Malicious Intent. by Dean Gotcher

Malicious Intent.
(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

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

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure (lust) is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires (lusts after)]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 It can not see its hate of the father's/Father's authority as being evil, i.e., "wicked," i.e., "desperately wicked" because it's lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate.

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:18

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:30; 12:47-50

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

"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

The soul KNOWS by being told. The flesh by sense experience. When God created man (Adam) he made him a living soul ("And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7) making it possible for God to tell him right from wrong behavior, i.e., what he could and could not do—from being told ("And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16, 17). No animal, being subject only to stimulus-response (approach pleasure - avoid pain) and impulses and urges (instincts) can read or write a book, i.e., can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior, only man, made in the image of God can. Making man subject to stimulus-response, i.e., to "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes" and "the pride of life," i.e., to that which is "of the world" only condemns his soul (which is eternal) to eternal death. The moment the master facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the master psychotherapist got the woman (in the garden in Eden) into dialogue, thus making her "feelings," i.e., her lusts of the 'moment' the foundation from which to determine right and wrong behavior, he knew he "owned" her (with Adam following her).

"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) Discussion is formal, retaining the father's/Father's authority, i.e., accountability for being/doing wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. You KNOW because you have been told, engendering a guilty conscience (a sense of accountability) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world stimulates.

"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) Dialogue is informal, 'liberating' the person from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., i.e., accountability for being/doing wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. You "know" because you have experience it for your self, developing common ground (identifying with) and therefore building relationship with those who have the same carnal desires.

The guilt conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating resides in discussion, not in dialogue. There is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process. In dialogue, as in an opinion and the consensus process there is only the individual's lust for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' that the world is stimulating and resentment (hatred) toward restraint, i.e., toward missing out on pleasure being 'justified.' This is the role of the "super-ego."

"The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) A view of the guilty conscience by a Marxist.

"... the superego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past [making the child's feelings, i.e., his lust for pleasure and restraint toward restraint, in the present and in the past the same—now being able to do something about it].'" (Brown)

"I am nothing and I should be everything" (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words: "I am called a sinner, condemned, and cast out when I should be recognized as being in 'ownership' of all things, and worshiped." "The fruits of the earth belong to us all [i.e., to the one making this statement], and the earth itself to nobody [i.e., there is no higher authority above the one making this statement]" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality), voiced in defiance to "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26). "The proletariat [i.e., the one making this statement] thus has the same right as has the German king [the father/Father] when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse" (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'). What the Marxist, i.e., facilitator of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapist sees, he "owns." Whenever a Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the psychotherapist says "the people" ("the proletariat") he means his "self"—perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," since he, like "the people" lusts after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people are stimulating and hates restraint, i.e., hates the father's/Father's authority for getting in the way of his and "the people's" lusts, he is 'justified' (in his and "the people's" eyes) in silencing, censoring, and/or removing anyone who gets in "the people's," i.e., his way, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous with "the people's" affirmation (since he is doing it for their "good"). When he says "It is not about you" when you question his actions he is saying "It is all about me, so I can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people are stimulating without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me ("the people"), i.e. my lusts ("the people's" lusts) or get in my way ("the people's" way), 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since, having 'justified' their lusts I now "own" them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for the 'good' of 'the people,' i.e., for my 'good.'"

"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) In other words: being condemned, rejected, and cast out for being a sinner (because of the father's/Father's authority) in a "sinful world"—having rejected the Heavenly Father's authority, who is perfect, recognizing only the early father, who like the children lusts after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates and hates restraint, he is 'justified' in his mind in making lust (what both the father and the children have in common) the basis of "dialogue," negating the father's authority in the outcome. "Critical Criticism," i.e., dialogue pushed to its pure state, i.e., hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority for getting in the way of lust, i.e., for cutting off dialogue (lust) with his "Because I said so," "It is written," dialogue restored (regarding right and wrong behavior), i.e., "pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without" must "set up a sinful world in its own home," i.e., must remove the father's/Father's authority from the world around it—without the dialogue, i.e., hate and negation (violence) toward the father's/Father's authority there can be no 'justice,' i.e., no equity. This is the foundation of thought for "Critical Race Theory." It has nothing to do with race (that is only a cover). It is all about lust, i.e., removing (negating) anyone (by any means) who gets in its way. Dialogue in its pure state, 'justifying' the "human heart," i.e., the child's lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint can only lead to that outcome.

Discussion sides with the soul, KNOWING right from wrong from being told, having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your 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, engendering a guilty conscience in you for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating. Dialogue, on the other hand, void of the father's/Father's authority sides with your flesh, 'justifying' your doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., your 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. In discussion the father/Father and his/His right and wrong, i.e., his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth have the final say, engendering a guilty conscience in you (accountability) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating. Discussion unites you with others based upon their doing right and not wrong according to the same authority and standards you obey (engendering fellowship), therefore dividing you from those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating. Dialogue unites you with others based upon your and their same self interests, i.e., your and their lusts of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating (engendering relationship), therefore dividing you from those who insist upon you doing right and not wrong according to their father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, which gets in the way of your lusts, i.e., your self interest. In dialogue there is only you, 'justifying' your self, i.e., your natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, therefore 'justifying' your dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred of and hostility toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., toward established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of your lusts.

"Prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future)

In our "empty space" where we are deciding our actions of the 'moment' we reason either through discussion, i.e., from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing the father's/Father's will or through dialogue, i.e., through our carnal desires, i.e., our lusts of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating, 'justifying' our self, doing our will instead. These two are in conflict within us at any given 'moment,' with discussion restraining us from doing what we want, when what we want goes against doing what we are told. Dialogue on the other hand 'justifying' us, i.e., our lusts of the 'moment.' It is not lust until we have been told, i.e., we KNOW it is wrong to think or do it. When selecting what to eat from a menu, for example when we want to eat what we KNOW (have been told) is bad or wrong for us to eat we go to dialogue, 'justifying' our actions of the 'moment,' i.e., our eating it, KNOWING we should not have eaten it afterward (if discussion , i.e., the father's/Father's authority shows up).

"I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Romans 7:7

We resolve this tension by 1) humbling, denying, dying, to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating our self in order to do right and now wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., in order to do what we are told (through discussion with our self), 2) doing what we are told while thinking about (imagining) what we are lusting after, that the world is stimulating, 'justifying' it to our self internally (through dialoguing with our self), or 3) in disobedience, doing what we want, having a guilty conscience, i.e., fear of 'judgment,' condemnation, being cast out later, as a result, since discussion, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., discussion is still in place, i.e., a part of our thought process. It is in this context we either (through discussion) humble, deny, die to, control, disciple, capitulate our self, doing the father's/Father's will or (through dialogue) 'justify' our self, doing our will instead—yet retaining a guilty conscience, i.e., fear of being judged, condemned, and/or cast out since discussion, i.e., the father's/Father's authority is still present (engendering, according to those "of the world" "repression," "alienation," and "neurosis").

"The individual may have 'secret' thoughts ["lusts"] which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it [out of fear of being judged, rejected, and/or punished]. To gain access [through getting him to dialogue, i.e., to share his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (that he is internally trying to 'justify') with others] is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential [for 'change,' i.e., to become of and for his "self," i.e., self actualized—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience it engenders]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Those "of the world" have another solution to the conflict, i.e., to the juxtaposition between discussion and dialogue, i.e., the conflict between the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature—in an environment (a group setting) defining right and wrong behavior remove discussion, i.e., remove the father's/Father's authority, i.e., remove having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., 'create' a "healthy," "positive," "safe" environment, i.e., a "space" where the participants can dialogue, i.e., share their opinions, i.e., share their lusts and resentments of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people are stimulating without having a fear of being judged, condemned, and/or cast out (called the "scientific method" where the law of nature, i.e., stimulus-response is the basis of evaluation), thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current environment is stimulating. If stimulus-response, i.e., the scientific method ("behavior science") becomes the means to knowing right from wrong behavior then the soul, that which KNOWS by being told must be sacrificed upon the alter of "human nature," i.e., approach pleasure - avoid pain, including the pain which comes with restraint, i.e., missing out on pleasure—so the facilitator can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust 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 "the groups" approval (affirmation). There is no other 'purpose.'

" … a scientifically acceptable solution does exist …. For to accept that solution, even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the children's, i.e., "the peoples" perspective, i.e., from human nature] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the father's/Father's perspective, i.e., established commands, rules, facts and truth that inhibit or block human nature]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely [if those in authority are to observe the world, including their authority from their children's perspective, they must abdicate their authority to their children's "feelings," i.e., carnal desires, i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating—that the facilitator of 'change' is manipulating for his own gain, that of ruling over "the people," using them to satisfy his own carnal desires, i.e., lusts of the 'moment,' with their affirmation]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

This is the malicious intent of all facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapists, where right and wrong behavior is being defined—replacing discussion (the father's/Father's authority) with dialogue (the children's, i.e., the facilitator of 'change's' lusts and resentments), thereby 'liberating' his (the facilitator's) self from the father's/Father's authority so he can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating, as well as remove anyone who gets in his way (including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous) without having a guilty conscience, with the room's, i.e., "the group's," i.e., "the people's" affirmation—'justifying' his actions.

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience for lusting after dopamine emancipation] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence (the guilty conscience) also disappears." (Kurt Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality)

"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') If pleasure, i.e., lust is the 'drive' of life, then the augmentation of lust must be its 'purpose,' requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority so all can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people are stimulating without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without feeling guilty.

"Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the carnal nature of the child]; the foundation has to be recovered [the child has to be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority]." (Brown)

"Once the earthly family [where children have to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family [where the son of God, Jesus Christ humbled, denied, died to, controlled, disciplined, capitulated his self in order to do the Father's will, demanding all who follow Him do the same], the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, i.e., negated] in theory and in practice [in the children's thoughts, directly effecting their actions, i.e., their behavior—toward their self, others, the world, and authority]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

"... 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 exercises his authority in the home]."(Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) Sigmund Freud's history of the prodigal son is not of the son coming to his senses, humbling his self, returning home, submitting his self to his father's authority, learning his inheritance was not his father's money but his father's love for him, but of the son joining with his "friends," returning home, killing the father, taking all that was his (the father's), using it to satisfy their carnal desires, i.e., their lusts of the 'moment' that the world stimulates.

"Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions ['liberation' of "self" from the father's/Father's authority] are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions [submission of "self" to the father's/Father's authority] 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." "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World." "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.)" (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

The facilitator of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapist has only one motive (intent) in mind, when it comes to defining right and wrong behavior, that is, through the use of dialogue (having everyone share their "feelings," i.e., their lusts and resentments of the 'moment' without fear of being judged, condemned, cast out) to remove the father's/Father's authority (discussion, based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which engenders "judgementalism," i.e., a guilty conscience for doing wrong, ...) from the environment (the classroom, the workplace, government, the "church") so he can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current environment is stimulating, being 'justified' in negating anyone who gets in his way without having a guilty conscience, with everyone's affirmation. 'Driven' by his lusts, he has no other 'purpose.' Perceiving his self as being the personification of the people, who like him, lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, resenting restraint, he is 'justified' (in his mind) for his actions. When you confront him on his actions his response will be "It is not about you," which means it is all about him, i.e., so he can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current environment is stimulating without having a guilty conscience, with everyone's (including your) affirmation. If you do not affirm his actions you need therapy or to be silenced, censored, and/or removed (negated) for the "good" of "the group," i.e., for the "good" of society, i.e., for the "good" of his self.

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." 2 Peter 2:3

All the facilitator of 'change' has to do is 'discover' (through dialogue) your lusts, i.e., your self interests of the 'moment,' 'justify' them, i.e., gain your trust and he "owns" you, i.e., he can use you (as "human resource") to satisfy his carnal pleasures (lusts) of the 'moment,' casting you aside when you no longer serve his 'purpose' (stimulate or support his lusts) or get in his way—doing to you what you did to the father/Father when you decided through dialogue to built relationship with him, i.e., listen to him 'justifying' your lusts instead of, through discussion denying your self, doing the father's/Father's will instead, for your soul sake. By moving you away from discussion (away from having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) to dialogue (to 'justifying' your lusts—your lust for pleasure and your lust for approval from others) he is able to silence discussion, making dialogue the only means to knowing right and wrong behavior, establishing lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, negating your having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your self in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., negating your having to do the father's/Father's will.

"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)

"Without exception, [children] enter group therapy [the "group grade" classroom] with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience in their first and most important group—their primary family [the traditional home with parents telling them what they can and can not do]." "What better way to help [the child] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment, hostility] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [the facilitator of 'change]? The [facilitator of 'change'] is the living personification of all parental images [takes the place of the parent]. Group [facilitators] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions [teach right from wrong from established commands, rules, facts, and truth], they urge the group [the children] to explore and to employ its own resources [to dialogue their "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., their desire for "the group" approval (affirmation)]. The group [children] must feel free to confront the [the facilitator of 'change'], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation [rebellion and anarchy]. He [the child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [brainwashing—washing respect for and fear of the father's/Father's authority from the child's brain (thoughts) ] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role [submitting to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will] he once occupied. … the patient [the child] changes the past by reconstituting it ['creating' a "new" world order from his "ought," i.e., a world "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or people are stimulating, i.e., a world void of the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience which the father's/Father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or people are stimulating]." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)

"Change in methods of leadership [replacing the father's/Father' authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your 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, i.e., replace discussion with the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., with the dialoguing of everyone's opinion, void of the fear of being judged, condemned, or cast out for sharing one's lusts and resentments, to an consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness"] is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group." "Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group [replacing the father's/Father's authority with the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., replacing discussion with dialogue when it comes to right and wrong behavior]." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development)

"Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage [lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint] bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism as quoted in Marcuse)

"Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants [as a result of the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus] could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged [be negated]." "... the individual is emancipated in the social group." (Brown)

"There is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members." "To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance." "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their loyalty to the father's/Father's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity." (Yalom)

"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself [one's lusts] in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

"Group members must be able to synthesize individual 'felt' needs [lusts] with common group 'felt' needs [lusts]." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

"Only when the immediate interests [lusts] are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority and therefore 'liberation' from the guilty conscience (division) that it engenders (in the group setting, i.e., in society)] do they become revolutionary," (Lukács)

"The revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life, which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers." (Habermas)

"To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Brown)

"... the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Marcuse)

"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

"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7

"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

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," "open ended, non-directed," 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)—as predators, charlatans, pimps, pedophiles, 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