It Is Over. by Dean Gotcher

"IT IS OVER."
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher

"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

"What is over?" The "American Dream." "Who killed it?" All who circumvented ("bypassed") "rule of law" for their "self interest," i.e., for their "lusts." Without "rule of law" (Godly restraint, secularly encapsulated in the "Bill of Rights" which protects us from tyranny and despotism) all you have is tyranny and despotism, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." The "American Dream" was not only: you got what you wanted at the end of the day (at least that was the dream). It was also you did what was right and not wrong (according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) in pursuing it, whether you got it or not—thinking and acting according to established laws, i.e., "rule of law" instead of thinking and acting according to your carnal desires, i.e., your "self interests," i.e., your "lusts" of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people were stimulating, doing whatever it took to get it.

This applied to those in government as it did to the citizen, requiring all to abide by the "rule of law," i.e., the Constitution that limited the power of government, i.e., that prevented the government (those in government) from encroaching upon the rights of the citizen, as it prevented the citizen from encroaching upon his neighbors rights. Only then can you have peace with your "self" and with your neighbor—not infringing upon his (and your) God given (unalienable) rights. That is now gone. "Self interest," i.e., "lust," i.e. the "affective domain" i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., tyranny and despotism has now usurped, i.e., negated "rule of law," i.e., negated "self" restraint, i.e., negated the father's/Father's authority (negating the guilty conscience it engendered for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting" in the process) which initiated and sustained the "American Dream."

Our framing fathers feared despotism and tyranny, including the tyranny of the masses (the citizens). We are soon to find out why. When "What can I get out of this person and/or situation for my 'self?'" i.e., "self interest," i.e., "lust" becomes the mindset of those in government (and the citizens), "What will happen to me if they reject me?" ("What will happen to me if I do not go along?") controls their lives, making all, out of fear (fear of lose of reputation, job, and even life) and hate (hatred toward all who get in the way of their "self interest," i.e., their "lusts,"—now correlated with maintaining reputation, job, and life), subject to tyranny and despotism, i.e., subject to the tyrant and the despot. "Bypassing" (negating) the principles of the "Bill of Rights" those in government, doing what Patrick Henry and George Washington warned against, can now make themselves Kings, doing what they want, when they want without restraint—oppressing the citizens.

"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

Those in office can now rule with no accountability for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting," using the power of government to tax the citizens in order to satisfy their (and their "friends'") "lusts," i.e., "self interests," i.e., addictions, i.e., habits, creating laws to encourage (indoctrinate) citizens to think and act like them, to support citizens who already think and act like them, and to silence, censor, and/or remove any citizen who complains. This is done through how we communicate with one another. Any time you find yourself in a meeting where you are pressured to be "positive" and not "negative," your right of free speech (and religion) is being negated, i.e., usurped by those advocating "lust," i.e., "self interest" (which is "positive" to the flesh) over and therefore against restraint, i.e., "rule of law" (which is "negative" to the flesh), i.e., negating that which is "negative," i.e., the father's/Father's authority (called "the negation of negation"). Until you understand the conflict between the child's carnal nature and the father's/Father's authority with the child either, having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, learning to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to (as in "old" world order) do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will (abiding by the "rule of law") or 'justifying' his "self" in order (as in "new" world order) to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience, having negated (killed) the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., the "rule of law" (in his thoughts and in his actions), you can not understand the 'change' that has taken place in America, i.e., the negation of the "American Dream," i.e., the negation of the "rule of law"—which blocked your neighbors (as well as those in government) from taking that which was not theirs to take but was yours instead (by law), as it required the same of you toward them, guaranteeing to everyone the right of private convictions, family, property, and business.

"Lust," i.e., "self interest" resides in dialogue, in an opinion (in "feelings," i.e., in "I think" and "I feel"), in the consensus process (where everyone must put aside, i.e., negate any command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., that which is "negative," i.e., that which "hurts" someone else's "feelings," i.e., that which makes others "feel" guilty for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., "for "lusting" in order for everyone to arrive at a "feeling" of "oneness" based upon "lust"). "Lust," i.e., "self interest" resides in being "positive" ("feeling" good, i.e., like God—only God is good—about one's "self") instead of "negative" (making others "feel" bad, i.e., "feel" guilty, i.e., "feel" like a sinner)."Rule of law" resides in discussion, i.e., in position (in established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in "I know," "Because the law, i.e., the Constitution/dad/the teacher/the constituent/the Bible says so" and "It is written"), in majority vote (in either-or, i.e., in right-wrong, i.e., in "I am right and you are wrong" based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth—which is now negated since telling someone they are "wrong"—and explaining why that is so, according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, a key component of discussion—is classified as being "prejudice," divisive, hateful, "negative," etc., inhibiting or blocking dialogue, opinion, the consensus process, i.e., "lust," i.e., "self interest," i.e., 'change').

When dialogue, i.e., "feelings" becomes the means of communication (when it comes to right and wrong behavior), discussion, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "rule of law," i.e., the right to reprove, correct, rebuke, i.e., chasten for doing wrong (according to established law) is negated—those in government can rule without restraint (other than according to their carnal nature, i.e., their "lusts" and their hates, i.e., their "self interests," i.e., "human nature"), making laws that silent any opposition, i.e., anyone who makes them (and their "friends") "feel" guilty and/or gets in the way of their "self interest," i.e., their "lusts," which their position of authority provides (now void of Constitutional restraints)—restraint resides in the citizens, tyranny and despotism resides in the elected officials without restraint. "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" negates "You are wrong," i.e., negates accountability for doing wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., according to "rule of law," i.e., according to the Constitution which, according to it, is to be 'changed' by the citizens only, instead of by those in government. You can always tell when you are talking to a Marxist (whether they know it or not): when you tell them they are wrong (when they are wrong) they say "That is your opinion" (since in an opinion there is no wrong, i.e., no crime, which is punishable, at the most there is only a lack of understanding regarding the situation, needing to do things "better" the next time, i.e., "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" they cry as you try to tell them what they are doing or have done is wrong). Any reproof, correction, rebuke, etc., by you will result in censorship and "removal" as a result of inhibiting or blocking dialogue, i.e., "self interest," i.e., "lust." Putting position (established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., belief) into practice is different than opinion ("feelings," i.e., theory) in that in the latter there is no accountability (punishment) for the person being wrong, there is only a need, at the most, for the person to do things "better" the next time. Punishment will come toward the person whose position gets in the way of, i.e., inhibits or blocks the free sharing (dialoguing) of opinions.

"In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

"A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

Simply put. Discussion sides with the father's/Father's authority. In discussion there is no opinion (no "I feel" and "I think"), there is only commands, rules, facts and truth to be accepted as is and/or obeyed ("I know because I was told"). In a discussion you must suspend, as upon a cross your "feelings," i.e., your "self," i.e., your "self interest," i.e., your "lusts" of the 'moment' (that the world is stimulating), i.e., you must humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to hear and receive, i.e., accept the truth being preached, taught, and/or discussed, being persuaded (and persuading others) with commands, rules, facts and truth. That is why we, with our "Why?"—in response to our father's command (which we did not like or did not want to do)—would try to get our father into dialogue because in a discussion he had the final say (whether we liked it or not or agreed or disagreed with his command, rule, fact, or truth). If we disobeyed we were chastened, i.e., held accountable. That means of communication is all but nil today, not only in the classroom but also in the workplace, in government, in the home, and even in the "church."

Dialogue sides with the child's carnal nature. In dialogue there is no wrong (which comes from being told), there is only "feelings," i.e., "sense experience," i.e., opinion ("I feel" and "I think"). In dialogue you must suspend, as upon a cross any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of, i.e., that inhibits or blocks dialogue. In dialogue you can only be chastened, i.e., censored (silenced) or removed if you inhibit or block dialogue, i.e., become judgmental, i.e., keep telling others they are wrong (insisting your position is the only right one). In dialogue God is out, making you "God." [In dialogue righteousness is out, making unrighteousness, i.e., sensuousness right.]

God is God in discussion. You are God ("good" in your eyes) in dialogue. How we communicate with our "self" and with others reveals our intended (desired) outcome, either doing the father's/Father's will (discussion) or our own (dialogue). This applies in politics as well. Not only how policy is being made but also what policy is made is directly tied to what means of communication is being used in initiating and sustaining it. The world's solution to discussion, i.e., to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., to "rule of law" (which engenders a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates) is to (through dialogue) negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negate "rule of law," i.e., negate thinking and acting according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth in the children's (the elected official's) thoughts, making all decisions subject to the child's "self interest" (to the elected official's "self interest"), i.e., to what the child (the elected official) can get out of the situation (the position he occupies) for his "self," i.e., making policy subject to what the child (the elected official) has in common with the other children (the other elected officials), i.e., "lust."

In a "Be positive. Not negative" environment where dialogue ("feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "self interest," i.e., "lust") preempts discussion (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's authority will) "lust" is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from "rule of law," turning the children (the elected officials) against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., against "rule of law," i.e., against the citizen's God give, i.e., unalienable rights (individualism, under God), making "rule of law" (now no longer true "rule of law") subject to the "feelings," i.e., the "lusts," i.e., the "self interests" of those establishing policy (making law) in the 'moment'—in the name of "the people" who "lust." "I can condemn (silence) you for being 'negative,' i.e., for calling me a sinner (for wanting to remove me from office) but you can not condemn (silence) me for being 'positive,' i.e., for using the office I occupy to satisfy my own carnal desires ("lusts"), so I can 'feel' 'good' about my 'self,' i.e., so I can 'feel' like God. You just need to learn to 'feel' like God, i.e., 'feel' 'good' about your "self" and follow me (keep me in office)." Anyone who questions or challenges this way of thinking is seen as a threat, needing to be silenced (censored) and/or removed for the sake of "the people," i.e., for the sake of those in government who perceive their "self" as being the personification of "the people" (who "lust").

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

When you bring "lust," i.e., "self interest," i.e., dialogue, i.e., opinions, i.e., the consensus process ("group 'lust,'" i.e., "group 'self interest,'" i.e., "group think") into an environment establishing law, discussion, position, majority vote (right-wrong), i.e., "rule of law," i.e., individualism, under God, i.e., the "American Dream" is negated, tyranny and despotism rules (now residing in "the group," i.e., in the facilitator of 'change' who is "guiding" [seducing. deceiving, and manipulating] "the group" into 'justifying' their "lusts," i.e., their "self interests," thereby 'justifying' his "lusts," i.e., his "self interests," threatening, through rejection, i.e., through censorship and/or removal any who resist).

You persuade with right and wrong, based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth ("limits and measures") via discussion. You manipulate through "feelings," i.e., "lusts," hate, and fear via dialogue. When right and wrong are based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth then discussion is the means of communication, inhibiting or blocking 'change.' When right and wrong are based upon "feelings," i.e. upon "self interest" (with "right" being what makes you "feel" good and "wrong" being what makes you "feel" bad), i.e., upon opinion, then dialogue is the means of communication, initiating and sustaining 'change.' While discussion (established commands, rules, facts and truth) restrains dialogue ("feelings," i.e., "lust"), dialogue ("feelings," i.e., "lust") negates discussion (established commands, rules, facts and truth). Being restrained is different than being negated. One allows you to be an individual (recognized as an individual), under God, whether you believe in God or not, restraining those in government from usurping your God given rights. The other negates (no longer recognizes) your right of individualism, under God, i.e., your rights as found in "rule of law," i.e., your right in restraining those in government from usurping your unalienable rights, i.e., your God given rights.

Therein lies "the rub." The language used in setting policy directly effects the outcome. When man wants to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., "lust" without having a guilty conscience he goes go to dialogue. When he wants to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., according to God's Word or according to the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights" he goes to discussion. The "American Dream" was found in discussion, where "rule of law" restrains the heart of man, i.e., "self interest," i.e., "lust," not in dialogue, where (when it comes to right and wrong behavior in the governed and the governing) tyranny and despotism rules without restraint.

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [discussion, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law"], our objective centers upon transforming public opinion [dialogue, i.e., the child's carnal "feelings," i.e., "lust"] 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)

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture [the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law"]. 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)

What was unique to America (why people wanted to come here) was "rule of law," i.e., the restraint of "self interest," i.e., of "lust," with "rule of law" limiting the power (control) of those in government over the citizens, i.e., with "rule of law" preventing their "self interest," i.e., their "lusts" from usurping the rights of the individual, under God. "Transcend," i.e., "bypass" "rule of law," i.e., make your "self interest," i.e., your "lusts" the law of the land (whether you are governing or being governed) and you no longer have the "American Dream," i.e., America no longer is a nation of refuge for those fleeing tyranny and despotism. All fleeing tyranny and despotism will now find tyranny and despotism here. Those who have come here, who bypassed "rule of law" in coming here brought it (tyranny and despotism) with them (with their bypassing "rule of law"). That is why those in government, who "bypass" "rule of law" 'justify' their presence, i.e., their support—who do not see their "self," i.e., "lust" as breaking the law or being above the law, but as being the law. They do not see your property as yours, under law, but theirs. As a child without restraint, what they see they own. They are, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., "lust" is the law.

"In a democratic society a patriarchal culture [the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law," i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth] should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization [of "lust" actualization]." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow On Management)

You can never control "lust." "Lust" controls you—you have to walk away from it (the Bible says "flee"). Any power or control you have over others will be used to sustain it. Without "rule of law" (Godly restraint, i.e., individualism, under God) restraining "lust," tyranny and despotism are all you have. We are now a nation based upon "lust," i.e., "self interest." We are no longer a nation based upon "rule of law," i.e., a free and independent people, under God. If you can get "the people" to 'justify' "lust," you can "lust" in office with their support.

"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

The "grand inquisition" of the new "Democratic" America (which everyone is now experiencing) takes place in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, facilitated meeting or classroom, where, unless you 'justify' "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," i.e., "self interest" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., against "rule of law," i.e., unless you identify with "lust," i.e., with "self interest" ("self" is always "interested" in "lust") you have no rights, i.e., you are "mentally ill," i.e., unemployable. unelectable, etc.,. "Identity politics" is simply identifying with those who 'justify' "lust," i.e., who are "positive," rejecting, condemning, censoring those who engender and/or support the father's/Father's authority system of doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "rule of law," labeling them as being "negative," i.e., prejudiced, i.e., "racist," i.e., mental, preventing them from having any say in society. Once you go down this road as a nation, replacing "rule of law," i.e., replacing restraint, i.e., replacing humbling, denying, dying to your "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., replacing doing the father's/Father's will with "lust," i.e., with "self interest" history has shown there is no return to "the way it was," i.e., to "rule of law," i.e., tyranny and despotism are the law of the land. The days of "rule of law," where the governing and governed have to abide by the same laws of restraint are over. "Humpty Dumpty" has fallen off the wall. There is no going back. Nothing will ever be the same again. Only the tyrannical and the despotic, perceiving their "self," i.e., their "lusts" as being the personification of "the people," making all subject to their "lusts," i.e., to their "self interests" rule, removing (silencing) all who get in their way. Like the French, Russian, Chinese, etc., revolutions, they have to kill the King in order to silence those who think like and support him (the King in America being the father's authority over his family, property, and business, and the "Bill of Rights" that guaranties it) in order to have total control over "the people."

"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." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

"Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) All done through dialogue, i.e., men's opinions, i.e., men's carnal desires of the 'moment,' in order to 'justify' the "lust," i.e., the "self interests" of those in power. Negate "rule of law" and all you have is "jurisprudence of terror," where those in power, in this case the judge—identifying more with the criminal (the restrained, i.e., the one trying to satisfy his "lusts") than with the victim (who's rights were violated, who wants him restrained, i.e., who believes in "rule of law")—'justifies' the criminal (tyranny and despotism) over and therefore against the victim in his final decision. When "lust," i.e., "self interest" becomes the foundation of 'justice' then "lawfulness without law," i.e., "lust," i.e., "self interest" without restraint prevails. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) There is more mentioned in scriptures regarding the judge than any other office in government. When the legislators and the leader goes corrupt, you can still have hope in the judge. When the judge goes corrupt (makes judgment in favor of "lust," i.e., in favor of "self interest"—his and others) you have no hope (in this life). The Magna Carta and the American Revolution had this one thing in common, when you make "social worth" a part of the court's decision, individual rights are negated, i.e., there can be no justice. When our highest court replaced "the Christian concept of right and wrong," i.e., "COMMON LAW" (Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, 1941) with "the belief of the Stoics." (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973) Marxism became the law of the land. Karl Marx declared: "The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society [not from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from "rule of law"] but from the nature of human society [but from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from "lust"]." "The state arises out of the exigencies of man's nature." "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words "It is lust that reconciles man to the world." Anyone inhibiting or blocking "lust" must therefore be negated, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous. Sigmund Freud's analysis of history follows the same line of thought. For Freud history is children, after being driven out by their father for their immoral, i.e., incestuous behavior, coming to a consensus (that "lust," i.e., "Eros" is "normal") returning home, not only killing the father but also "devouring" him so as not to leave any trace of his existence (a guilty conscience) in the next generation (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting," i.e., for being "normal"). "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father." "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer has authority in the home]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) Karl Marx advocating the same outcome (agenda), wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, i.e., negated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) Once "lust," i.e., "self interest" becomes the "norm," i.e., the law of the land, anyone advocating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law" must be negated, i.e., "devoured" for the sake of society. "I am nothing and I should be everything ["lust" should be everything]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Once in power, i.e., in control of "the people" the tyrant, the despot can, without "rule of law," do what he wants, when he wants without being held accountable for this thoughts and actions, i.e., by any authority other than his carnal desires, i.e., his "lusts," i.e., his "self interests" of the 'moment,' especially if he makes it clear the only way to climb the "social ladder" is to be like him, support him, and defend him ("lust") against all who would hold him (and them, i.e., "lust") accountable to "rule of law." "Not feeling at home in the sinful world. Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) According to Karl Marx, resenting "rule of law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority, the individual, dialoguing with his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his "self," i.e., his "lusts" sets "up a sinful world in [his] own home." When dialogue (thought, i.e., "self" 'justification') becomes "Critical" (threatened) it boils over into action, striking out against the father/Father and anyone who submits to and supports his/His authority. Karl Marx explained the problem in society this way: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Inscribed on Karl Marx's tomb. Children, resenting authority, wanting 'change' ("lust"), eventually grow up, having children of their own, forcing them to do right and not wrong according to their established commands, rules, facts, and truth preventing 'change' ("lust"). It is only in 'liberating' dialogue ("lust," which resents the father's/Father's authority) in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, in the home, in the "Church," etc., that 'change' can be initiated and sustained. Vladimir Lenin realized the "bourgeoisie," i.e., the "middle-class," which recognized, propagated (preached and taught), and supported the father's/Father's authority system had to be negated if 'change' was to become a reality. "The peasantry [the traditional family] constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie [the father's/Father's authority system]—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions [the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law"] everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920) "In self-actualizing people [people 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' their "self" from "rule of law"], the work they do might be better be called 'mission,' 'calling,' 'duty,' 'vocation,' in the priest's sense." "Meaningful work comes very close to the religious quest in the humanistic sense." "Salvation is a byproduct of Self-Actualization Duty [with everyone's "Duty" being 'liberating' society from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from "rule of law"]." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) Across America today this is the call and the duty of all town councilors, all legislators, all mayors, all Governors, the President, all judges, all ministers, all "educators," all doctors and nurses, the media, all corporations, the police and military, etc.,. (all under the control, i.e., influence i.e., manipulation of facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Marxists)—at least that is the "Globalist Dream"—with anyone holding to "the old school" way of thinking and acting, i.e., the "American Dream," i.e., "rule of law" experiencing "terror" as to what will happen to them if they do not submit (abdicate their rights) and obey (go along). "Lust," i.e., "self interest," when it becomes the law of the land destroys (negates, i.e., devours) the "American Dream," i.e., "terrorizes" the "middle-class" which raises up its children to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., to think and act according to "rule of law."

The road to "Utopia," i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony" is covered with the blood of those who got in the way. There is no guilty conscience in "lust," i.e., in "self interest," i.e., in "self preservation," i.e., in "'lust' preservation," there is only "self," i.e., "lust," i.e., "self interest," i.e., "'lust' preservation" (whatever it takes) being 'justified.' In "Utopia" there is only the nature of a beast (the beast), i.e., "lust" and "self preservation." What stands in its way is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law," i.e., being held accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth.

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

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3

"Rule of law" begins in the home where children learn to humble, deny, die to, discipline, control their "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will, developing a guilty conscience when they do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., when they "lust" after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating. While the father is not perfect, he might be a down right tyrant (using the office of authority for his "self," i.e., for his carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., for his "lusts") the office itself is perfect, having been given to him by God in which to serve Him, i.e., in which to do His will.

The traditional classroom is structured after the father's/Father's authority: 1) preaching established commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching established facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discussing any question(s) the children might have regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth being taught, at the one in authority's discretion, i.e., providing he deems it necessary, has time, the children are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority, 2) rewarding the children who do right and obey, 3) correcting and/or chastening the child who does wrong and/or disobeys, that he might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, and 4) casting out or expelling any child who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks authority. By "shifting" the classroom "environment" (for example) from the educator reflecting the father's/Father's authority system to where the emphasis is upon the children's opinion, i.e., their "feelings," i.e., their "self interests," i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or people are stimulating (regarding right and wrong behavior) the children's paradigm (way of thinking) is 'changed.'

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

"Revolutionary violence reconciles the disunited parties by abolishing the alienation of class antagonism [the father's/Father's authority] that set in with the repression of initial morality [morality being found in the child's carnal nature, i.e., in "lust," i.e., in "human nature," not in the restraining of it, i.e., not on the father's/Father's authority]. … the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life [hatred toward the father's/Father's authority], which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort ["rule of law"] 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. " [America, unique amongst all the nations of the world, resolved this conflict by making the father in the home (the citizen) the King—in "rule of law" limiting the power of government over "the people," including over the home. The only way Globalism, i.e., the "new" world order (justifying "lust" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) can become a reality, that system, i.e., "rule of law" has to be negated.] "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other [their inclination to "lust," which is made manifest and 'justified' via dialogue], 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) "Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or 'impulse [in "lust"].'" (Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action)

Where the tyrant or despot 'justifies' his "self," i.e., his "lusts," i.e., his "self interest" is in the fact that the father "lusts" 'just' as he does, 'justifying' his "lust," i.e., his "self," i.e., his "self interest" over and therefore against the father's authority, making "lust," i.e., the child's carnal nature the common ground from which all can find their identity, i.e., from which all can become one—'reconciled' to one another. With 'reconciliation' being redefined, i.e., no longer being found in the child becoming at-one-with the father/Father, i.e., with the child having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, but found in the father/Father abdicating his office of authority, i.e., "rule of law" in order (as in "new" world order) to become at-one-with the child, i.e., in order to "build relationship" with the child, the child can "lust," i.e., can become his "self" without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without having a sense of guilt. It is in this void, i.e., in the absence (negation) of the father's/Father's authority that the facilitator of 'change' (the tyrant, the despot, who has no mercy for those who get in the way of his "lusts," i.e., his agenda), usurping authority over the father, takes control over the children (the citizens), negating "rule of law," i.e., individualism, under God (whose "mercy endures forever"), negating the "American Dream." In this "new" world order only those who 'justify' "lust" have rights, i.e., are "mentally healthy," i.e., can be trusted—in education, in business, in government, ... in having families.

"The philosopher Hegel said that truth is not found in the thesis nor the antithesis [in either-or] but in an emerging synthesis [in "lust," i.e., in "self interest" which the father and the children have in common] which reconciles the two." (Martin Luther King Jr. Strength to Love)

Negate the office (the father's/Father's authority) in the mind of the child, i.e., make the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "self interest," i.e., "lust," i.e., the "affective domain" the focus of life and you negate the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting" after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating, which includes negating the child having a guilty conscience in overthrowing the father's/Father's authority that gets in the way. This is why the tyrant, the despot crushes the father's authority (in the home), i.e., the "American Dream," i.e., the "middle-class" with his laws of oppression (to him 'liberation'). This must take place in the classroom, indoctrination the students, i.e., the next generation of citizens to perceive the father's/Father's authority as "authoritarian," i.e., as Fascist ("racist"), creating conflict and tension in the home if he is to rule with total control.

"Authoritarian submission [humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining (capitulating) one's "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice [having to obey established commands and rules and accept facts and truth as is, by faith] had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice [the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., having to obey established commands and rules and accept established facts and truth as is, by faith] but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education, scientifically planned." "A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

"I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those believing in "rule of law," i.e., in the father's/Father's authority] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Maslow, Management) Is not this authoritarianism or rather totalitarianism?

"Rule of law," i.e., the "American Dream," i.e., the father's/Father's authority is sacrificed at the altar of "Utopia" (Socialism, Communism, Globalism), i.e., at the altar of "self interest," i.e., at the altar of "lust," i.e., at the altar of "self actualization." Students, believing in "rule of law," i.e., in the "American Dream," i.e., in the father's/Father's authority have for decades been sacrificed (broken, bastardized, and censored) at that alter, with government approval and support. The classroom has been for years the environment used to process the children in "Utopian" ideology. All "educators" are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom. By the year 1971 one million of "Bloom's Taxonomies" were printed for the Communist Chinese education system. (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) The negation of the father's/Father's authority (in the home and in society), i.e., "rule of law," i.e., the "American Dream," i.e., the "middle-class" has been the Communist Chinese agenda since the forties, as it has been here in America since the fifties and sixties (with the introduction of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., Marxist indoctrination in the classroom).

"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)

"Blooms' Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents." "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

"The affective domain [the student's natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates and hate restraint] contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box' [a "box" full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed—once the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment, i.e., "the lid" is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again].' It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." "In fact, a large part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating' the students carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority system] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [challenging the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth] and getting them to discuss issues [evaluating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth through their carnal desires, i.e., their "lusts," i.e., their "self interests" of the 'moment']." (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 all places." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Bloom simply paraphrases Karl Marx: "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy [the child's resentment toward authority, not being able to do what he wants, when he wants, in his dialogue with his "self"], nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) Instead of "knowing" being objective, i.e., being told what is right and what is wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, by adding "synthesis" and "evaluation," i.e., the student's carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., the student's "self interest," i.e., his or her "lusts," making commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to it/them, "knowing" become subjective, i.e., subject to 'change' according to the current situation and/or people present.

"In the more traditional society a philosophy of life, a mode of conduct, is spelled out for its members at an early stage in their lives." "A major function of education in such a society is to achieve the internalization of this philosophy." "This is not to suggest that education in an open society does not attempt to develop personal and social values." "It does indeed." "But more than in traditional societies it allows the individual a greater amount of freedom in which to achieve a Weltanschauung¹." "¹Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

"As the Frankfurt School [Theodor Adorno, Erick Fromm, etc., including Kurt Lewin, who edited their newspaper] wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950)

"The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination [the father's/Father's authority]." "Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." "... to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being ... who can feel at home in it [the world] if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "Fromm gave the humanitarian, idealist, and romantic proponents of the New Left a Marx they could love." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

Benjamin Bloom's "weltanschauung," i.e., world view (paradigm) was that of two "Transformational" Marxists (Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm) who merged Marxism and psychology—making it easy to bring Marxism, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority into the classroom. Any teacher questioning/challenging/removing their use in American schools today (public, private, "Christian" schools; pre-school, grade school, high school, college/University, vocational, etc., school) would put their job, i.e., their employment in jeopardy. Benjamin Bloom admitted, forty years after the publication of his first "Taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain, "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) In the second "Taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2, Affective Domain Benjamin Bloom wrote: "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." After all it was about putting "theory," i.e., the children's opinions ("feelings") into "practice," negating any command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority that got in the way.

The "educator" does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home from school, if they were not doing that already (telling them would be "old school," maintaining the "old" world order of being told even if it was done for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e., for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order), all they have to do is use a curriculum in the classroom that "encourages," i.e., pressures the students to participate in the process of 'change,' i.e., into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature over and therefore against their parents authority. Being told to be "positive" (supportive of the other students carnal nature) and not "negative" (judging them by their parents standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other students love of pleasure and hate of restrain, doing so in order to be approved, i.e., affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, holding onto their parents standards, i.e., refusing to participate in the process of 'change' or fighting against it as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' resisters of 'change,' not "team players," lower order thinkers, in denial, phobic, prejudiced, judgmental, racist, fascist, dictators, anti-social, etc., i.e., "hurting" peoples "feelings" resulting in "the group" rejecting them—the student's natural desire for approval and fear of rejection forces him to participate.

"Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

In an environment of "self actualization" and globalism where "the building of relationship upon self interest," i.e., upon "lust" is the only 'drive' and the only 'purpose' of life children are turned against their parent's authority, i.e., against the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., against "rule of law," negating the "American Dream," making them subject to facilitators of 'change,' i.e., to those who praxis tyranny and despotism (not only in the classroom, but in the workplace, in government, etc., and even in the "church"), who negate (label, censor, silence, and remove) all who get in their way, i.e., in the way of their "lusts," i.e., in the way of their "self interests," which includes their "lust" for the praises of men (affirmation). When you 'justify' "lust," i.e., "self interest" you 'justify' hatred toward restraint, i.e., hatred toward "rule of law," i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., hatred toward citizens who believe in right and wrong (the middle-class), 'justifying' your doing abominable things (without having a guilty conscience—since having a guilty conscience for doing wrong is only found in restraint, i.e., in "rule of law," i.e., in the father's/Father's authority).

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

Your heart is "deceitful ("deceitful above all things") thinking pleasure, i.e., "lust," i.e., "self interest" is the 'purpose' of life instead of doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., "rule of law," making you wicked ("desperately wicked") in your effort to negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law" that gets in your way. You can not see your heart as being wicked because your "lust" (your "lust" for "lust") is standing in the way. George Washington understood the condition of the heart of man and the importance of "rule of law."

"Despotism ... predominates in the human heart." "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (George Washington, Farewell Address)

Those in government, 'justifying' their "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates—having "no fear of God" before their eyes, abhorring not evil—have killed the "American Dream," replacing it with their "self interest." As a drug addict, intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed with "lust," i.e., with their "self interest" they will do whatever it takes to keep "the people" under their control, using them as "human resource" to support their "lusts," i.e., their "self interest." Money (perceived as stored up pleasure, i.e., "lust") comes in here since the "improvident, unskilled, and vicious" in government, as drug addicts need it to support their habit. Unlike the prodigal son who, coming to his senses, humbles his self and returns home to the father, coming to know his inheritance was not his father's money but his father's love for him, this "prodigal son" returns home with his "friends," kills the father, i.e., "rule of law," and takes and uses what is the father's/Father's to satisfy his and his "friends" carnal pleasures, i.e., "lusts."

"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

When you remove God, i.e., "rule of law" (preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discussing any question(s) those who do not understand, that they might come to understand—which is indicative of the father's/Father's authority) from your conversation with others, replacing it with dialogue (with "I feel" and "I think," i.e., with your and their opinion, i.e., your and their carnal desires, i.e., with your and their "lusts," i.e., with your and their "self interest") in order to initiate and sustain relationship with them (which is indicative of the child), you become God, making your and their "self interest," i.e., your and their "lust" the law of the land, negating the "American Dream," i.e., individualism, under God, i.e., "rule of law," i.e., "self" restraint. It is just how it works. There is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law," i.e., absolute right or wrong in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only the participants "lusts," i.e., "self interests" of the 'moment' that are being stimulated by the world, i.e., by the current situation (crisis) and/or people present and those manipulating it/them. Right and wrong, according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law" is replaced (negated) with "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," or as Karl Marx reworded them, "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience" (the basis of Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of 'felt' needs"), or as defined in education, "the cognitive," "the affective," and "the psychomotor" domains, better know as "theory and practice," where "lusting" in thought and "lusting" in practice become one—with the person ('liberated' from having a guilty conscience, i.e., from being neurotic, i.e., from being divided from his "self" [being repressed] and from being divided from others [being alienated], a product of the father's/Father's authority for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting") can now "lust" as well as get rid of those who get in his way without having a guilty conscience. The last thing the tyrant or despot wants is to develop a guilty conscience and have to admit he is wrong, submitting his will to a higher authority than his carnal desires, i.e., his "lusts," i.e., his "self interests" of the 'moment.' That is why he must censor, silence, and remove all commands, rules, facts, and truth and anyone promoting them. Moving communication from preaching, teaching, and discussing commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., from "rule of law" to dialogue, i.e., to "feelings" and "thoughts" (when it comes to right and wrong behavior—for those being governed and those who are governing alike) does the trick, negating "rule of law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the process, 'justifying' "lust," i.e., "self interest," i.e., tyranny and despotism instead. The "American Dream" was secured in preaching, teaching, and discussing, i.e., in right and wrong, i.e., in private convictions, property, and business, i.e., in "Mine. Not yours" (under law), i.e., in individualism, under God, in unalienable rights. It is negated in dialogue, i.e., in an opinion, i.e., in the consensus process, i.e., in "Not yours, but Ours," where all is/are subject to the "collective" i.e., to the "village," i.e., to "the group," i.e., to society and those manipulating it with their selective information, where the individual tree, say an apple tree or a pear tree has to sacrifice its individuality to the collective, i.e., to all trees, no longer see itself as an individual tree but at one with the collective, all trees being treated the same. Karl Marx in The Holy Family actually uses this as his "logic." Through generalization, i.e., classify all who restrain the child's carnal nature as Nazis, i.e., as "racists," i.e., as causing division the children will see their "self" as one class (in common with all trees) trying to 'liberate' their "self" from another class, i.e., from their parents authority, from individuality under God, collectively perceiving their parents as their enemy who must be negated if they are to become their "self," i.e., become at one with society (according to what they have in common with society and society has in common with them, i.e., their "lust" for pleasure and their hatred toward restraint), engendering a "classless" (fatherless/Fatherless) society. This applies in the classroom with twenty students from different homes with differing positions on social issues. Only by finding (through dialogue) what all the students have in common, i.e., their love of ("lust" for) pleasure and hatred toward restraint, can they overcome their individuality (under their parent's authority, i.e., under God's authority) identifying their "self" with the collective, i.e., with what they all have in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," following after the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the tyrant(s), i.e., the despot(s) who "helped" them 'liberate' their "self" from their parent's authority, i.e., from "rule of law." Point of logic: If private (private convict) is "nobody's business" and public is "everybody's business" then anyone going into public-private partnership must sacrifice that which is private (their private convictions) to the public, i.e., must negate private, i.e., their individuality, under God to society, i.e., to the collective. Are we really this stupid? (Rhetorical question.) The motto today is "Where 'lust' leads me I will follow."

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." 2 Peter 2:3 In other words, by finding (through dialogue) what you "lust" after, i.e., your "self interest," thereby gaining your trust by promising to "help" you achieve it, facilitators of 'change' are able to turn you into "human resource," buying and sell your soul for their own carnal pleasures and gain.

It is in "self interest," i.e., in "lust" where the soul is bought and sold, i.e., it is in your "self interest," i.e., in your "lusts" where you will sell your soul. The soul knows by being told. The flesh by "sense experience." No animal is able to read a book, i.e., is as able to be told or is able to write a book, i.e., is able to tell others. All animals are instinct and stimulus-response in nature. When dialogue becomes our means to determining right from wrong behavior then stimulus-response, impulses and urges, "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," i.e., "self interest" guides our thoughts and actions, negating being told, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in making decisions, negating "rule of law," i.e., the foundation of the "American Dream." It worked in a garden called Eden (where "lust" negated being told) just as effectively as it works today. If I, through dialogue "help" you reveal your "self interest," i.e., your "lust," i.e., your desire to "touch the [forbidden] tree," and 'justify' it ("Ye shalt not surely die"), I "own" you. By "helping" "the people" 'justify' their "lusts," i.e., their "self interests" (any opposition or resistance will be censored, i.e., 'labeled' as "hate speech," causing division, sedition, etc., in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, etc., even in the "church"), those in power can "lust" without restraint, i.e., without "rule of law," i.e., without the father's/Father's authority, i.e., without the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., without the "middle-class," i.e., without the "American Dream" getting in the way, with "the people's" (the mob's, i.e., the tyranny of the masses) approval, i.e., affirmation.

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself [turn from his "lusts"], and take up his cross [enduring the rejection of others for not affirming their "lusts"], and follow me [doing the Father's will]. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27

It is not that we are a theocracy, judgment is coming to this nation as it is to all nations. The reason the "American Dream" died is not because of the leaders of the nation. It is because "the people" made their "self" the law, i.e., made their "self interest," i.e., "lust" the law of their lives (including in the "church") instead of the Word of God. The leadership of the nation simply reflects the heart of the people. When you reject the law of God, i.e., "rule of law," you make your "self interest," i.e., your "lusts" the law of the land, sacrificing your children to (become) anarchists and despots in the process. The Marxist does not have to shoot you. All he has to do is get you to 'justify' your and his "lusts" and he owns you, i.e., you are at-one-with him and he is at-one-with you (until you get in his way). It is the price you pay.

"... seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

"IT IS OVER." Now, instead of trying to "save" a nation or the world (leaving God's Word out so as not to "offend" people, i.e., so they might "listen"—I have had speaking engagements canceled by "Christians" because I refused to set aside God's Word in my presentation—"offending" their money base which they "needed" to "save" the nation) the "Church" can get back to God's business of saving souls (doing what believers have been doing all along). Your spouse, your children, your siblings, and your parents, after starting with your "self" would be a good starting point. That being possibly the hardest mission field of all. The only thing keeping you out of heaven is your "self," i.e., your "lusts" and your "pride of life," i.e., "self/self interest/lust preservation."

"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

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21

"He that hateth me hateth my Father also." John 15:23

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

"... do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

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

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

As they say "game on." In this case it is not about "winning," i.e., getting what you want in this life, i.e., the "American Dream," but where you and those around you will spend eternity. What proceeds when that is resolved effects all that is going on around you. The "American Dream" after all came out of the preaching of God's Word, i.e., the priesthood of all believers, i.e., individualism, under God, i.e., doing your best as unto the Lord. When we "shift" from doing right and not wrong according to God's Word to having a "better life" instead (not that we do not want a "better life" for ourselves and our children, we do but having done right and not wrong to others in achieving it) we sacrifice ourselves and our children at the altar of "self interest," i.e., the altar of "lust"—for example (whether written or unwritten, spoken or unspoken) we have adding to the marriage vow ("for better or for worse") "untill someone 'better' comes along." It is being put into practice everywhere these days, even in the "church."

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

"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:5-7

We, as a nation, are reaping what we sowed, following after men instead of the Lord, "ministers" being the most guilty party of all.

"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15

"... 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

Individualism, under God, i.e., the "American Dream," i.e., "rule of law," i.e., limited government, i.e., Godly restraint begins with the fear of God, i.e., accountability for one's thoughts and actions in this life and in the life to come. Remove that (and it has been removed, i.e., as in the garden in Eden "Ye shalt no surely die") and the "Dream," i.e., liberty in law, i.e., freedom is gone. As Carl Rogers explained it:

"If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do." "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

When "lust," i.e., "self interest" becomes your way of life you have sold your soul to the world that is passing away, "lust," i.e., "self interest" is all you have. Thinking you are free you are in fact a slave to your carnal nature, i.e., "lust" and those using, i.e., 'justifying' it to turn you into "human resource" in order to satisfy their carnal pleasures, i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment,' casting you aside when you no longer bring them pleasure or you cost them time and money or you get in their way, doing to you what you did to God, who decides where you will spend eternity.

"And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:23-26

"[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Hebrews 9:27

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

"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." Luke 12:4, 5

Facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychologists, i.e., behavioral "scientists," i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from/through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation and fear of group rejection) in the "group grade," "safe zone/space/place," "Don't be negative, be positive," soviet style, brainwashing (washing the father's/Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, i.e., "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the father's/father's authority engenders, for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience, being negative to the child's carnal nature, is negated in dialogue—in dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process there is no father's/Father's authority), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings," i.e., their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, i.e., rejecting any "inappropriate" information, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, i.e., pleasure—in determining right from wrong behavior), "Bloom's Taxonomy," "affective domain," French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) classroom "environment" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' children from parental authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as chickens, rats, and dogs, i.e., treating them as natural resource ("human resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., "lust" with impunity.

"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. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17

Home schooling material, co-ops, conferences, etc., are joining in the same praxis, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's as well as Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda of using the pattern or method of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning," i.e., 'reasoning' from/through your "feelings," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world (including your desire for approval from others, with them affirming your carnal nature) in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., your having a guilty conscience when you do wrong, disobey, sin, thereby negating your having to repent before the father/Father for your doing wrong, disobedience, sins—which is the real agenda.

"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12