possible for him to "build relationships" upon that which he has in common with all other children/mankind, i.e. his carnal (worldly) nature only.  If you can socialize the individual through dialogue, you can humanize society through it (dialogue) as well.  This requires the belief that man was not created by God (having a soul which is eternal, i.e. created by the breath of God, therefore subject to God the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which are eternal, i.e. unchanging, isolating him from the world) but is a product of evolution, of 'change' (of the world only, i.e. temporary, i.e. becoming "at-one-with" himself and the world, i.e. 'liberating' himself from the Father's authority through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the process of 'change'—a secularized form of Gnosticism, where the parts, i.e. the "divine sparks," through dialectic 'reasoning,' through the "rational" process of "self" 'justification,' 'liberate' themselves from Demiurge, i.e. from the Father's (God's) control over their lives, who divided them from themselves, from their nature, i.e. from Eros or "love," from their godliness in the first place, becoming "one," i.e. god again, i.e. god now knowing {gnosis} his "self" experientially-collectively as one, as he was and again is, i.e. "good," i.e. in, of, and for himself only).

The dialectic process was first used by the woman in the garden in Eden to "rationally" 'justify' her carnal nature (her carnal desire of the 'moment') over God's command (with Adam following after the woman instead of obeying God), thereby turning the woman and Adam against God's authority, 'liberating' themselves from Godly restraint (at least in their thoughts and actions, and in their "relationship" with one another, where their common "self interest" of the 'moment,' to have that which was not theirs to have, made them the same, "children of disobedience," i.e. sinners, "walking according to the course of this world," i.e. "stimulated" by and "responding" to "nature Only"—Karl Marx, The Holy Family).  "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

Dialectic 'reasoning' establishes the child/man as being "equal" with the father/Father but in doing so establishes the child/man (the carnal nature of the child/man, i.e. the "lusts" of the child/man) as being greater than (over and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority system, i.e. the overt "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" way of feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others with the father's/Father's standards determining "right" and "wrong" behavior—the facilitator of 'change,' promoting dialectic 'reasoning,' uses the same "above-below," "top-down" system, only being covert in doing so, basing "right" and "wrong" on how a person is thinking, i.e. whether he is 'justifying' his carnal nature and "helping" others to 'justify their carnal nature (being "right") or, as God, inculcating his/His standards, restraining their impulses and urges, i.e. their carnal desires of the 'moment' (being "wrong"), turning good, that which is of the Father, i.e. righteousness into evil and evil, that which is of man and the world, i.e. sensuousness into "good."  There is no father's/Father's authority system (parental/Godly restraint, i.e. "negation") in the process of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, there is Only the temporal (sensual) 'moment,' i.e. 'change,' i.e. instability, i.e. revolution, i.e. that which is of the world , i.e. that which is of "human nature," i.e. that which is of your "self interest," uniting with others of common "self interest," building "human relationship," i.e. building "worldly peace and socialist harmony" in the praxis of negating the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with one another.

"Negation of negation," i.e. 'liberating' the child's nature (that which is "positive") from the father's restraint (from that which is "negative"), 'liberates' "affirmation," i.e. negates denial.  Negating wrong (established by the father/Father—the "lid" to "Pandora's Box") 'liberates' wrong ('emancipates' the child's/man's carnal nature—opens "Pandora's Box," i.e. the child's/man's deceitful and wicked heart) from right, i.e. from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. his rules, commands, facts, and truth, making wrong (the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e. his impulses and urges of the 'moment,' stimulated by and responding to the carnal 'moment') right and right (the father's/Father's authority, restraining/blocking the the child/man from becoming "at-one-with" the carnal 'moment') wrong, i.e. negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's/man's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with one another, turning wrong into right and right into wrong, good into evil and evil into good.  "The ideas of the Enlightenment [dialectic 'reasoning' ("rationally" 'justifying' feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others in and according to the "positive" carnal pleasures (sensations or "sense experiences") of the 'moment'] taught man that he could trust his own reason [making all things subject to (responding to) the sensation (the natural stimulation of the pain or pleasure of the world, including the pain of rejection and the pleasure of approval by others) of the 'moment' (the affective domain) as the only way to know 'reality,' i.e. making 'reasoning' (being "practical") subject to man's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' Only] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself [his "self" interest, i.e. "human nature"], needing neither revelation [the father/Father telling him how he is to live his life, i.e. "It is written ...," i.e. "My Father says ..."] nor that authority of the church [His obedient Son] in order to know good and evil ["good" thereafter becoming man living in harmony with himself, i.e. transparent, i.e. living in the "permanent/eternal present/'moment,'" i.e.  feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with one another according to his carnal nature (urges and impulses) of the 'moment' (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain) and "evil" becoming anything which or anyone who inhibits or blocks his 'quest' to attain natural-social harmony, i.e. the "positive," i.e. "human nature," thereafter being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. with the children's/man's thoughts and actions united in the praxis of negating the "negative," i.e. negating the father's authority and restraints, i.e. negating anything or anyone who hides himself from (sets himself above) transparency, resisting/restraining "human nature" and the sensuous, carnal 'moment']."  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

The key to dialectic success ("Making the world safe for Democracy," i.e. "Building relationships upon self interest") is: if I can attain a position of authority where I can 'discover' your "ought," i.e. i.e. your "opinion," i.e. your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. your dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority (which can be your parents, your teacher, your boss holding you accountable to their/her/his standards, your constituents holding you accountable to their platform, the Lord God holding you accountable to His Word, i.e. the "past" restraining you from living in the "present," i.e. in the carnal 'moment') and your carnal desire of the 'moment' (your "child within" which is being restrained, i.e. prevented from becoming manifest, i.e. uniting with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment'), and (gaining control over the environment, i.e. facilitating the situation) "help" you 'liberate' it, i.e. your "ought," i.e. your opinion, i.e. your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. your "self-interest" out from under the father's/Father's authority, I can use you (along with others with the same common "ought," i.e. the same common "self interest") to negate the father's/Father's authority (the restraints of the "past"), not only in your life but from the world as well, i.e. 'liberating' children and men (the flesh) from parental and Godly restraint, i.e. 'liberating' sensuousness (that which is below) from the restraints of righteousness (from he/He who is from above, directing, restraining, and judging that which is below).

Karl Marx wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [in a world where parents/God preach and teach righteousness], Critical Criticism [questioning authority, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics] must set up a sinful world in its own home ['rationally' make sensuousness , i.e. the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment' the only way ("drive" and "purpose") of life]."  "Critical Criticism [children questioning parental authority, i.e. 'justifying' their carnal feelings, i.e. desires of the 'moment'] is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without."   (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)  Not only was Karl Marx interested in initiating and sustaining dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6) in the child/man, so was Sigmund Freud.  The American Marxist, i.e. Transformational Marxist, Norman Brown (explaining Freud's dialectic 'reasoning') wrote: "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world.  Eros ["at-one-ness" with the world in pleasure in the 'moment'] is the foundation of morality."  (Norman O Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  Dialectic 'reasoning,' in essence, 'redeems' us from the father's/Father's authority, 'reconciling' us to the world only, i.e. to the 'carnal' 'moment' of pleasure instead, negating the gospel message, i.e. the obedient Son of God 'redeeming' us from His (in Christ, our) Father's judgment upon us for our disobedience, i.e. 'redeeming' us from eternal death, 'reconciling' us to His Father instead, i.e. to partake in His Holiness and eternal life.  If you leave the Father's authority out of the gospel, i.e. leave out the Son's obedience to His Father's authority in all things, calling us to do the same, i.e. living by faith and not by sight, i.e. living by the Spirit and not by the flesh, i.e. living by every Word which proceeds from the "mouth of God" and not according to the opinions of men, then all you have is the spirit of Antichrist, i.e. the "children of disobedience," i.e. the facilitators of 'change,' 'liberating' you from the Father's authority, i.e. making sure that you join with them in the pleasures of the 'moment' of this life, spending the rest of your time with them in eternal death.

While didactic reasoning bases reality upon established facts or truth, dialectic 'reasoning' basis it upon the sensation ("sense experience") of the 'moment only,  While deductive 'reasoning' depends upon an a priori, inductive 'reasoning' requires only that information which is relevant to (relatable to), i.e. understandable in the carnal 'moment,' i.e. of the world only.  By changing the learning environment from deductive, didactic reasoning, i.e. reasoning from established facts and truth, to inductive, dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. reasoning' from the common temporal experiences of life, i.e. from "feelings," i.e. from that which all can relate with in the 'moment,' faith is negated, i.e. replaced with sight, i.e. the child/mankind is 'liberated' from parental/Godly restraint, freed to be himself again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth—restraining his carnal desires, i.e. his "self interests," i.e. that which he has that is common with all of mankind.

As long as I have the authority to test (assess) you to 'discover' (to "help" you 'discover,' i.e. aufheben) your "ought" (your dialoguing with your "self" about your current desires as well as your current dissatisfactions of the 'moment'), i.e. to find out where your "ought" is in the 'moment' (which has no father's/Father's authority in it, i.e. making you, i.e. what you "want" to do in the 'moment,' who you "want" to relate with in the 'moment,' "good" in your own eyes) I can keep you in an environment of 'change' without you ever knowing (blind to the fact) that you are being used (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) by me, i.e. the facilitator of 'change' to acquire your father's/Father's property (gaining control not only over you but over your inheritance, i.e. the father's/Fathers land and business) and use it (and you as "human resource") for myself, i.e. for my own selfish gain, in the name of "the people."  Hegel's use of  aufheben or sublimation is simply the child/man given the right to examine (picking up to examine) the father's/Father's position, in the "light" of the child's/man's own sense experience ("sensuous needs" and "sense perception") of the 'moment,' negating (displacing, overcoming, transcending) the father's/Father's authority in the process, allowing the child/man to become at one with all children/all men, i.e. the whole, i.e. that which he has in common with the world in the 'moment.'  Unless this "equality of opportunity" is provided for the child/man, he will not be able to "find his definition within the whole," i.e. within "the group," i.e. within society.  "The dialectical method [global unity based upon common "self interest"] was overthrown, ... the parts [the children] were prevented [by the father's/Father's position of authority] from finding their definition within the whole [within "the group," i.e. within society because of their honoring of the father's/Father's authority]."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)  According to Karl Marx, not until children or mankind can find their identity within "the group," i.e. within the facilitated "group," i.e. within society (uniting upon, i.e. putting into praxis or social action their common "self interest" of the 'moment' instead of submitting to the father's/Father's authority) they will remain subject to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. divided from one another, preventing world unity based upon "human nature" (the impulses and urges of the 'moment,' i.e. uninhibited spontaneity, i.e. awareness stimulated by nature, seeking "at-oneness-with" nature) and "human 'reasoning'" (consensual, i.e. universal, i.e. common 'thinking' which is in touch with the sensual, i.e. the "eternal" present, i.e. which is stimulated by and responding to the world of pleasure, of the 'moment') only, engendering "worldly peace and socialist harmony."

By starting with the child, i.e. with your "child" within, i.e. with your "self interest" of the 'moment,' i.e. with your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. with your opinion of the 'moment,' i.e. with your "ought" of the 'moment,' making it the thesis, i.e. the issue of interest, I am able to make the father's/Father's authority the antithesis, i.e. the source of irritation, i.e. the source of conflict and tension (controversy) of the 'moment,' 'liberating' you from his/His authority in your "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions," and in your relationship with others, i.e. uniting (synthesizing) you with others who are 'willing' to participant with you upon 'discovering' that which you have in common with them (and them with you), i.e. the pleasure of satisfying your (and their) carnal desires of the 'moment' and your (and their) dissatisfaction with authority which prevents or inhibits you (and them) from apprehending it, i.e. authority which forces you (and them) to set aside (suspend) the gratification of the 'moment' to "get the job done," i.e. to do his/His will, with gratification in satisfying the father/Father (what Freud called a "substitute gratification" and Marx an "Opiate") superseding your desire to gratify yourself (and/or "the group") in the 'moment' instead.  If you start with the father's/Father's authority, i.e. make him/Him the thesis, synthesis is thwarted, with division (social disharmony), i.e. antithesis remaining, i.e. with "feelings," i.e. your carnal nature remaining subject to ("repressed" by) parentally/Godly restraint, preventing 'change.'

If you start with the father/Father (preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as given, i.e. by faith), the child/mankind remains subject to the father's/Father's authority.  But if you start with the child/mankind (dialoguing their opinions, how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment' with one another, arriving at a consensus, i.e. a "feeling" of "oneness"), all are 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. freed to become united upon their common carnal nature,  i.e. their common "self interest," i.e. their common "ought," i.e. their common "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' that which they have all been talking (dialoguing) with their "self" about all along.  If you love the father/Father, his/His restraints are a source of peace to your soul.  But if you love the world, the father's/Father's restraints are a source of irritation to the flesh.  Synthesis (the dialectic process) is the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, including in his relationship with others.  It is the process of negating antithesis, the tension or conflict between the father/Father and the child/man, 'liberating' the child/man from parental/Godly restraint (from that which is of the "past" who establishes the "future" by restraining the "present'), so that he can be of the world only (living in the present, i.e. in the 'moment' only).  "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."  1 John 2:16 

You can only have one or the other, the father/Father ruling over the children/man or the children/man resisting the father's/Father's authority.  There is no synthesis, i.e. the children living as one (in "peace"), void of the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with one another (which is only an illusion of the mind, i.e. the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' being put into social action, i.e. praxis). "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."  Jeremiah 17:5  There is only thesis (the father's/Father's authority) and antithesis (the child's carnal feelings of the 'moment,' i.e. that which is of the world), which is in opposition to it.  While with man authority is subject to the flesh, temporal (subject to the temptations of the child, i.e. of the flesh—and therefore subject to serving the flesh only, i.e. serving the carnal desires of the 'moment' only, if void of Godly restraint), with God it is eternal, of the Spirit, making all men (and children) subject to His authority in the end.  Those of the flesh, of sight will spend eternity in Hell, along with the master facilitator of 'change,' while those of faith, of the Spirit, will spend it in Heaven, along with the Heavenly Father, and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, having made that decision here on the earth, determined according to their way of thinking and acting—trusting in the Lord (above, of the Spirit, eternal) or trusting in man (below, of the flesh, temporal)—"the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:17  "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."  "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."   John 5:19, 24

While an "ought" (setting aside or suspending, for the 'moment,' a prior established fact or truth, i.e. established law to see if there is another way of doing things—called "higher order thinking"—to see if your opinion or theory, i.e. your "feeling" of the 'moment' might be right, i.e. observable and universal or might be wrong, i.e. unobservable and inconsistent or not universal) is essential in true science, i.e. when dealing with material objects, when applied to morals and ethics it destroys established standards of right and wrong regarding (restraining) your carnal nature, i.e. it negates the father's/Father's authority to restrain your behavior, making you and him/Him subject to the material/carnal world only, making your and his/His thoughts and actions, and your and his/His relationship with one another and others subject to the "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to your, his/His, and others opinions and theories of the 'moment' only, i.e. making all things subject to 'change,' negating faith.

What started in the Garden in Eden, with the master facilitator of 'change' "helping" two "children" 'liberate' themselves from the Father's authority, has now become the law of the land.  A room full of "oughtiness," i.e. of children/people sharing their "ought's" (dialoguing their opinions) with one another to 'discover' a common "ought"—to come to a consensus on—so that they can put it into social action (praxis) negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. removing it, not only from the public domain but from the private domain as well, is a room full of common-ists.  Our "ought," which is "good" in our own eyes, hides (blinds) us from God, i.e. from what we "must" do, replacing knowing ('justification' in the Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ) with thinking ('justification' of the flesh), belief with opinion, faith with sight, facts and truth with theory, "Thy will be done" with "My (our) will be done," stability with 'change,' 'justifying' our opinion over and against the Word of God, thereby making us (collectively) god, i.e. righteous in and of ourselves, i.e. free to sin with impunity, i.e. thinking and acting according to "human nature," i.e. according to the pleasures (carnal "lusts") of the 'moment' only.

While researching our education system (my teacher training, the method which is now being used for Common Core or whatever new title they give it), I learned more about George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud (dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. their hate of the father's/Father's authority system, i.e. their hate of parental/Godly restraint, than all the European philosophy classes I took.  As strange as it might sound at first hearing, Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's agenda was to "help" children 'liberate' themselves from parental restraint (from the earthly father's authority system), which they deemed as necessary if man was to be 'liberated' from Godly restraint (from the Heavenly Father's authority system).  Since the introduction of the "affective domain" in the classroom (in the 60's), the 'liberation' of the children's "feelings," i.e. their desire for approval by "the group" and their resentment toward parental restraint, have turned them against their parents (contesting their authority), with Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's ideology (dialectic 'reasoning') taking their place.  As Bloom admitted, regarding the use (objective) of his curriculum being used by teachers in the classroom.  "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the children learning (in the classroom) how to apply dialectic 'reasoning' to all areas of their life] are producing between parents and children."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)

The prerequisite for 'change' is simply the act or praxis of changing the classroom environment (curriculum) from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth (to be accepted as is, i.e. believed via. didactic reasoning—reasoning deductively from an established position, fact, or truth, i.e. with the intent of instilling morality—to be applied "as given" by the teacher or parent) to the dialoguing of opinions (to 'discover' 'truth,' i.e. theory via. dialectic 'reasoning'—reasoning inductively from "self" perception, where the children "rationally" 'justify' to themselves their "feeling" of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, with the intent of negating the father's/Father's authority—and then put it into practice, i.e. into "group action," i.e. praxis) the father's/Father's authority was replaced with (negated by/in) the children's "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" ("self interest") of the 'moment,' and as well as in their "relationship" with one another,' initiating and sustaining 'change,' not only in the children, but in the "community" as well, including the "church."  The difference in "Educational Objectives" (producing children/students, i.e. future citizens who either honor parental authority, engendering individualism and nationalism, or question and challenge parental authority, engendering socialism and globalism) is the difference between the use of discussion or dialogue in the classroom environment.  According to David Bohm (known for his work regarding quantum physics) "A key difference between a dialogue [sharing opinions] and an ordinary discussion [presenting and defending positions] is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change [to come to their position]." "A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals [there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue]."   (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)  The 'shift' in procedure, from the father/the teacher/God discussing with his son/his students/man, the son's/the student's/man's behavior, in the light of the father's/teacher's/God's position—the father/teacher/God retaining his "above-below" position of authority over the son/the student's/man, to the father and his son/the teacher and his students/God and man dialoguing their opinions with one another—making them "equals" in the 'moment,' 'changes' the way (how) the son/the students/man will feel, think, and act, and relate with one another regarding the father's/teacher's/God's authority in the present and the future.  Changing the learning environment from discussion to dialogue 'changes' how the child/the student/man perceives himself, others, the world, and God.  Discussion maintains a top-down (right-wrong) authority structure in the child's/the student's/man's feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others, dialogue negates it.

While father's/traditional teachers discuss issues with their children/students, holding firmly to their position of authority, inhibit, resist, or block 'change,' facilitators of 'change,' dialoguing with their students, i.e. being "open ended" and "non-directive" (which is antithetical to the father's/traditional teacher's authority) initiate and sustain 'change.'  To be "open-ended" ("We can talk about anything without fear of being judged") and "non-directive" ("I'm not going to tell you what is right and what is wrong") might seem "fair" to the simple minded but the very act negates the father's/Father's authority, i.e. right-wrong thinking, i.e. lasting truth, with anyone who holds to the father's/Father's authority (does the father's/Father's will by faith) being judged (as being 'irrational,' i.e. not able to think for himself in 'changing' times) and condemned (as not being "a team player," i.e. not being trustworthy, as being anti-social, i.e. 'irrelevant').  In this way, educating the children in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' the flesh ("human nature") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, the facilitator of 'change' does not have to kill the father/Father, i.e. negate his/His authority, the 'liberated' children will do that for him instead, without having a "guilty conscience" while doing so.  "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes."  "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

What was considered reprobate (unthinkable or repugnant) to most Americans a hundred years ago has now become the way (how) we are to feel, think, and act, and relate with one another today.  Change how relationships are initiated and sustained (how "relationships are built") and you 'change' the world.  Instead of preaching and teaching what "is" good and what "is not" good, i.e. inculcating facts and truth so that the next generation might know right from wrong (according to the father's/Father's standards) and do what is right (righteousness—feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with others according to what the father/Father commands, i.e. where relationship is built upon "common faith," i.e. upon the father's/Father's position, i.e. the child/man desiring the father's/Father's approval, maintaining the father's/Father's authority in their lives) and not do what is wrong (unrighteousness—feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with others according to their opinions of the 'moment,' i.e. according to how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' i.e. according to their urges and impulses of the 'moment, i.e. where relationships are built upon "common desires," i.e. upon "self interest," i.e. the child/man desiring "the group's" approval, maintaining group unanimity"—the space shuttle "accident" being an example), their agenda was to get the next generation to focus upon their own (and others) "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' (sensuousness—"sense experience," i.e. "sensuous needs" and "sense perception"—Karl Marx, The Holy Family—where 'knowledge' comes from their "relationship," i.e. their experiences within the world only and not from any authority above it, restraining them from what is of nature, i.e. of themselves, i.e. of their "self interest"), i.e. to dialogue their opinions and theories (their "self interests") of the 'moment' with one another to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") to 'discover' the 'truth' of the 'moment,' and thereby 'liberate' themselves from right-wrong ("prejudiced," i.e. "judgmental," i.e. "uncompromising," i.e. "restraining") thinking, i.e. from the father's/Father's authority system (ruling over children/men instead of uniting with them for the "common good"), resulting in: What matters is not whether people are right or wrong (good or evil) but that they are contributing to the social cause of augmenting pleasure ("peace and affirmation") for everybody.  "The philosopher Hegel said that truth is not found in the thesis nor the antithesis [in "fixed" positions of right and wrong, good and evil, etc.] but in an emerging synthesis [in common 'self interest'] which reconciles the two [which builds relationships]." (Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love)  Synthesis is only antithesis (the child's "feelings") negating thesis (the father's/Father's authority).  Synthesis, i.e. "equality" negates the father's authority, turning the child's inheritance (private business and property) over to the facilitators of 'change' control.

Instead of humbling and denying our "self" under the father's/Father's authority, we now esteem and exalt ("justify") our "self" in our own eyes.  "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  Instead of the heart being wicked and deceitful it is now "good" (when it makes us "feel good") or has the potential of becoming "good" (augmenting pleasure for "self" and others) through proper education—if the child is raised in the right environment, i.e. under the right social conditions.  We have replaced "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) with a "blank tablet" theory, which makes us all "feel good." 

Dialectic 'reasoning' is simply man's effort to rescue the flesh from Godly restraint (to rescue the carnal nature of the child/man from the father's/Father's authority), 'liberating' man and child from having a "guilty conscience" for being "normal," i.e. for being carnal, i.e. for loving the things of the world only.  "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (1 John 2:16) has now been replaced with "In the process of history man gives birth to himself ['delivers' himself from the Father's authority].  He becomes what he potentially is [a child of the world only], and he attains what the serpent [the first facilitator of 'change']―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam [mandating that the "children" honor His, i.e. "the Father's" authority] did not wish: that man would become like God himself [that the children would considered themselves righteous in and of themselves alone, i.e. deciding for themselves what is good and what is evil according to their "self interest" of the 'moment']." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods: A radical interpretation of the old testament and its tradition)

"'I deserve' recognition, a pat on the back, and a reward for who 'I am' or for what I have done (or am doing) for others" ("the pride of life") blinds us to "'I deserve' eternal death for what I have done against the Father" ("lusting" after the pleasures of this life over and therefore against loving and obeying Him).  Through dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. the wisdom of men, i.e. "the pride of life," we 'justify' those things of the world that please (satisfy) our flesh and eyes (imagined or real) over and therefore against the Father's authority.   Instead of knowledge (wisdom) beginning with the "fear of God," i.e. doing right and not wrong according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, it now begins with "sense experience," i.e. "sensuous needs," and "sense perception,", i.e. living according to "nature Only" (Karl Marx, The Holy Family), i.e. according to our "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, i.e. living in the 'moment,' satisfying our carnal desires. When we live in and for the 'moment,' i.e. when our thoughts are taken captive to our carnal desires of the 'moment,' we are blinded to the eternal consequences of our thoughts and actions.  We are instead to "Cast 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) for "the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:17

According to dialectic 'reasoning' 'truth' can only be 'discovered' through reflection upon the experiences of the 'moment,' i.e. making 'truth' ever 'changing,' i.e. sensuous, i.e. subject to the 'moment.' i.e. subject to the situation at hand.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' truth can not be revealed through revelation, established forever.  Dialectic 'reasoning' has now taken over the classroom, wanting your child to participate, 'justifying' unrighteousness and abomination, i.e. the child's/mans carnal nature 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. from parental/Godly restraint.  The training manual from which all "educators" are certified and "schools" are accredited today states: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places."  (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)  It simply inculcates in the thoughts and actions of the children the ideology of Karl Marx, who wrote: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred [there are no eternal consequences for our feelings, thoughts, and actions against the Father's authority]." (Karl Marx)

Instead of graded your child upon whether they got the answer right or not (facts and truth based, i.e. faith based according to the parent's or the teacher's desires, where the parent or the teacher is dissatisfied when their child or student does not perform according to their expected standards, i.e. gives the wrong answer), the current "grading system" (sight or experienced based according to dialectic 'reasoning') is now concerned with how your child "feels" (and makes other children "feel"), i.e. their opinion of the 'moment' ("relationships" based, i.e. sight based according to the child's desires, i.e. the child is dissatisfied with being told what he can or can not do in the 'moment,' i.e. for being chastened when his feelings, thoughts, and actions are "not right" according to the parent's or teachers commands, rules, facts, and truth—determining, i.e. 'reasoning' for himself instead, in the "light" of his "feelings" and the "feelings" of others,' how to act in the 'moment,' rather than acting according to the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father).

Moving education from being faith based (where the child is subject to his parent's or the teacher's authority) to sight based (where the child is subject to "sense experience," i.e. to his "feelings" only, i.e. subject to "science") makes the children subject to the material things of the world only, i.e. subject to the facilitator's of 'change.'  "If the school does [if the facilitator of 'change' does] not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion [if they are not able to 'liberate' the child's "feelings" from parental/Godly restraint—dialogue (theory or opinion) negates preaching and teaching (belief or religion)], it loses control of the curriculum [they lose control of the classroom environment] and surrenders it to the will of the electorate [losing the children to the will of the parents, i.e. keeping the parent's in authority, instead of 'loosing' them from their authority, i.e. preventing the facilitators of 'change' from placing themselves in control over the children and their parents, "helping" the children 'liberate' themselves from the father's/Father's authority]."  (Kenneth Benne, Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education)   Socrates, noted for "critical thinking," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' was found guilty of two things, corrupting the morals of the youth and negating their faith in the authority of the father/Father, i.e. in their case, faith in the gods.  "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings [dialoguing their opinions to a consensus] can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts ['liberate' themselves, i.e. their "feelings" and "thoughts" from parental and/or Godly restraint, negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong or evil, i.e. for living in sin]." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook)

While traditional education (didactic education, i.e. "in loco parentis" education where the teacher takes on the role of the parent, reflecting the father's authority) is concerned with morals and competence, i.e. the child's ability to do the job right the first time, transformational education (dialectic education, i.e. "public education" which transcends and therefore negates parental authority) is concerned with how the child came to his "opinion or theory" of the 'moment.'  By responding to all positions (belief) as being an opinion or theory amongst opinions or theories, the father's/Father's position (authority) is equalizing with all things (negated), making all things (morals) which are "ridged" (absolute) subject to 'change' (relative, i.e. situational).  When parent's go into partnership with an education system using dialectic 'reasoning,' they turn themselves and their children over to the dialectic process, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. negating parental authority in the process, i.e. negating faith (faith in God and His Word) by turning to sight (to men's opinions) instead.  By turning education over to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. over to "so called science" (true science dealing with material things, i.e. things of the material world only), the child's carnal nature, i.e. the law of the flesh, i.e. the law of sin, i.e. his "lusts" of the flesh and eyes, and the pride of life (self-social 'justification') are made the law of the land, making "natural" (spontaneous, uninhibited, consenting) pleasure, i.e. adultery and abomination the way of life, with none daring to question or condemn it for fearing of being accused of and punished for committing a "hate" crime.  While God, through His Word, reveals his hate of sin, condemning those who live according to it, i.e. who 'justify' it through dialectic 'reasoning,' those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. who 'justify' sin, hate and condemn those who preach and teach the Word of God in the public arena, with children being considered as public property, i.e. part of the public arena.

The scriptures instruct us to "avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called [pseudoscience, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' where knowledge is subject to the carnal opinions or "feelings" and "thoughts" (theories) of the children (of the 'moment'), i.e. subject to the created world only (with 'truth' coming from the children, with the children learning to put their trust in their own "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. thereby putting their trust in the facilitator of 'change' who helps them 'liberate' their "feelings" and "thoughts" from parental/Godly restraint) rather than being subject to the established facts and truth of the parents and/or God (with truth being revealed by the creator, i.e. by the parents, teacher, and/or God, , i.e. with the children putting their trust in their parents, their teacher, and/or God)]:"  1 Timothy 6:20   You can not keep your faith in God (or trust in parental authority) and praxis dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' "human nature."  They are anathema to one another.  "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood ["human nature"] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." 1 Corinthians 15:50   A father can never know a father's love (protecting his children from the world, i.e. protecting them from corruption) while still acting like a child, i.e. "vain," self-ish, "profane."

Book 2, i.e. the Affective Domain, boldly claims that its "weltanschauung" (its world view) is that of two Marxists, i.e. Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm.  Adorno wrote in his book—The Authoritarian Personality (the book which is sighted by Book 2 as its world view): "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them."  "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."  Adorno's agenda, as Marx's agenda, was to use "social-environmental forces [the pressure of (desire for) "community" approval] to change the parent's behavior toward the child [as they, using the pressure of (desire for) "group" approval, changed the child's behavior toward the parent in the classroom]."   Fromm wrote in his book—Escape from Freedom (sited by Book 2 as well, as its world view): "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do."  In Book 2, The Affective Domain we read: "In fact, a large part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives  [to 'liberate' the child's "feelings" from parental restrain] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [who gave those children those "fixed beliefs" and who gave "educators" the right to give children the 'right' to question and challenge those "fixed beliefs?"] and getting them to discuss issues ['liberating' the children from parental authority (Godly restraint), fulfilling Marx's, Hegel's, and Freud's agenda in the process]."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  Carl Rogers, advocating the child's affective domain over and against parental authority, wrote: "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 [away from parental authority] to changingness [toward the "felt needs" of the 'moment'], from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process."  "The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is a process. The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality [is in common with the "community," i.e. the world]."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

I realize that my exposing the dialectic process is falling on mostly deaf ears (with people having hardened their hearts against the truth because of their love for the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e. using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "leaning to their own understanding" to 'justify' themselves and their pleasures, i.e. their "self interests" of the 'moment' over and therefore against "trusting in the Lord with all their heart") but to be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is to condone it, making abomination the "norm."  Carl Rogers explained the agenda (the grading system) this way: "Prior to therapy [before dialoging their opinion—how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' and coming to a consensus with others on what is "right" for the 'moment,' negating the father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with one another in the process] the person [the child] is prone to ask himself  'What would my parents [my father/Father] want me to do ?'  During the process of therapy the individual [the child] comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" [creating a nation of children (and adults) who praxis "Make me 'feel' good and I will listen to you".]  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

If you are not weighing your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with others, from the Father's authority (from His position, evaluating yourself and the world from His Word), you are on the dialectic "[path]way."  The issue is not how far down the "the way" you have gone, it is the "the way" you are on.  "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 14:12  One leads to, the other away from the Father.  You can only be on one "way" or the other.  You can not be on both.  "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14  Jesus (the obedient Son) is the "way" to the Father.  He did not come to 'redeem' us from His Father's authority but to 'reconcile' us to it.  Without the Father sending His obedient Son, i.e. the only "way" to the Father, there is no gospel message. "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

It is up to you to ascertain where and how dialectic 'reasoning' is influencing you (seducing you with your "felt needs" or "self interests") or has taken control over your life (has deceived and manipulated you, as natural resource, i.e. as "human resource," into traveling down its "way" for the "good" of the "community," for the "common good," for the "greater good," for the "good" of "mankind").  All that is good, including your next breath, comes from God the Father, all you can do is either use it to praise, thank, and serve Him or use it to praise, thank, and serve yourself and the world, "lusting" after the pleasures of the world. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1:17

Not until you become a father (a parent) yourself, looking down at your own child (that is of you), do you realize that you have produced something that is of yourself (and your wife) only.   In fact your child is the only thing that you can produce that is of you, i.e. "Mine (ours), not yours."—making the man and woman, i.e. the husband and wife one in marriage.  It changes everything, including your opinion on parents.  Words you hated hearing your parents say, you now hear coming out of your mouth to your children.  Abraham Maslow (known for his hierarchy of "felt needs," used to 'liberate' children from parental authority) encountered this same "problem" when he had children of his own.  "... my children got me into conflict with my theory."   "Who should teach whom?"  (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)  Children consume.  Parent's produce.  We have become a society of consumers, i.e. a nation of children (managed/manipulated by "big brother," i.e. facilitators of 'change').  Not understanding the father's/Father's authority, we are consuming all things as unto ourselves.  'Justifying' ourselves, i.e. our "self interest," i.e. our "lusts," we are now destroying all who resist 'change,' i.e. all who get in the way of our "lusts," i.e. our "self interests," negating the father's/Father's authority without having a "guilty conscience" while doing so.   "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

Part IV

As crazy as it may sound, education has always been about the Father's authority—with you either being subordinate to it or 'liberated' (or being 'liberated') from it.  It is either about the garden experience, where the master facilitator of 'change' "helped" two children 'liberate' themselves from the Father's (God's) authority, establishing life upon their "self interest" of the 'moment,' i.e. upon how they felt and what they thought in the 'moment,' i.e. upon their opinions, i.e. upon their "sensuous needs" and "senses perception" of the 'moment,' i.e. upon "sense experience" (Karl Marx) rather than upon the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the Father—rejecting faith in the Father's authority they engendered disobedience, estrangement from the Father, and eternal death, or about the gospel, where the only begotten Son of God (Jesus Christ) accepted the Father's authority, who (humbling and denying himself) obeyed His Father in all things, i.e. did what His Father commanded—His righteousness imputed to men of faith in Him, i.e. who repent of their sins (their lack of faith which engenders disobedience) against the Father and follow after Christ (in faith engendered obedience to His Father), who 'redeemed' man from His Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to His Father and eternal life instead.  While Christ Jesus 'redeems' man from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon him, and 'reconciles' him to His Heavenly Father, dialectic 'reasoning' 'redeems' man from His Heavenly Father and 'reconciles' him to himself, i.e. 'justifies' his "lusting" after the things of the world, negating the Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts and actions, and in his relationship with others instead.

While the earthly father, i.e. being of the flesh, i.e. subject to the pleasures of the world is not perfect, the Heavenly Father, being not of the flesh, i.e. not subject to the temptations of this world, is perfect—His only begotten Son, coming in the flesh, i.e. coming in the form of a man, was tempted in all things yet without sinning (without disobedience), fulfilled his Father's will in all things, even unto death. While the earthly father is not perfect, his office of authority, given to him by God, is perfect.  Our nation was founded upon having no earthly father's authority over the nation, the states, the counties, townships, or cities but leaving it in place in the home, in the father's authority over the family—the engenderer of the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. the underpinning of "civil government."  It is this "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" pattern (the engenderer of the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong), of both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father that dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to negate.  The dialectic idea being: if you can negate the earthly father's authority (which is affected by the flesh) in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and in the relationships children have with one another, you can negate the Heavenly Father's authority (of the spirit) in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and in the relationships men have with one another.

To negate the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong/for sinning, the father's/Father's authority, the engender of the "guilty conscience" must be negated, i.e. must be replaced with "the group," the engenderer of the "super-ego," which is subject to the "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. which necessitates 'change.'  Without 'crisis in some form, i.e. real or imagined, natural or created, being used by facilitators of 'change' to advance their agenda of controlling the "masses," the engender of stability, i.e. the father's/Father's authority reappears, as the people, realizing that 'change,' i.e. the pleasure of being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority is only temporary, i.e. is eventually hollow, i.e. without lasting promise or hope (realize that they are being seduced, deceived, and manipulated , i.e. neutralized, marginalized, and converted or silenced for the facilitators of 'change' pleasure), return to "the old ways" again, preventing the facilitators of 'change' from having control over their lives.

While men have used the father's authority to rule over men, nations, and the "church," the gospel (not being subject to the nations and religions of the world) does not—something those who propagate dialectic 'reasoning' (including within the "church") have overlooked for their own carnal gain.  No minister is to come between the believer and the Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, only to come along side them, encouraging them in their walk with the Lord, i.e. preaching and teaching the Word of God (uncompromised) to encourage them to keep looking to "the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ" for fellowship and direction, chastening, i.e. reproving, correcting, or rebuking (out of a humble and pure heart before the Lord) those who go astray from "the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ" and casting out those who, turning to the world for fellowship, i.e. 'justifying' the wisdom of men (dialectic 'reasoning'), become apostate (casting out, not killing those who reject the "way," leaving that up to God, i.e. not doing as those of dialectic 'reasoning' do, killing those, i.e. the unborn, the elderly, etc. who get in their "way" of pleasure, making themselves god).  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven."  Matthew 23:9  "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1  "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

Without the father's/Father's authority and the child's/man's propensity to "lust" after the pleasures of the world/sin (the antithesis between spirit and flesh) dialectic 'reasoning' (the child/man "rationally" 'justifying' himself over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) would not exist.  Uniting children, man, and all that is of the world as one, i.e. as "equals," i.e. as god ('righteous' in and of themselves) makes all things subject to the carnal desires of the flesh.  If you can negate the one ("religious" differences) you can negate the other (alienation between men, i.e. "civil society," nationalism, individualism, private property, private business, etc.).  Karl Marx explained the dialectic agenda this way: "The immediate task is to unmask human alienation [man ruling over man as a father rules over his children, restraining, i.e. "repressing" "human nature," getting in the way of the pleasures of the 'moment'—according to Freud, uninhibited, spontaneous, consensual sexual pleasure being the greatest pleasure of all, i.e. with and between men, women, children, animals, etc.] in its secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form [God ruling over man, judging man's love of "human nature," i.e. his unrighteousness and abominations as being wicked]." (T. B. Bottomore and M. Rubel, eds, Karl Marx: Selected writing in Sociology and Social Philosophy)

Thus, if you can 'liberate' the child from having faith in his parent's authority, i.e. faith in his father's authority (by putting his trust in himself and "the group" instead) you can 'liberate' man from having faith in God's authority, i.e. faith in the Heavenly Father's and His Son's authority (by putting his trust in the facilitator of 'change' and "the group," i.e. "the community," i.e. society instead). "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  "Every one that is proud in heart [is sufficient (righteous) in and of himself] 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

By placing the child in a classroom environment which engenders "cognitive dissonance," where the child is caught between his belief (his father's/Father's position) and his desires (his "self interests") of the 'moment,' the pressure of the group (his desire for the approval of the group so that he can fulfill his "self interest")—"hand joining in hand" or group consensus—will force him to 'change' (abandon) his belief. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [faith in the father's/Father's position] in the face of apparent group unanimity; ..." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  "There is evidence in our data that once a change in behavior [once the child sets aside (for the 'moment') his father's/Father's position for the sake of group approval] has occurred, a change in beliefs is likely to follow." "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

The dialectic process is known for its three stages or conditions, i.e. thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.   According to dialectic 'reasoning' the Father's position is regarded as an opinion amongst opinions and His facts and truth are regarded as a theory (making all things relative, i.e. situational, i.e. subject to the 'moment') but to expose the deception of the process I will treat thesis as a position or an established fact or truth, the three conditions therefore being paradigms, or ways of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with others rather than a cyclical process of 'change' (until no antithesis, i.e. no Father's authority remains), the three conditions being: position, conflict, and compromise, or facts and truth, feelings, and 'justification' (where 'justification' is found in the need to compromise rather than in the Father's unchanging position), or Patriarch, Matriarch, and Heresiarch (the father's/Father's position, the mother's heart, i.e. relationship, and the child's nature, i.e. 'change'; tradition, transition, and transformation; facts, feelings, and 'justification' of feelings over and therefore against facts, i.e. treating feelings or opinions or theories as fact and putting them into action; etc.).  The conflict or tension (antithesis) between the father's authority or position (thesis) and the child's (man's) feelings, i.e. his desires ("lusts," "pleasures," "enjoyments") of the 'moment' has been the catalyst for dialectic 'reasoning' (for synthesis, i.e. the child 'justifying' his "feelings" and 'thoughts" over and therefore against his father's authority, i.e. for 'change,' i.e. for the philosophy of "Critical Theory"—critical thoughts against parental authority, i.e. "questioning authority," which is indicative of the desire for 'change') down through the ages, with either the father's authority and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience (the "old" world order, i.e. Hebrews 12:5-11 and Romans 7:14-25) prevailing or the child's "self interests" of the 'moment' (the "new" world order, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6—the first praxis of dialectic 'reasoning') taking its place (either by forcing 'change,' i.e. killing the father, along with those who honour and submit to his authority, i.e. who resist 'change,' or by the father, along those who honour and submit to his authority, abdicating his position of authority, i.e. being silent in the midst of unrighteousness which is indicative of the desire for 'change,' or by circumventing his authority instead, i.e. trivializing the father's authority, treating it, in the "light" of changing 'times,' i.e. according to the "felt needs" of the 'moment' as being 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant,' thus establishing, for the sake of "self interest," the necessity/urgency for 'change'). "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)

Building community ("building relationships") depends upon synthesis, i.e. upon compromise, i.e. upon 'self justification,' i.e. 'liberating' one's self from the father's authority.  Compromise is necessary if one wants to initiate and sustain community.  Yet the father's authority is negated in the praxis of compromise.  Philosophy (Genesis 3:1-6) is simply the child, dissatisfied with the way thing are, i.e. the way the world is (antithesis), i.e. subject to the father's authority (thesis), thinking about (reflecting upon) how the world "ought" to be, i.e. in harmony with his "feelings" of the 'moment' (synthesis), i.e. 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' his urges and impulses of the 'moment.'  Putting philosophy into social action (praxis) establishes the child's feelings and thoughts, i.e. his opinion over and therefore against the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, negating the father's authority in the process, negating God as the source of life.  Rejecting God the Father, i.e. the giver of life, all that the child or man can do is worship the creation, i.e. the fountain of pleasure.   Since there is no eternity or absolute in an opinion, only that which is temporary and 'changeable,' i.e. that which is being experienced in the pleasure and/or the pain of the 'moment,' in dialectic 'reasoning' it is not the creator or even the creation that is the source of '"life" but man's opinion of it, which is ever subject to ('changing' according to) the conditions of the 'moment.'  As Karl Marx explained it: "The philosophers [the children] have only interpreted the world in different ways [how they believe the world "ought" to be], the objective however, is change [is to initiate and sustain the 'change' process itself, keeping 'change' (the dialectic process and the facilitators of 'change') in place forever, through praxis (community action, i.e. sight) preventing parental restraint (the father's/Father's authority, i.e. faith) from reappearing]."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach #11)

By starting with the child (that he is "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" through proper upbringing and education, i.e. the "blank table" theory), i.e. by making the child's nature, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. his opinion, i.e. his "self interest" of the 'moment,' his "lust" for pleasure the thesis, the father's authority or position (that the child by nature is wicked or evil, if left to his own desires and deeds, therefore needing direction and correction), restraining the child's nature, becomes the antithesis, i.e. the source of tension, controversy, or conflict.  While dialectic 'reasoning' (self consciousness) is conceived within the conflict or tension (the antithesis) between the father's authority and the child's desires of the 'moment,' i.e. the child only being able to dialogue within himself his pique toward the father's authority, it can only be given birth when the child 'discovers' common identity with other children of like "self interest," 'justifying' himself (along with them) over and therefore against the father's authority.  With the children now being able to "rationally" unite with one another (through the dialoguing of their opinions to a synthesis or consensus) upon what they have in common with one another, i.e. their carnal nature (their "self interest" of the 'moment') and their resentment toward parental authority which restrains it, and putting their newly 'discovered' 'liberty' into action, i.e. into social action (praxis) 'liberating' other children from the father's authority, the father's authority is negated in their feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. a "new" world order is 'created' within the children themselves—now "equal" in thought and in action (in theory and in practice), not only within themselves but also amongst themselves.  The problem, according to dialectic 'reasoning' is that once the children, 'liberated' from the father's authority, become parent's themselves (have children of their own) they revert back to the father's authority, restoring the father's authority again, ruling over their children as their fathers ruled over them.  How to break this return to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. how to negate the "guilty conscience" for disobedience/sinning against (for not having faith in) the father/Father—which "creates" the father's/Father's authority within the child—is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' (there is no "guilty conscience" in dialogue, only 'justification').  As Karl Marx explained it: "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, by honoring his authority, i.e. having faith in him/Him and obeying his commands and rules and accepting his facts and truth as give] sets itself [the father's/Father's authority] against him [against his carnal nature] as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Negating the father's authority within the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and the relationship children have with one another and the world, i.e. 'changing' the way the children think (how they decide what is right and what is wrong for the 'moment,' i.e. from knowing by faith, i.e. because the father, the teacher, etc. said so, to knowing by sight, i.e. "sense experience") is therefore the goal of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'liberating' not only the children from the father's authority but the world from the Father's authority in the process.  For centuries, colleges and Universities (as well as all learning institutions) held their students accountable to learning the commands, rules, facts, and truths of the "past," i.e. recognizing and honoring the office of the father/the Father (the parent, the teacher, the employer, the landowner, the legislator, the minister, etc. correlated with recognizing and honoring God's authority, i.e. His Word) and obeying his/His commands and rules and accepting his/His facts and truth as given (by faith).  They have now become institutions of 'change,' i.e. of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of questioning the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father and challenging his/His authority.  No longer holding to the traditions of the past, i.e. recognizing and honoring the father's authority, educational institutions are now 'purposed' in 'liberating' the next generation from the father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order of 'change' in the process, 'liberating' man and child from Godly restraint.  As you will see, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the father's authority and Godly restraint are the same in pattern or structure (engendering individualism, parochialism, nationalism, i.e. correlated to fascism, and religion, under God, i.e. that which "represses" man and "alienates" man from man, i.e. separates man from his carnal nature, turning him against that which he has in common with all men—unrighteousness and abomination).

Dialectic 'reasoning' (synthesis) is children (including those in adult bodies), with the "help" (the expertise and cunning) of facilitator's of 'change,' "rationally" 'justifying' their feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationships with one another and the world over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.  By 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. from parental restraint, they 'liberate themselves from the Father's authority, i.e. from Godly restraint.  The synthesis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. children dialoguing their opinions with one another, 'discovering' what they have in common with one another, and building relationship (consensus, i.e. a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. "community") upon it, negates the thesis-antithesis , i.e. the father-child conflict of the father's authority ruling over the child, restraining the child, dividing the child's thoughts (thinking about and desiring to fulfill his own "self interests") from his actions (obeying the father, doing the father's will instead, i.e. capitulating to the father's authority—engendering private property and private business, i.e. "Mine. Not yours," "Do what I say or else," i.e. capitalism, i.e. "neurosis"—where the child obeys yet having doubts {faith engendered obedience has no doubts}).  Instead of killing the father, i.e. the capitalist (the private property and private business owner), as Traditional Marxist (Communists) do, the "new" world order draws him into participation within the process of 'change' itself, making him subject to socialism (to socialists).  By getting him to focus upon "community," i.e. upon public causes (through tax breaks, voluntarism, community pressure, i.e. shaming, etc.), as Transformational Marxist (social-psychologists, facilitators of 'change') do, and by his 'willing' participation in public-private partnerships, i.e. working for the "good" of the "community," i.e. for the "common" or "greater good," he will negate (abdicate) the private in property and business, i.e. making "the peoples 'felt needs,'" i.e. "the groups 'felt needs'" (or "self interests"), i.e. the children's "felt" needs (their "self interests") his own "felt" needs (his "self interests") in the process, and visa versa.

In this way of 'reasoning' (evaluating life from the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. from his "self interests" of the 'moment,' instead of from the father's commands, rules, facts, and truths of the "past"), and putting them into "group," "community," social action (into praxis), i.e. working with other's of like "self interest," the child (man) is able to negate the father's (the Father's, i.e. God's) authority within his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. he is able to reunite his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with the world again, i.e. become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening, "whole," i.e. "normal" again, i.e. finding his identity within himself and society, no longer finding it in an authority figure external to his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' blocking or restraining him from actualizing himself, becoming at-one-with the world, according to "human nature."  Karl Marx put it this way: "It is not individualism [the child being personally held accountable for his actions (before the father) as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions (before God)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [man's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. man's "self interests" of the 'moment' (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)

In dialectic 'reasoning' identity is found within the commonality of "the group," i.e. within society, not in the singularity (uniqueness) of the father/Father and his/His authority. "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence."  (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education)  "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."  (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)  "A tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

By "helping" children compare themselves with themselves they are able to become "reconciled" to themselves, i.e. reunited with their flesh and the world, i.e. they are able to become as they were before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening (or condemnation) for disobedience or doing things wrong.  'Esteeming' themselves, i.e. their carnal thoughts and actions of the 'moment' they are able to "redeem" themselves from the Father's authority.  Working together as "equals," i.e. united as "one" they are not only able to negate the father's authority within themselves (individually), they are also able to negate the father's authority within "the group," within the "community," within the nation, and within the world, 'creating' a "new" world order of and for themselves (of and for "human nature") Only.  'Liberated' from the Father's authority all they have left is a world of abomination—calling evil (the child's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature") "good" (or potentially becoming "good" through dialectic 'reasoning') and good (the Father's authority) evil.  The obedient Son of God defined us in our use of dialectic 'reasoning.'

After earning a teaching degree based upon the use of "Bloom's/Marzano's/ Webb's Taxonomies," i.e. the dialectic process in the classroom (the basis of Common Core), using the affective domain, i.e. the student's "feelings" or "self interest" (where the student's "thoughts" are taken captive to his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. where his "thoughts" or cognition domain is taken captive to his desire for the things parental authority inhibits or blocks as well as his desire for approval by "the group" and his fear of not being able to attain his "heart's desires" as well as his fear of disapproval by "the group," both going hand in hand), by my encouraging the use of "appropriate information," i.e. dialoguing opinions, i.e. uniting the students upon their common desires, i.e. being "positive," while discouraging the use of "inappropriate information," i.e. preaching and teaching what is right and what is wrong behavior, i.e. being "negative," to guarantee my desired outcome in the classroom, to "facilitate" the 'changing' of his values, "helping" him (along with the rest of the class) 'liberate' his (their) "feelings," values," or "self interests" from parental restraint, i.e. from "prejudice," through the use of "group dynamics," i.e. the desire for approval by "the group," and "cognitive dissonance," i.e. the fear of rejection by either the father or "the group," having to choose between the two, i.e. choosing one over and therefore against the other, establishing his "feelings," "thoughts," "actions," and "relationship" with "the group" over and therefore against parental authority, neutralizing him (by getting all the children to freely share their opinions of the 'moment,' with no fear of "reprisal," his belief, i.e. his parent's position is perceived as just being an opinion amongst opinions), marginalizing him (because most children, including his "friends," having now been 'liberated' from parental restraint, distance themselves from him, because he continues to hold onto parental authority, i.e. continues to insist that his, i.e. his parent's position is right) and either converting him (getting him to side with "the group" over and therefore against parental authority) or removing him (if he continues to resist 'change'—if he refused to be a "team player," i.e. if he persisted in bringing "inappropriate information," i.e. parental/Godly authority or restraint, i.e. his parent's "prejudiced" position, which he has accepted as his own, into the "group discussion," i.e. if he "judges" other students thoughts and actions according to his parent's standards, regenerating a "guilty conscience" within "the group"), thereby, by following the above procedure, making him, along with all the other students, subject to the 'changing' situations of the 'moment,' thus making him seducible (by getting him to focus upon his and other's "feelings" instead of upon his parents or God's position), deceivable (believing that he will not be held accountable for his disobedience), and thereby, like natural resource, manipulatable (used for material, i.e. carnal, i.e. worldly "purposes," i.e. pleasures) by facilitators of 'change'—which I had to repent of; then attending seminary (which was based upon the same process, i.e. basing 'truth' upon men's opinions of the Word of God rather than the Word of God itself being truth); then taking years of classes on European history (while raising my family and running my construction company); then spending five years reading over six hundred social-psychology books (with the Holy Spirit bringing to my remembrance, in the midst of my research, God's Word, exposing the process for what it is, i.e. the negation of God's authority from the hearts and souls of men by negating the father's authority in the hearts of the children); then teaching in a University, and now, having spent the past eighteen years traveling across America speaking on (exposing) our education system and its agenda of 'liberating' children from parental (the father's) restraint, thereby 'liberating' man from Godly (the Father's) restraint (finding it more difficult to get speaking engagements, i.e. being censored by the "churches" and "Christian Universities" and turned away by conservative group, because of my preaching the gospel, i.e. speaking on righteousness), it all boils down to this:

The purpose of life is either (according to God) honoring the father's authority, restraining the child's nature (above all honoring the Father's, i.e. God's authority, restraining man's nature, i.e. "human nature") or (according to facilitators of 'change,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') honoring the child's nature, negating the father's authority (honoring man's nature, i.e. "human nature," negating the Father's, i.e. God's authority).  According to Hegel, Marx, and Freud man must honor his own nature ("human nature") if he is to negate the Father's authority (Godly restraint) in his life.  Thus, instead of (according to God the Father) "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) with man having "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26), (according to Rousseau) "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality).  If you do not evaluate your feelings, thoughts and actions, and your relationship with others in the light of the father's/Father's authority, then you are dialectic in your 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' your self over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.  The dialectic agenda is: don't fight against the father's/Father's authority directly (and lose), 'justify' the child's carnal nature instead, and the father's/Father's authority will become irrational and therefore irrelevant to the child in the process.

Dialectic 'reasoning' negates private family, property, and business, under the father, along with inalienable rights, under God, i.e. the "old" world order (where the father has authority over his children, as God, i.e. the Father has authority over man, engendering individualism, under the father and/or under God/the Father), replacing it with public-private partnership and "humanist" rights, i.e. the "new" world order (where the children are 'liberated' from the father's authority, thereby 'liberating' man from the Father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' "human nature," i.e. man's "self interest" from Godly restraint, engendering common-ism, i.e. socialism-globalism-environmentalism, with the student becoming accountable to "the group" and the citizen becoming accountable to the "community" Only, "tolerating" deviancy (abomination) along the way.  While the father's/Father's authority reprimands 'compromise,' "community" necessitates it.  What you "tolerate" (when you are silent when confronted with what you know is wrong, for the sake of initiating or sustaining "self interest") becomes the "norm"—when you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e. not reproving, correcting, or rebuking it, unrighteousness becomes the "norm."  The right of religious freedom is the right to preach and teach righteousness in the public domain, i.e. from the classroom to the highest offices of the land.  "Tolerance" negates that right, negating freedom of speech in the process.  God does not tolerate unrighteousness as a father does not tolerate disobedience, condemning (chastening) it instead.  God the Father is patient in the hope that man will receive the truth being preached and taught and, through fear of judgment and eternal death, repent and be saved to spend eternity with Him instead, as the father is patient in the hope that the child will receive the truth that is being preached and taught and, through chastening be restored to his authority, receiving his blessing again.

Those of dialectic 'reasoning' correlate the earthly father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" system, i.e. the father's way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating (or paradigm) over the child (directing the child's thoughts and actions), with the Heavenly Father's/God's "above-below," "top-down" "right-wrong" system, i.e. God's way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating (or paradigm) over man (directing man's thoughts and actions—"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), with both fathers being the same in structure or system, called a Patriarchal Paradigm.  The dialectic idea is: if you can negate the father's Patriarchal Paradigm in the child's feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. if you can negate the child feeling "guilty" for disobedience against his father—making other children feel "guilty" for disobedience against their father, you can negate the Father's (God's) Patriarchal Paradigm in man's feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. you can negate man feeling of "guilty" for sinning against God (the Father)—making others feel "guilty" for sinning against God (the Father).  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' since both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father are the same in system, if you can 'liberate' the child from parental restraint you can 'liberate' man from Godly restraint, thereby fulfilling the Gnostic 'quest' of "oneness,"  i.e. that, through dialectic 'reasoning,' that which is above and that which is below can become "one" again—the parts (the children, the "divine sparks"), once divide, now, through their use of dialectic 'reasoning' ('liberating' themselves from Demiurge, i.e. the Father God) can become united as one again with themselves, i.e. can become God (righteous) in and of themselves Only.

The father's/Father's system (the Patriarchal Paradigm) is true for traditional teachers, bosses, constituents, ranking officers, etc. i.e. anyone who you are subordinate or subservient to (with God/the Father being over/above them all, i.e. with you, by faith, obeying those in authority over you, yet putting no man between you and the Father (or even making themselves "equal" with the Father which puts them over and therefore against the Father, i.e. establishing their commands, rules, facts, and truth over and therefore against those of the Father's—other than the only begotten Son of God who, being equal with the Father, was obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded).  Anyone who claims to be "equal" with the Father, other than the only begotten Son of God, has set himself, i.e. his "self interest" over and therefore against the Father.  For one to prevail over the other, the one, i.e. either the child or the father (or either man or God/the Father) must be exalted and the other must be brought into submission or negated.   To make them "equal" is to exalt the child over and therefore against parental authority, i.e. is to exalt man over and therefore against God, making man God himself (or God man himself) which is what dialectic 'reasoning' does (which is a Gnostic construct as explained above). It is not that the earthly father's authority system can save anyone (his is still subject to the flesh, i.e. subject to pleasure and death).  It is that it is the same authority system (or paradigm or way of thinking) God demands of us (that we might participate in His Holiness and inherit eternal life—which is only made possible through His only begotten Son's obedience to Him, i.e. Jesus Christ, who, in His death upon the cross, 'redeems' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us, for our disobedience, i.e. for our inability to satisfy the system, and in His resurrection 'reconciles' us to His Heavenly Father, sending the Holy Spirit that we might obey His Will—obedience now a result of His work within us, changing our heart, directing our thoughts and actions as we in faith humble/deny ourselves before Him, dying to our self, i.e. putting to death our "self interest" daily that we might do His will instead, asking Him to forgive us when or if we fail).  If you understand this you understand Hegel, Marx, and Freud, i.e. you understand their way of thinking, i.e. their praxis of the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change.'

Your education experience (from pre-school to college, the university, or the trade school and beyond), your workplace experience, your "community" experience, your "church" experience, your family experience, etc. is based upon this objective (this 'purpose'): either you evaluating your (and others) "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" (your and their "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, "What would my father/Father think of me or say to me?"), thereby honoring the father's/Father's authority, or you evaluating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts and truth according to your (and others) "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" (according to your and their "self interests" of the 'moment,' with your desiring of the approval of others of like "self interests" predominating, "What would the group think of me or say to me?"), negating the father's authority in your "feelings," "thoughts," and actions."  Either the "old" world order predominates (with your father's/Father's authority inhibiting, blocking, or guiding 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, being guided, i.e. manipulated by facilitators of 'change' instead—with your father's money, property, and blessings in their hands, no longer in yours, to receive and rule over—through your father's authority you inherit his money, property, etc. but your "self interest" puts your inheritance (now spent on, invested into, taxed, donated, etc.) into the hands, i.e. the "self interest" of the facilitator's of change).  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,' who you let control the environment, i.e. "helps" you determine the "appropriate information" to be discussed, 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, i.e. for the "good" of the earth, i.e. for the "good" of the world, with them in control, using you and your inheritance for their gain.

Few will ever come to understand the affect the dialectic process has had upon their lives, because being "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God"  (2 Timothy 3:5) they are blinded 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' (which can only be momentarily satisfied at satiation, therefore are ever 'changing' in response to 'changing' situations, i.e. therefore can never be truly satisfied, i.e. always desiring more, or be restrained by an external authority, like a drug interventionist, getting you off their control over your life, or be stopped by death), i.e. "human nature," i.e. your "self interest" of the 'moment,' you have to hate the Father and His authority which restrains it (which seems like death), 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 (God/the Father's) commands, rules, facts, and truth for the sake of "building relationships" with others upon "self interest," i.e. dialoguing opinions to a consensus until all that is not of the child's (of man's) carnal nature, restraining it, is negated] will go on until we reach the absolute whole [global unity, where all children (all men) are united as one upon that which they all have in common (which is the basis of common-ism), i.e. their "human nature," i.e. their "self interest" Only, i.e. the child's (man's) "lust" for pleasure and his hate of restraint (pain), i.e. engendering a world 'liberated' from the father's (from God/the Father's) authority, i.e. a world of unrighteousness and abomination with man and child 'liberated' from Godly restraint, i.e. with the children (men) 'liberated' to be of themselves again, as they were before the father's (God's/the Father's) first command, rule, fact or truth and threat of chastening for disobedience, i.e. thinking and acting according to the world and their "self interest" Only], that which includes everything within itself [that which is of "human nature" Only, i.e. of the child's (of man's) carnal "feelings" and "thoughts" ("self interest") of the 'moment Only], and so cannot possibly depend upon anything outside itself [where the children (man) can no longer depend upon the father (God/the Father) to direct their steps (paths) again since the 'purpose' of life is now sensuousness (the augmentation of pleasure) instead of righteousness (doing the Father's will]."  (Frederick Beiser, Hegel)  "We are proud that in his conduct of life man [the child] has become free from external authorities ['liberated' from 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 father/Father]."  (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 the Heavenly Father's authority, coming to accept Him as His Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, His obedient Son, Hebrews 12:5-11.  Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood that by negating the earthly father's "top-down," "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system in the thoughts and actions of the child, the Heavenly Father's "top-down," "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system is negated in man's thoughts and actions, 'creating' a "new" world order which is based entirely upon the carnal nature of the child/man, i.e. 'creating' a world based upon the law of the flesh, i.e. "human nature" Only, negating the law of God, i.e. negating God's judgment upon sin (disobedience against the Father's authority) and the "guilty conscience" which ensues, thereby negating mans' need of a savior, Romans 7:14-25.  The dialectic error is in the opinion 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 instead; the dialectic process, doing the opposite, i.e. by 'reconciling' the child/man to the flesh it 'redeems' him from the father's/Father's authority instead.  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 (pg. 32).  While Hegel identified the father's/Father's authority as being "the social problem," and Marx set out to purge society of the father's/Father's authority by force, Freud realized that the father's/Father's authority had to be removed from the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well 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, i.e. initiating and sustaining the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 as the means to creating "worldly peace and socialist harmony."  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  "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."  1 John 2: 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

Jesus did not come to negate the Father's authority but to instill it in the hearts and souls of men instead.  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  Our inheritance is not in the father's money or property, i.e. in the things of this world (prosperity), as the prodigal son thought, but in our Father's love, i.e. in the things above (liberty from the power of the flesh and death), as the prodigal son came to understand (after humbling himself, returning home, and submitting himself to the father's authority).  We are to set our affection upon our Father's will, as the Son desires, instead of our "self interests" of the 'moment,' as those of the world desire.  "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."  Colossians 3:2   "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1  Leaving out the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father leaves out the Father's love and grace toward us, i.e. leaves out righteousness imputed by the Father to men of faith in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who was obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, that those of faith might partake in His holiness, glory, and eternal life instead of spending eternity in suffering and eternal death.  "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:17-18

The Father's authority is made manifest in the Son's obedience, who we are to follow (denying our "self interest," facing the hate, rejection, and removal by others for exposing their "self interest" as being of the world only, i.e. evil, and following Jesus), "taking captive every thought" to His obedience to the Father's will, as well.  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 (for their disobedience of the Father's will).  "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," i.e. unity, 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 very clear that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of the child's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature" over and against the Father's authority is evil.  Even those of dialectic 'reasoning' know this (and its outcome): "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 ("conceived" by) the child's obedience to the father's authority, 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 by 'liberating' the child's carnal nature (thereby negating the father's authority within the child, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience" for disobedience), 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 for all times and in all places by the Father, i.e. by the Word of God) with the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus (sensuousness, i.e. where man's feelings and thoughts, i.e. his opinions are taken captive to 'changing' situations, i.e. to the carnal 'moment' Only).

While the father can be "humiliated" before the child, producing a "castrating moment" for the child (the child having to accept "the group's" pressuring of him to admit to himself, and to the group, his father's imperfection—confessing the "sins" of his father, i.e. his "sin" of 'loyalty' to his father, to "the group" to gain "group approval"), not unless the child is 'liberated' to focus upon his own carnal pleasures (desires, including "group approval") in the act, i.e. in the 'moment,' can he choose in the direction of "the group" over and against the father's/Father's authority.  (Slavoj Žižek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism)  The father's authority, according to dialectic 'reasoning' is based upon the child's love of the father's possessions (wealth, i.e. servants, land, and money, i.e. stored up pleasure), having to have the father's approval to gain access to them.   Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning, the father's nature (his love of pleasure and hate of pain) being common with his children negates his authority. "The good father is the dead father" is the dialectic explanation of the father of restraint being exonerated after his death, i.e. being remembered for this love, i.e. his protecting, feeding, and providing for his family, maintaining the honoring of the father's authority in the next generation.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the only solution to the father's authority, i.e. negating it, is having the father protect, feed, love, and provide for the family without deciding for them what is right and what is wrong behavior, i.e. chastening them for doing wrong, i.e.  initiating and sustaining a father's authority in their lives.

The facilitators of 'change' are more interested in the father's wealth (surplus capital) than in the children they are 'liberating' from the father's authority (only training them up as 'labor' which will work for the "common good," i.e. no longer willing to work under the traditional conditions of morality and competence).  Gaining access to the father's property, in the name of the children ("helping" the children 'liberate' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' them from their inheritance), is in reality gaining access to the father's property (surplus capital), using it and the children for their own gain. Once accomplished, i.e. the children, abdicating the father's authority (their defense) and their inheritance for "group approval," become vulnerable to "group opinion," i.e. victims of 'change,' i.e. expendable to the "common good."  Therefore when the father rejects the authority of the Heavenly Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, he looses his authority (over his family, property, and business) to the carnal desires of man, i.e. to his carnal nature which he has in common with all men (why God was upset with Israel for wanting a King, becoming like the nations around them), 'justifying' to his children their carnal nature, i.e. making the children subject to the opinions of men, i.e. servants to the facilitators of 'change' (unless they submit their "self," i.e. their will to the Heavenly Father and His Son).  It is not that the father's authority does not exist in the secular world (it is the fifth commandment, i.e. the first with a promise which deals with how children are to honor their fathers and mothers, i.e. obey their parents, in the Lord).  It is that it becomes victim to the world, i.e. to human nature only as it turns to government (outside the home) for support, when only 'limited' government (private rights, under God, i.e. inalienable rights) can serve it best, allowing the father to ground his children in belief instead of becoming subject to the ever 'changing' opinions of men.

In this way of thinking, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' belief is turned into (treated as) an opinion and facts and truth are turned into (treated as) a theory, i.e. faith is replaced with sight, making all 'willing' participants adaptable to 'change,' i.e. becoming at-one-with the world instead of confronting it (reproving, correcting, rebuking those who 'justify' themselves by it) according to the Word of God.  In the praxis of unifying theory and practice ('justifying' and therefore unity the child's carnal thoughts, i.e. "self interests" and carnal actions, i.e. common "relationship" with others), 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,) man is no longer concerned about where he will spend eternity.  Rejecting the Father's authority and His obedient Son as the issue of life, he condones the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e. making his carnal "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' the issue of life instead.  By 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 ["community action"] 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 ("team spirit," "community spirit"), working together as "one," negating the Spirit of God—above man, directing man, restraining man—in the thoughts and actions of man.

Praxis is not just the unifying of man as "one," it is the negating of God, i.e. the authority of the Father in the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of man as he becomes "one" in consensus, i.e. in "feeling," 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, i.e. reproving, correcting, and rebuking unrighteousness, with the dialoguing of opinions, how we are "feeling" and what we are "thinking" (talking to our "selves" about, i.e. 'justifying' our selves) in the 'moment,' to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" (consenting to the collective carnal "feeling" of the 'moment') the praxis of 'change' is initiated and sustained.  We, as philosophers, i.e. dissatisfied with the way thinks are, reflecting upon how they "ought" to be, still establish things in a way that we can rule over them, i.e. while using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'liberate' ourselves from parental restraint, once having children, we use parental restraint over them, negating the process that set us free.  The agenda of praxis is to assure that the process of 'change' prevents parental authority from taking place, i.e. from reappearing again.

If the father's authority is 1) to give commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as given (by faith), 2) to bless or reward those children who obey or do things right, 3) to chasten those children who disobey or do things wrong, to encourage them to do right, and 4) to cast out those children who question his commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenge his authority, i.e. to prevent further rebellion-revolution in the home, 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, and 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, and cast out then the child, out of fear of lose of pleasure (which includes the desire for approval) and fear of pain (which includes the fear of disapproval and lose of access to the father's money, i.e. blessings), 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' is given birth in the child's "Why?" voiced in response to the fathers demand which inhibits or blocks the child's carnal desire of the 'moment.'  The "Why?" not only contains the child's carnal desire, i.e. his "self interest" of the 'moment,' it also contains his hate toward authority which is restraining it.  It is in the "Why?" that dialectic 'reasoning' becomes a reality in the child's life (with the child perceiving the father's commands and rules, which restrain his "self interest" of the 'moment,' as being 'irrational,' i.e. unreasonable in his eyes).  Because the father refuses to participate in dialogue (compromising his position of authority), i.e. responding to the child's "Why?" with "Because I said so." the child's only recourse (other than attempting to physically overcome the father) is found within himself, i.e. talking to his "self," 'justifying' to his "self" that he is (his "feelings" or "self interest" of the 'moment' are) right and the father (the father's authority) is wrong.  Reflection upon and imagination regarding how the world "ought" to be, i.e. according to the child's "self interest" (blocked by the father's authority) now resides within the child, hidden from public sight.  Dialectic 'reasoning' is the "ought" (the child dialoguing within himself regarding his "self interest") being 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. given public expression through dialogue with others.  The "Why?" of "feelings" (the child's "self interest" given the 'light' of day through dialoguing with others of like "self interest") now overrules the father's "Not" and "Because I said so," 'liberating' the child from the father's authority (at least in thought—it will take social action, i.e. praxis, with the child, in his next encounter with the father, responding to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, when they stand in the way of his "self interest" of the 'moment,' as being 'irrelevant,' negating the father's authority not only in his thoughts but in his actions as well).

The American family has encountered this patterned of behavior (disrespect toward authority), especially from the 50's on, because of the teachers use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" within the classroom, introducing the students to dialectic process, i.e. 'liberating' their affective domain from parental authority, i.e. giving the child's "self interest," i.e. the child's "feelings" center stage (over and therefore against the father's authority),  in the thoughts and actions of the children, now united as one upon "self interest," negating the father's authority in the home.  Dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies' (to the child) 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 men (with men 'redeeming' themselves from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' themselves 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, i.e. his use of dialectic reasoning, tying ethnicity, race, nationalism, and religion together as one, asking the youth to transcend them all, i.e. negating all in the praxis of making the world safe for democracy—Obama's speech in Brussels, March 26, 2014), 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.

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.'

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?)

 Part V

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 ("self interest") 'reasoning,' I can only preach and teach doctrine, i.e. use 'didactic ("right-wrong") reasoning' instead.  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 (making no derogative statement toward parental authority myself, i.e. the children will provide that within their dialogue with one another).  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' from the father's/Father's authority structure, i.e. when he is "helped," by the facilitator of 'change' to 'liberate' himself, i.e. to 'actualize' his "self-interest" along with "the groups self-interest," i.e. "building relationship"  upon their common "self-interest"—the child is not only 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority system, paradigm, or way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating, he has learned how to 'liberate' ('emancipate') others from the father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" paradigm as well.  When the child's "guilty conscience" (for disobeying) is negated (in his feelings, thoughts, and actions) he is 'willing' to participate in the social action (praxis) of negating the father's/Father's authority not only within the "the group" but within the "community," i.e. within "society," i.e. within the world as well, i.e. getting the father's authority not only out of the way of his "self interest" but out of the way of the "self interest" of those they desire to relate with as well.

The dialectic process is based upon the "closed system" of the flesh and the world, engendering man's effort to 'justify' his "lusts" of the 'moment' over and against the "closed system" of the father's authority, based upon established facts and truth.  The so called "open system" or "open door" of the world only 'liberates' man from the door which 'liberates' him from God's judgment upon him (for loving the world over and against His will) which is to come.  The dialectic process give no man a 'choice.'  It keeps all men bound to the world of sin into which they are born.  Only the Lord gives man a choice, either holding onto the world, leading to eternal death or giving his life to the Lord, inheriting eternal life.  "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 10:9  "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."  Revelation 3:19-21

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 him/Him and 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,' i.e. living by faith 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)

You can understand the pent up anger, hate, and violence that is released in revolutions (revealing man's unrepentant heart before God/the Father), with man (as a child full of rage) 'justifying' his destructive actions as "getting his just dues."  When your child reaches out for that which you have taken away from him, i.e. by his actions claiming that "it is his" to do with as he pleases, in the 'moment,' it is the Karl Marx in him, i.e. Karl Marx's hand that was reaching out for it, claiming that "the King's horses are the peoples horses" [as well as his horses]," as Adam and the woman in the garden reached out and picked the fruit, claimed "'God's tree' is our tree (as well as everyone else's tree)."  Rousseau believed the same as sighted above and below. When your child strikes out against you, when you restrain him or take what he wants away from him, it is the Karl Marx in him that is sticking out against you, i.e. hating you, i.e. hating restraint.  You did not know your child has Karl Marx in him did you.  You did not know that you have Karl Marx in you.  The dialectic process would not work if Karl Marx (his love of the world and hate of Godly restraint, wanting the pleasures of the world, of the 'moment,' and the approval of and even participation with others) was not there, in your heart and your child's heart, waiting to be 'liberated.'  If you do not respond to the face (the verbal and body language), i.e. the heart of the rebellious child, you leave Karl Marx, i.e. the breeding ground of hate and violence in place, within "the child within," i.e. with the child 'justifying' to himself (talking to his "self" about) annihilating ("vernichtet") the father's authority (at least treating the father/Father, i.e. the parents as being "irrational" and therefore as "irrelevant," i.e. not caring what he does to them or what happens to them, i.e. what others do to them) when he gets the chance, i.e. when he gets support from others, i.e. when he gets the emotional support of "the group" along with the political support of those in education, in the media, and in government, the father/Father being to strong to overcome in the 'moment,' by himself.  If a "peaceful fruit of righteousness" is not produced in the child's heart ("exercised" by chastening, i.e. getting the child off of reflecting upon, i.e. talking to his "self," 'justifying' his "self interest" of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth), his heart of vanity, pride, and hate (Karl Marx) remains, with the child (the citizen) hating the father and his authority, i.e. hating (regarding as illusionary) the Heavenly Father and His restraints, loving himself and the world instead, 'justifying' the killing of the father and his authority, as well as killing any who support and thereby continue to sustain the father's traditional ways, 'creating' a world of violence and abomination instead.  This is the face that we now see being vented in the streets of our land.  We are to love (showing it in our actions with them and in our actions with others and expressing it in the words we share with them and in the words we share with others), cloth, feed, protect, and train up our children in the Lord.  Chastening (protecting them from their "self," i.e. teaching them to restrain their "self") is a part of that love.

If you can handle it (stomach the kind of material I read) here is how the Marxist Jürgen Habermas explained the manipulation of "self interest" for 'change.'  Habermas wrote: "Through the repression of needs and wishes, it translates this constraint into a compulsion of internal nature, in other words into the constraint of social norms. That is why the relative destruction of the moral relation can be measured only by the difference between the actual degree of institutionally demanded repression and the degree of repression that is necessary at a given level of the forces of production. This difference is a measure of objectively superfluous domination. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes, suppress justified interests, call forth the reactions of suppressed life, and finally experience their just fate in revolution." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest. Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social)  Habermas first identifies "the constraint of social norms," i.e. the child's/man's "compulsion of internal nature" as hatred, i.e. the "reaction of suppressed life" toward the father's/Father's authority to restrain ("constrain") the child's/man's urges and impulses, i.e. thoughts and actions, i.e. "self interests" ("needs and wishes") of the 'moment,' and then he explains how to negate "the destruction of the moral relations" (the father'/Father's authority to "divide society into social classes," i.e. the father/Father ruling  from above, over the children/mankind below, "repressing" them) by identifying and removing the "objectively superfluous domination" of the father's/Father's authority which supersedes "the degree of repression" necessary to get "community" projects done, i.e. the differenced between "institutionally demanded repression" and the repression which comes from " the forces of production," which "builds relationships" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, negating it through "revolution," i.e. through the children's/mankind's' "self interests" of the 'moment' being put into social action (praxis).  Praxis (social action) must take place within the area of the child's/man's desires, i.e. his "self interest" (his identity with "the group" i.e. "building relationship" based upon its "common interest" with his "self-interest" and his "self-interest" with its "common interest," i.e. both becoming one in the 'moment,' i.e. in consensus) and his dissatisfaction with authority which restrains (blocks or inhibits) his and the group's interests, i.e. the desires of the 'moment' from becoming reality.   This is what the "group grade" is all about, grading who is "on board," i.e. a "team player" for 'change' and who is not (who needs re-education).  Therefore, according to Habermas, truth is found in a persons "felt needs," i.e. his "self interests" of the 'moment,' drawing him into "building relationship" ("common interest") with the world—where feelings desired and feelings expressed (verbally and physically, i.e. theory and practice) become one and the same, not in some authority figure above him, "repressing" him, "alienating" him from the world but in "the groups" "justified interest," 'liberating' him (and "the group") from the father's "constraint."  "Social norm" therefore does not reside in the father's/Father's authority, i.e. in "constraint," but in the child(ren) striking out against it ("revolution"), negating it, thereby 'liberating' deviancy, i.e. abomination, i.e. that which all children have in common (man's carnal nature) from the father's/Father's authority.

Therefore: if IA - PA = OSF then IA - OSF = PA = "Workers of the world unite!"  Calculate the difference between the repression of the "forces of production" (PA), i.e. the desire for approval by the group which represses one's "self interest," which is necessary for "the group" to get the "group project" done, and the repression of the "institutional authority" (IA), the desire for approval by the father/Father which represses one's "self interest," which is necessary to honor and support the father's/Father's authority, and you have the amount of repression, i.e. the "objectively superfluous domination" (OSF), which is needed to be removed, in order to overcome the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship the children/men have with one another in the 'moment,' without the child's/man's knowledge that such 'change' is taking place (see re-education above).  Finding the difference between the force which is being used to maintain institution and the force required for production (force field analysis) give us the amount of force which must be removed from the institution in order to make the workers happy.  The greater the number (between maintaining institution and maintaining production), the greater the workers dissatisfaction with authority, the closer we are to "revolution."  "During the period of innovation [change], an environment is invisible. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment."  (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969  Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program)

Only after the children have negated the father's/Father's authority, to get what they want in the 'moment,' i.e. to actualize their "self interest" do they realize that they have tuned their inheritance and individuality over to the "common-ist cause."  As Abraham Maslow explained it: "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-["self interest"] perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." "If we wish to permit the facts to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic."  "Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the is, [the child/man getting what he wants for himself only] but from a scaling down of the ought, from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality [closer to what "the group" wants] and therefore to attainability." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)  When "self interest," which is limited or blocked ("repressed") by the father's/Father's authority, is 'liberated' by "the group," the father's/Father's authority is negated.  Not knowing the OSF, i.e. going to slow or to fast in the 'change' process, will result in either no support for 'change' or resistance against 'change,' i.e. with the father's/Father's authority remaining.  Identify "the peoples" "self interest," i.e. their "felt needs," get them to perceive someone or something is preventing or going to preventing them from satisfying it, and you can "build relationships," i.e. unite them as "one," getting them to negate that person, persons, or thing for the "common 'good.'"  It not only works in the government, it also works in the workplace, in the classroom, and even in the "church."

While dialectic 'reasoning' (leaving man's wicked and deceitful heart in place) promises man "peace," it can only produce destruction and death in the end. Only the Lord can produce peace in the heart and soul of man. "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee."  Isaiah 26:3  It is in the Father's chastening ("God chastens those he loves" Hebrews 12:5) that peace proceeds ("Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrew 12:11 ).  Without the Father's authority there can be no peace, only vanity, envy, pride, and strife.  "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.  For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.  But if ye be led of the Spirit [who can only obey the law], ye are not under the law [which can only condemn you since you can not fulfill it in and of yourself]. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.   But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance [which can not come from the flesh]: against such there is no law.  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.''  Galatians 5:16-26

Through the praxis of generalizing (called "general system theory," i.e. calling apples and oranges the same since they are both fruit, i.e. "the Fruit," Karl Marx, The Holy Family), those of dialectic 'reasoning' tie the father's authority (God) to all the social "ills" of society, including and especially Nationalism, which they correlate with Fascism, i.e. with prejudice, i.e. with racism, i.e. with behaviorism, i.e. with "Mine. Not yours," with people judge people according to commands, rules, facts, and truth established by the father/Father (God).  Since God and any man who believes in and obeys Him by faith, i.e. who refuses to question His commands and challenge His authority, i.e. being therefore "repressed," "alienated," and "neurotic" (according to the flesh) are the same, i.e. Fascist.  The error of dialectic 'reasoning (because of their praxis of evaluating and judging God from the false church's praxis—the "church" that puts a man between God and man and uses force, i.e. government to establish God's kingdom here upon earth, imprisoning and/or killing any who get in its way) is that it is up to man (with God "helping"), according to his efforts (with God "helping"), i.e. according to his flesh and 'reasoning' (with God "helping"), to 'create' "peace" on earth through the use of force (leaving the flesh and its lusts in place, i.e. "under God."  The solution (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning') is to leave the flesh and its lusts in place, yet without God, replacing God with "human nature" instead, bringing "God and heaven" down to earth, making God and mankind the same, and therefore making mankind God, with the facilitator's of 'change' in oversight, i.e. in control, when God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ condemn such praxis.

According to God and His Word, we are to put no man between us and the Father (His only begotten Son, who 'redeemed' us and 'reconciled' us to the Father, though being between us and the Father, does not divide us from the Father but provides us atonement with Him instead).  All man can do is come along side each other and encourage one another in their walk with the Father and the Son.  Our nation's government was established upon the same principle, putting no father figure (King) between the father and his children in the home, limiting the power of government instead.  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' conveniently overlook this truth in their agenda of global dominance, in their effort to destroy the father's/Father's authority by 'liberating' man's carnal nature (opening "Pandora's Box") instead.  "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. for the "common good," i.e. 'circumventing' the father's/Father's rules, commands, facts, and truth which get in the way of 'change,' i.e. which get in the way of the flesh and its lusts, pleasures, enjoyments of the 'moment' or the future).  Whether Fascist, Communist*, or Globalist in name, all socialist systems must negate the father's/Father's authority if they are to prevail.  *Globalists, Transformational Marxists, social-psychologists, i.e. all three being the same, perceive Communism as being Fascist in structure, in paradigm, i.e. "top-down."  Thus Transformational Marxists, working within and through our government, within and through the workplace and education systems, and even within and through the "church," i.e. in the praxis of psychotherapy, now the "human resource departments," gained control over America by "helping" America defeating Communism (Nationalism, Isolationism, Fascism, etc.), "Making the World Safe for Democracy," i.e. for Transformational Marxism.  The Berlin Wall did not come down because Communism was defeated.  It came down because Communism succeeded.  You can give the leopard a dye job, but it is still a leopard at heart.  Without changing its heart it will still devour you when it gets hungry.  Socialists, facilitator's of 'change,' can not survive without taking your money, your property, your business, and even your very own soul and using it "for the 'good' of the people," i.e. for their own gain, destroying anyone who gets in their way.  It is the nature of the beast.

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  "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 3:1-6, 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" Only, instead of living by faith, i.e. obeying the father/Father and honoring his/His authority—fulfilling Hegel's "lawfulness without law," where the law of the flesh rules over and therefore against the law of God, which restrains it).  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, part 1, part 2, and part 3 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 'emancipation' 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 Theorists—Critical 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 

 Part VI

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.  "The rediscovered past yields critical standards which are tabooed by the present." "... the restoration of memory is accompanied by the restoration of the cognitive content of phantasy." "... psychoanalytic theory recaptures the strict truths of daydreaming and fiction."  "If memory moves into the center of psychoanalysis as a decisive mode of cognition, this is far more than a therapeutic device; the therapeutic role of memory derives from the truth value of memory."  "Its truth value lies in the specific function of memory to preserve promises and potentialities [love and support by the parent and carnal hopes] which are betrayed and even outlawed by the mature, civilized individual, but which he had once been fulfilled in his dim past and which are never entirely forgotten."  "... all thinking ‘is merely a detour from the memory of gratification ... memory of gratification is at the origin of all thinking, and the impulse to recapture past gratification is the hidden driven power behind the process of thought."  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: )

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, i.e. by faith obeying his/His commands and rules] to changingness [to the child following after his own carnal urges and impulses, i.e. by sight 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 [where the child honors the father's/Father's authority] to extreme liberalism [where the child, united with other children, negate 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. by faith 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.  In this way the facilitators of change can use the child's inheritance, that which is of the father/Father meant for him, to satisfy their own carnal desires.

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 (and his inheritance) 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)

 Part VII

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 issues  Higher Order Thinking Skills, 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 honor 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, by faith, 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, Webb) in the classroom.  For teachers to say "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, it is about His Heavenly Father as well. "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.  "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."  John 4:14  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.  "... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,"  John 14:9   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   "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father."  John 15:24   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."  The trickery of dialectic reasoning is not to confront the Father but to "help" the children perceive that their feelings and thoughts and the Father's feelings and thoughts are the same (pursuing pleasure, i.e. love), only that the Father is being "unreasonable," demanding that their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' be subject to His feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' "repressing" theirs.  By making the Father's "feelings" and "thoughts" equal with the "feelings" and "thoughts" of man, not only is the Father, i.e. the Father's authority negated, so is the Son, who was subject to His Heavenly Father's authority in all things.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9

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 1997-2015