"Lawfulness Without Law." Huh?

Dean Gotcher

"Lawfulness without law" is the law of the child's carnal nature ("human nature"), i.e., the child's natural love of ("lusting" after) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates and his natural hatred toward restraint, toward anyone preventing him from having and enjoying what stimulates "lust," with the children ruling over the world, negating the law of the father/Father, so all children can be their "self," "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating without having a guilty conscience, with impunity.

I spent weeks mulling over Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law" statement (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment), trying to understand it (not just having an opinion of it but knowing exactly what Kant meant by it). Then while looking at the German, I realized that the suffix "-keit" ("-ness" in English) was key to understanding it, "-ness" meaning a quality or feeling. Thus for example "Total Quality Management" or TQM is not just about the quality of the product itself (which could be in question), but about the "feelings" of all who came into contact with it, from its creation all the way to its being recycled or discarded, with "human relationship," i.e., "consensus," i.e., a "feeling" of oneness with all who created, marketed, bought, used, and recycled or discarded it being the issue, i.e., the focus, i.e., the agenda. Kant's "lawfulness" is the law of man, i.e., man's "feelings" (desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., the law of the flesh 'liberated' from the "law" of God, not only in man's thoughts but in his actions as well (called theory and practice), the law being that which is established for all times and all places, over all men and nature, which (who—since God is its author) determines what is right and what is wrong.

Simply put: Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law" is the child, in his thoughts and actions (in "theory and practice") 'liberating' himself from his father's authority system, 'liberating' man from God's. It is the flesh 'liberated' from the spirit, i.e., that which is natural 'liberated' from that which is unnatural, i.e., that which is of man 'liberated' from that which is not of man, making man (not just individual man but all men, collectively) complete ('righteous') in and of themselves, i.e., in that which they all have in common, i.e., in their carnal nature, i.e., in their carnal desire for the 'pleasures' of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, inhibiting or blocking it. It is the child, i.e., the "child within," i.e., our impulses and urges ("feelings," i.e., desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' stimulated by and responding to the situation (temptations) of the 'moment,' whether imagined or real, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' from that which is "without." The father's/Father's authority, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is that which "represses" the child, preventing him from becoming at-one-with himself, "alienating" him from the other children of the world, preventing them from becoming at-one-with him and him from becoming at-one-with them. Kant's "lawfulness without law" is the child, in thought and action (theory and practice) becoming at-one-with the himself as well as at-one-with the rest of the children of the world, with them, doing the process, beoming the same with him, all working together as one (in consensus) 'creating' a new world order based upon their carnal nature, 'liberating' it (themselves) from the father's/Father's authority. It is the child undoing, i.e., 'liberating' himself from his own demise, which he created when he submitting himself to the father's/Father's will, i.e., when he obeyed the father's/Father's commands and rules as given and accepting his/His facts and truth as is, by faith over and therefore against his own carnal desires of the 'moment'—'creating' the father's/Father's authority in the process. Karl Marx summed it up this way: "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) The role of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the psychotherapist, is to "help" the child 'liberates' himself from his own demise, "helping" him create a new world order of "lawfulness without law," where all children/men submit themselves only to that which is "of and for" themselves, i.e., "of and for" only that which is "of and for" nature only, alone. Kant's "lawfulness without law" is antithetical to the authority (law) of God, making man subject to his carnal nature and the world which stimulates it only, alone, leading all who praxis it down the pathway of sin and death. . "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 "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 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "lawfulness without law" is Reasoning from your "feelings" of the 'moment' instead of from established facts and truth which get in your way. "Lawfulness without law" is based upon your "feelings," i.e., your "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment'—which are ever 'changeable' (adaptable to 'change') according to 1) your desires and dissatisfactions of the ''moment,' 2) the situation that is stimulating them, and 3) your ability to comprehend, i.e., observe and define them (not only in yourself but in others as well)—making law (and truth) ever subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the "feelings" of those making law or establishing policy, making law subject to their "self interest" of the 'moment,' in the "light" of the given situation, 'liberating' themselves from the constraints of the "past," i.e., from the principles of their constituents as well as from contracts which inhibit or block them from understanding (gestalt) and fulfilling (actualizing) their desires of the 'moment,' which they perceive (imagine) they can have in the present (and more of in the future), provided they make "the group" "feel good," i.e., they do not reprove, correct, rebuke, or offend it, i.e., they do not hurt its "feelings," judging and/or condemning it for its unrighteous thoughts and actions, i.e., judging and/or condemning it from standards which are not derived from "the group" itself, i.e., from human nature only and therefore can not be used in order to engender harmony within "the group," i.e., consensus, bringing those in "the group" (at least some of them) under conviction, dividing it instead.

"The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts [the individuals] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within "the group"]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness; What is Orthodox Marxism?) Karl Marx wrote: "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual." "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx ,Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx,) "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Thus, according to those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education)

The sense of guilt or conviction (for doing things wrong instead of right according to that which is not of nature, i.e., that which is not in concord with man's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') is an indicator of someone introducing "inappropriate information" (prejudice, judgmentalism) into "the group," affecting the outcome, moving it away from the consensus process (group harmony, i.e., the group making its decisions based upon 1) its "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are held in common or are universal within the group, 2) which are influenced by the situation of the 'moment,' and 3) the facilitator of 'change' who is manipulating it, initiating and sustaining the process of 'change') toward the conscience (with individuals in the group making their decision based upon "private convictions," i.e., upon established commands, rules, facts, and truths which they have learned in the "past," continue to embrace in the present, and therefore carry on into the future, inhibiting or blocking 'change' or at least preventing "rapid" 'change'), requiring discussion and a majority vote to make a decision, instead.

It is here, in the consensus ("lawfulness without law") meeting that representation looses its true meaning, with the "representative" representing his own "feelings," i.e., his "self," i.e., his desires, i.e., his "self interest" of the 'moment,' including his desire for the approval of "the group" (making him and the group seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable by the facilitator of 'change,' subject to Kurt Lewin's "group dynamics, force field analysis, unfreezing, moving, and refreezing" method of "group psychotherapy") over and therefore against those who voted him into office (to represent them, i.e., their position, i.e., their principles), thus making "truth and knowledge" subject to what he can get out of the situation for himself and "the group," i.e., "the people" in the 'moment,' i.e., making "truth and knowledge" adaptable to 'change.' A book all certified teachers are trained in and schools accredited by 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 S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, p. 32) Karl Marx stated the same: "In the eyes of the dialectical process, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

By making facts and truth subject to your "feelings" of the 'moment, i.e., your desires of the 'moment,' they never get in the way. If they do, they were not "of and for," i.e., in harmony or consensus with nature. The dialectic 'logic' and method goes this way, since the law of God (which is not readily adaptable to 'change') is made for the unrighteous—revealing (exposing) their unrighteousness, thus condemning them—by negating the law, i.e., 'justifying' unrighteousness, man can become "righteous" (in his own eyes) again, thinking and acting according to his own carnal nature, making laws which support his carnal thoughts and actions—negating righteousness as being an issue of life, making sensuousness ("feelings") the issue instead, allowing him to remove the righteous and the innocent who get in his way, without having no guilty conscience in doing so—since it was necessary for the betterment of society. But the Lord God, who is unchanging, declares: "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7

The consensus process ("lawfulness without law") directly affects you, not only in the court of "law," if you should happen to end up there, but in all aspects of your daily life—your "social capital," i.e., your contribution to socialism (under the guise of society) determining your worth as a "citizen." It is how government by consensus, i.e., of "lawfulness without law," which we now have, works, 'liberating' legislators from the voice (beliefs, i.e., restraints) of their constituents and the contract they have with the citizens which restrains them in their office, limiting them in their power, i.e., 'liberating' themselves from God and His restraints upon them, i.e., 'liberating' themselves from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, so they can sin with impunity, passing laws propagating unrighteousness and abomination, 'justifying' their deceitful and wicked hearts not only between themselves but before all men. This applies not only to the highest offices and departments of the land but also applies to all offices and departments of government, down to the local town council, school board, church board, "youth group," "cell group" meeting, 'liberating' all 'willing' participants from Godly restraints. "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 "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

The process of dialectic 'reasoning' (dialoguing with your "self" and with others your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'—your and their desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint) is your ability to 'justify' your "self," i.e., to 'justify' your carnal desires (your "self interest") of the 'moment' (along with others, i.e., in "consensus") over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority (the father's/Father's restraints), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning in the process—creating a "new" world order of unrighteousness and abomination, where a persons "feelings," i.e., his or her carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "the child within" rules (hating/disrespecting authority, i.e., sulking and/or striking out against authority, having a tantrum, "tearing up the kitchen" if it "does not get its way"), rejecting the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority, with his commands, rules, facts, and truth (to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed, i.e., respecting authority—with those in authority being dependable, i.e., trustworthy, i.e., consistent in directing [blessing or rewarding those who obey and/or do what is right, chastising or reproving those who disobey and/or do what is wrong, casting out any who disrespect, i.e., challenge, question, disregard, defy authority], providing, protecting as well as being loving, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving toward those under their authority), resulting in a world, as Immanuel Kant stated, of "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose" where the 'drive' of life is the person's love of pleasure, i.e., "lust," i.e., the law of sin—unrestrained by the law of parents/God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—and the 'purpose' of life is the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain, where their thoughts and actions—"theory and practice"—are dedicated to doing "good" for themselves in the name of society ("good sense")—pleasure ("lust") being the standard for "good" and pain (restraint), including the pain of being chastened and/or of missing out on pleasure for doing wrong and/or the pain of missing out on pleasure in order to do what is right (according to the parents/God's, i.e., the father's/Father's will) being the standard for "evil." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:16, 15

When a person makes pleasure (approval) the standard for "good" and pain (rejection) the standard for "evil," doing right and not wrong according to the parent's, constituents, God's will is negated., deceiving him into believing a lie, i.e., that he can, while doing wrong, become "righteous" in and of himself, i.e., in his own eyes, having no fear of God's judgment upon him (damnation) for his carnal thoughts and actions.

"There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 12 "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." 2 Peter 2:10, 2 The truth is: "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12, including the politician.

We are being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change' when he asks us to be "positive," i.e., to set aside any command, rule, fact, or truth that is "negative," i.e., that gets in the way of "building relationship" with others, making "self interest," i.e., our desire for the approval of men, i.e., humanism the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life. The very act, i.e., praxis of being "positive" and not "negative," in order to get along with the world, negates faith in God, replacing it with our carnal desires of the 'moment'—which are stimulated by the things of the world, i.e., by sight. "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 "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 We are not to be "negative" in order to be "negative," but when someone's "positive" is wrong, affecting their soul and the soul of others, we must speak out, correcting, reproving, rebuking them, in love, for their sake and for the sake of others, their thoughts and actions compelling us to respond. "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:18 does not give us consent to be silent when those around us are thinking about doing and/or doing evil.

Karl Marx wrote: "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') We are not righteous in and of ourselves, i.e., God, therefore Marx is wrong (making himself, and those who embrace his way of thinking, God, righteous in their own eyes). While we are given greater license of conduct as we mature, if we negate Godly restraint in the process all we have is our carnal desires of the 'moment' and the carnal desires of others, with consent being based upon our and their carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' 'liberating' ourselves and them from Godly restraint, resulting in us and them engendering laws restraining (prohibiting) the preaching and teaching of Godly restraint in the public and in the so called "public-private" arena, i.e., with the public overreaching into the private, usurping the rights of the individual, under God.

Abraham Maslow wrote: "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 [humanists, socialist, globalists, environmentalists] first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature) "To identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) "The person at the peak experience is godlike . . . complete, loving, uncondemning, compassionate and accept[ing] of the world and of the person." (Abraham Maslow Toward a Psychology of Being) ". . . I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN, & the like." "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first—it certainly doesn't amount to much now & won't until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'" "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." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "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.) "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness. It's the easiest to take. Must encourage it. 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 certainly enjoy nudism as at Esalen & have no trouble with it. And I certainly think sex is wonderful, even sacred. And I approve in principle of the advancement of knowledge & experimentation with anything." "This movement can be dignified and can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness. 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 Abraham Maslow) "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) "In fact, after a lecture at Sacred Heart in 1962, Abraham Maslow noted in a diary entry that the talk had been 'successful,' and that 'They shouldn't applaud me. They should attack me. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would attack.'" (The Journals of Abraham Maslow, ed. Richard J. Lowry, p. 132. June 1982, p. 157); (Nuns and Midshipmen by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson 4 July 2001) "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it [A patriarchal culture] 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." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." "Any company that restricts its goals purely to its own profits, its own production, and its own sales is getting a kind of a free ride from me [who is getting paid to teach the next generation to negate sovereignty and unalienable rights, i.e., their private property, business rights] and other taxpayers." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) "Kant was certainly correct in claiming that we can never fully know nonhuman reality." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." (Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality 1954, p. 7-8)

A major work regarding the 'changing' of curriculum in the classroom makes it clear where contemporary education is taking us. "We must develop persons [citizens, i.e., educators, students, legislators, etc.,] who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding to principles i.e., their parent's, teacher's, constituent's, or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, refusing to compromise their position in order to "get along," having a guilty conscience when doing wrong] in joint deliberations [in a consensus meeting] as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum) "What we need to learn, it seems, are ways of gaining acceptance for a humanistic person-centered venture [the child's/man's nature as law] in a culture more devoted to rule by authority [with the children/men turning to the father/Father, submitting to his/His authority in making decisions]." (Carl Rogers, Freedom To Learn FOR THE 80'S) The 'purpose' for the "group grade," i.e., "group psychotherapy" classroom in "education" today is to replace the "inculcating" how and why this nation was founded the way it was with socialist ("group think") indoctrination and programming. While the father's authority is negated in socialist revolutions (both national and global, i.e., fascism and globalism, which is the 'purpose' of the revolution), it is retained in a constitutional, limited, representative form of government, yet not in the government itself (from the national to the local—where government's power is limited, i.e., broken up into three separate branches). It is left in tact in the home, with the father (as king) ruling over his home, property, and business, i.e., his authority protected by laws which recognize, serve, and protect his unalienable, private "right" which are derived, not from man but from God. Dialectic 'reasoning' negates limited government, making all people subject to the "religion" of humanism, supporting it, and it alone, with their tax dollars, contributions (tax breaks), and time (volunteerism)—which was Kant's, Hegel's, Marx's, Freud's, Roger's, Maslow's, etc. dream. In a consensus meeting the person, i.e., the student, legislator, etc., is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, with his natural desire for approval, i.e., affirmation pressuring him into finding his identity in "the group." "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) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvine D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

When you start with the premise that man's heart is neither good nor evil but has the potently to becoming "good" based upon his education (upbringing) and his contribution to society (becoming at one with society), i.e., the "blank tablet theory," the soviet system (the consensus process) is the only form of government of choice, for those "of and for" "the people" only, i.e., making laws which are in accordance to and which promote the carnal nature of "the people," 'liberated' from Godly restraints. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 "It is not individualism [the child being personally held accountable for his actions (by his father) as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions (by God, the Heavenly Father)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society [based upon what all children (including those in adult bodies) have in common, i.e. their carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. their love of pleasure and their hate of restraint, i.e., missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment,' engendering 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 (the meaning of "class consciousness")] is the necessary framework through which freedom [freedom from the father's/Father's authority system] and individuality [with each child being himself, i.e. of nature "Only," i.e. carnal, not having a sense of "guilty" (a guilty conscience) for being "normal," i.e., for removing that which is not "normal," i.e., not "good," i.e., not "of and for self" and society, the father and his authority system] are made realities." (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

George Washington, the "father" of this nation, recognized the heart of man and its effect upon government. "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, 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)

"The workers' council [the consensus process, i.e., the soviet] spells the political and economic defeat of reification [serving something that is not of man's carnal nature, i.e., not "rational" to his carnal mind therefore not "real"—that which is unadaptable to 'change,' i.e. parental authority, i.e., the father's authority over their children, property, and business and God's authority over man]. In the period following the dictatorship [executive orders] it will eliminate the bourgeois [the middle-class's] separation of the legislature, administration, and judiciary [in government]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness, What is Orthodox Marxism?) Departments under all branches of government, which are run by the consensus process, provide the information and support from which those in government make their decisions, establishing policies initiating and sustain the consensus process, i.e., "lawfulness without law" in all branches of government—from the federal down to the local offices in the land—making all "the people" subject to (servants of) socialists, globalists, humanists, environmentalist, with their tax dollars supporting them and their globalist (anti-local) plans.

Bipartisanship or the consensus meeting is the praxis of facilitator's of 'change,' "group psychotherapists," Transformational Marxist's seducing deceiving, and manipulating "lawmakers," "helping" them establish laws which are ever subject to 'change,' according to the "felt needs" or "sensuous needs" of "the people," as "sense perceived" by them in the meeting of the 'moment,' negating representative, limited, constitutional, republic, majority vote government. Your representative literally takes on the mind of the facilitator of 'change,' negating the law of the land—which protects his constituents from the facilitator of 'change.' "In the group not only must the individual strive for autonomy [from authority, i.e., from his constituents and their principles which inhibit or block him from becoming approved by, i.e., at-one-with "the group"] but the leader must be willing to allow him to do so. … an individual's behavior cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of his environmental press [his desire for approval or affirmation by "the group," the hallmark of "common-ism" AKA Communism]. …one member's behavior is not understandable out of context of the entire group. …there is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members. … few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority. One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial. The 'third force' in psychology … which emphasized a holistic, humanistic concept of the person, provided impetus and form to the encounter group … The therapist assists the patient to clarify the nature of the imagined danger and then … to detoxify, to disconfirm the reality of this danger. By shifting the group's attention from 'then-and-there' to 'here-and-now' material, he performs a service to the group … focusing the group upon itself. Members must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect and must come to value the group as an important means of meeting their personal needs. Once a member realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself. Patients should be encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking. Members learn about the impact of their behavior on the feelings of other members. …a patient might, with further change, outgrow … his spouse … unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse. (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

When your legislator or "representative" goes off to that "special meeting," where they learn how to participate in the consensus process, i.e., are "programed," they come back with a lobotomy. You can not talk (communicate) with them any more. When you try to persuade them with facts and truth, i.e., your position, they ask you how you "feel" and what you "think" instead. If you persist they just stare at you with that "deer in the headlight look," then tell you that we all just need to "get along," i.e., see life from the other persons (the deviants) perspective, putting aside "right and wrong" ("judgmentalism") as a way of life.

The consensus group establishes rules of conduct (within the meeting) which help the participants arrive at a consensus, establishing laws which best serve the uniting of "the group" and "the people" as one (both perceived as being one and the same in the 'moment') over and therefore against sovereignty and unalienable rights, i.e., the rights of the individual, under God. The consensus process removes from the representative (washes from his brain) individual rights under God, replacing them with the "felt needs" of "the people," i.e., the needs of the collective. History has warned us: "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state [those setting policy for "the people," according to their own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment']." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)

In changing the policy setting environment from discussion (an example of discussion being a meeting which uses Robert's Rules of Order, with an honest chairman overseeing, with members preaching and teaching facts and truth, i.e., their position, persuading, i.e., informing [educating], encouraging, correcting, reproving, rebuking and being persuaded, i.e., informed [educated], encouraged, corrected, reproved, rebuked by others, while retaining the right of position and authority, i.e., all having the right to be "negative") to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (where the facilitator of 'change' "encourages" everyone to set aside their position, i.e., not to be "negative" in order to establishing policy upon "the groups" "feelings" of the 'moment,' requiring all to be "positive"), laws are 'changed' in the direction of socialism (building relationship on "self interest") over and therefore against individualism, i.e., the individual remaining loyal to their parent's, their constituents, and/or God's authority ("doing right and not wrong," according to their will). The moment you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative" you are being manipulated, i.e., pressured into moving in the direction of socialism, i.e., building relationship with others upon your and their "feelings" of the 'moment' rather than upon doing right and not wrong according to your parent's, teacher's, boss's, constituents, ... and/or God's will, making law subject to the law of the flesh instead of subject to the law of restraint. "Qui tacet consentire videtur," "ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" are Latin phrases used in law, meaning "to be silent is to consent" or your "silence gives consent," "when you should have spoken and were able." When you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e., not correcting, reproving, or rebuking the unrighteous in their praxis of unrighteousness, unrighteousness becomes the "norm," i.e., the law of the land.

I am not speaking of a theocracy here, for there is no such thing as a "Christian nation" in "this world" ("Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36), only a nation or nations with Christians, whose preaching of the gospel changes the hearts of men and thereby affects the nation, i.e., how it does business, i.e., how it establishes policy. Believers are to be in the world, but not "of it," not becoming at-one-with it (in consensus), setting aside the Word of God, i.e., truth in order to "get along," especially with those who claim to be believers but have themselves become at-one-with the world. "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

Christianity carries with it a "top-down" system of authority, with each believer being personally held accountable before God ("But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36), i.e., the priesthood of all believers doing their best as unto the Lord, resulting in a nation of Christians establishing "top-down" government, with the individual believer, under God, having private-convictions, helping to establish policy, i.e., affecting how government functions, limiting its power so he can preach the gospel freely, training up his children in his faith without government surveillance and resistance, i.e., having the right of freedom of the conscience, religion, and private property (individualism, under God). The consensus process, i.e., freedom from the conscience—the "super-ego" is the conscience made subject to the person's "feelings" of the 'moment,' negating the conscience, i.e., making it subject to 'change'—is antithetical to Christianity as Christianity is antithetical to the consensus process. "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 While this speaks of the fellowshipping of believers, it affects how believers respond in government, i.e., why majority vote and private ballots are of such importance, which the consensus process negates. "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/Father], then Marx [children/men 'justifying' themselves, i.e., coming to consensus based upon their carnal nature, hating, seeking to negate any authority which restrains them] must collapse into a bottomless abyss [spend eternity in Hell]." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)

As the father's authority, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong is negated when the father abdicates his authority to his children's "feelings" of the 'moment,' the children's 'liberty' (freedom from the conscience for doing wrong) is negated when the children accept the father's authority. The consensus process, i.e., "lawfulness without law" bypasses limited government, making all children and father's subject to the "feelings," i.e., carnal desires of the lawmakers (children in adult bodies) in the 'moment.'

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transforming 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)

Carl Rogers wrote of the power of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the Transformational Marxists (all being the same) who leads the consensus meeting, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating all its participants. "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [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." "'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., dialoguing our feelings (our carnal desires of the 'moment') to a feeling of oneness ('discovering' through dialogue the common carnal desires that we can all agree on, thereby affirming ourselves, and working together, as one, in fulfilling them, we establish our carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., ourselves over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His restraints)], and why negative doesn't' [the father's/Father's authority to 1) give us commands and rules which go counter to and therefore restrain our carnal desires of the 'moment,' 2) reward us or bless us when we do what is right and obey, 3) chasten us when we do wrong and disobey, and 4) cast out those who disrespect i.e. who question and/or challenge his/His authority, i.e., who reject his/His restraints]... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled [the manipulated] though they are following a code much more scrupulously [more government regulations and oversight (sight based management)] than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there's no restrain and no revolt. 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)

Government by consent is a government of children (in adult bodies) negating parental/Godly restraint, so that all can sin with impunity, i.e., do wrong without having a "guilty conscience," creating a "new' world order of unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., based upon man's (the child's) carnal nature only.

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

The law of God leads to repentance—Romans 7:14-25—which leads to salvation in and through Christ Jesus, who fulfilled the law, imputing his righteousness unto all who place their faith in Him, 'redeeming' them from their sins, which leads to eternal life, i.e., 'reconciliation' to the Father—Hebrews 12:5-11. "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 law of God can save no man. It only points us in the right direction. "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 [exalt his "self"]." Ephesians 2:8, 9 Grace does not negate the law, it is that, by grace we are saved from the curse of the law, i.e., revealing our sins and God's judgment upon us for disobeying them, i.e., we are not saved by our efforts but by the work of Christ (the sacrificial lamb, slain once, for all), with the Holy Spirit of God in us, leading us in the law, with us no longer having to say "ye or nay" but only "ye," for the Holy Spirit will only obey the law, with us repenting and asking for forgiveness if we disobey, i.e., sin. Period. This is something those of the world can not understand, calling it foolish, 'justifying' their sins, hating anyone pointing their sins out, i.e., hurting their "feelings," i.e., making them "feel" bad, i.e., making them "feel" guilty.

The consensus process of "lawfulness without law"—the law of the flesh 'liberated' from the law of God Genesis 3:1-6—leads to death. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that their carnal pleasure, including the approval of men, i.e., affirmation is the standard for "good," 'liberating' themselves, in their minds, from the judgment and wrath of God, i.e., fear of damnation]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in themselves]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 We can now be classified as a Facebook mentality, i.e., "lawfulness without law" people, who have "no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 The only law and order from now on is that of a police state, with cameras on every street corner, in every store, and on the police themselves, i.e., "sight based management," making sure that "the people" do what they are told, by those in government, subject to the consensus process and the facilitator's of 'change,' i.e., the lawless ones.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2017, 2018