The Liberal Mind.
"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
This explains the attitude of 'liberals,' acting as spoiled, unthankful, hateful children , i.e., children of disobedience when confronted with or restrained by 'conservative' principles, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to law, manifesting their love of pleasure, i.e., their love of the world which stimulates dopamine emancipation, including the pleasure (intoxication, addiction, and possession) which comes from the approval of others, i.e., affirmation—'justifying' their "self" before themselves, i.e., those who think and act like them, (Luke 16:15) which makes them "feel good," i.e., "right" in their own eyes (Proverbs 16:25), blinding them of any wrongdoing on their part in the 'moment'—as well as manifesting their hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority (Matthew 6:24), establishing "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's restraints (Hebrews 12:5-11), negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, thus negating, in their mind, their need to repent (Romans 7:14-25). Their leaders, as facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," do what they can to get rid of the father's/Father's authority so they (as a "big brother") can rule the world—believing that everyone is just like them, i.e., a 'liberal,' i.e., hating commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in their way, preventing them from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they "lust" after (1 John 2:15-18), which the world stimulates, wanting 'change' (just not knowing it yet, i.e., still in "denial," i.e., still under the influence of the father's/Father's authority, fearful of being their "self," i.e., still humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining their self in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., refusing to question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack the father/Father and his authority when it gets in their way), needing to be converted ('liberated,' i.e., supportive of the child's carnal nature, resisting the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., becoming like them) or else be silenced and/or removed. All liberals, like the first two 'liberals' (in a garden called Eden—Genesis 3:1-6), blame someone else for the trouble(s) in which they find themselves (Adam "throwing the woman 'under the buss,'" the woman throwing the facilitator of 'change' "under the buss" (sort of), both in essence throwing God "under the buss," neither one of them showing any sign of repentance—"I did wrong," "I disobeyed," "I sinned"—for their thoughts or actions). Just listen to the excuses a child gives when caught and you will see how a 'liberal's' mind works—'justifying' their "self," making you the "villain," i.e., the one doing wrong, i.e., the "evil one," hurting their "feelings," i.e., getting in their way, finding any excuse to 'justify' themselves, blaming the situation, i.e., you (for not 'justifying' them, i.e., their carnal thoughts and actions).
"Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) As spiteful, scheming, beguiling children in adult bodies, 'liberal's reject restraint. Disregarding, disrespecting, smearing (attacking) anyone who reproves, corrects, or exposes them for doing wrong, 'liberal's' accuse them of being "irrational" or "unreasonable," i.e., as being "negative," i.e., as being "hateful," prejudiced," "narrow" or "closed minded," "bigoted," "intolerant," "authoritarian," "Hitler," "Stalin," etc., therefore 'justifying to themselves their "disrespect" toward authority, responding to those in authority with contempt, perceiving them as being "irrelevant" when it comes to what is important, needing to be removed (silenced) since they get in their way—which, in their mind, is necessary for the sake of "the people," i.e., so that everyone (including especially they) can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. The 'liberal's agenda is to make laws subject to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to 'change,' instead of subject to establishes commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in the way of 'change,' what Immanuel Kant called "lawfulness without law" where the law of the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" rules "without" (void of) the father's/Father's restraint, resulting in establishing the child's carnal nature, what all children (including those in adult bodies) have in common (common-ism, universalism, humanism, socialism-globalism) above and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (individualism, nationalism, under God), laying the groundwork for the ideology of men such as Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)
Immanuel Kant wrote of "purposiveness without purpose" (ibid) where the "purposiveness" of life is the augmentation of pleasure over and therefore against doing the father's/Father's will, 'justifying' the 'liberal' in his disobeying the law when it gets in the way of pleasure, i.e., when it prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks the child from having and enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which he desires, which the world stimulates. The 'liberal' rejects "the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof," (1 Corinthians 10:26) with man having "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26) He believes instead "that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality), i.e., that "on account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lusting" after the carnal pleasures which the world stimulates, including (and especially) their desire for approval from others, i.e., affirmation], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) In other words, if according to Georg Hegel we make the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the child's "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his hate of restraint the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose' (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's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." ibid.) your spouse, your children, your property, your business, etc., and even you are not yours but societies, i.e., subject to leadership's "felt needs," i.e., carnal desires of the 'moment,' under guise of meeting "the peoples" "felt needs." The 'liberal' thus places his "self," i.e., his desire for pleasure and affirmation and dissatisfaction with restraint and the restrainer over and therefore against doing right and not wrong, i.e., desiring to please the father/Father, i.e., do the father's/Father's will, insisting that everyone follow, support, and worship him as he serves, protects, and lives off of them. 'Liberal's, by making and following such dictums (dialectic 'reasoning'), establish themselves, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' above and therefore against laws of restraint, making their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates the law (which is ever subject to 'change,' i.e., ever subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment,' done in the name of "the people") instead of doing right and not wrong according to the established laws of the land which restrain them, i.e., which hold them accountable for their thoughts and actions. Therefore, practicing, promoting, and defending patricide, i.e., their hatred toward and praxis of negating the father's/Father's authority, along with practicing, promoting, and defending incest, i.e., their love for and promotion of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, any crime committed against those who are of and/or are supportive of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., traditional businesses, institutions, and people, i.e., the rule of law, is only giving lip service (if any mention is given at all) regarding it being wrong, with little if any effort made to punish those breaking the law. Instead they protect and defend the criminal over and therefore against the victim on the bases that their needs were not being met by society (or societies need of them). Through their use of psychology they replace right-wrong with everyone's evaluation of the situation (aufheben) through their "feelings" of the 'moment,' in the "light" of the given situation (enlightenment), the "felt needs," i.e., opinions of "the people" in the 'moment' thereby helping them distinguish between what is right and what is wrong though and action in the given situation, with "just dues" becoming the 'justified' reason for any crime committed (though denied when mentioned), justifying the crime (in their mind), thinking as spoiled (lawless, disobedient, sulking, spiteful, hateful) children that their parents or society "owes them." "Freud noted that patricide [hatred of the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., restraint] and incest [love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, i.e., "lust"] are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'– the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) "In the process of history man gives birth to himself ['liberates' himself from God's authority]. He becomes what he potentially is [of the world only], and he attains what the serpent—the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods) Whoever talks you into "building relationship upon self interest"—making you subject to his "self interest"—has the power (you gave it to him) to cast you aside (with no mercy) when you no longer serve his "purpose," i.e., his interest, i.e., when you get in his way. (When having to choose between the Lord, Jesus Christ and Barabbas, you will choose Barabbas since he is more like you, esteeming "self," loving pleasure, hating restraint, than Jesus, who, denying his "self," obeyed his Heavenly Father in all things commanded.)
By 'changing' communication, i.e., moving it away from preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discussing any misunderstanding (at the discretion of the one in authority) in order to do the job right (which sustains the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the conservative mind) to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (which 'liberates' and sustains the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberates' the 'liberal' mind, making all 'liberals' the same, i.e., equal, uniting them as one in consensus—Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) the world is 'changed,' i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order 'driven' by the child's carnal nature, 'purposed' in negating the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—which is the 'liberal's' main agenda. By insisting upon everyone being "positive," the father's/Father's authority, which is perceived as being "negative," is negated, making it possible for the 'liberal' to have his way with no restraint, i.e., without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.
Of note here, very important: discussion is subject to the father's discretion, the father picking when to and when not to discuss things with his children at the appropriate time—providing they are sincere in their asking, wanting to do right and not wrong, or are able to understand, recognizing his authority to make the final decision, with the father considering or accepting their input or cutting it off based upon time constraint, their inability to understand, or the children trying to entrap him, i.e., move him into dialogue or argue with him, insisting upon their way no matter what. But when the father leaves discussion out of his repertoire, preventing any discussion whatsoever, i.e., always saying "Because I said so," never explaining why, he becomes a tyrant. The difference between the leaders of civil government and despots, dictators, etc., is that the former uses discussion (facts, i.e., persuasion), sound logic, all the facts (information) possible (of the past as well as the present), and majority vote (in a constitutional republic form government) in order to resolve differences while the later uses force or threat of force alone, cutting off any discussion whatsoever. Discussion causes division between people based upon the formality of being either right or wrong regarding facts or information ("getting to the bottom of it")—which sustains "negativity," requiring majority vote or a decision made by the one in authority, inhibiting or blocking the consensus process, i.e., decisions made by everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment' (in the "light" of the current "crisis," being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change,' who approves of only "appropriate," i.e., "positive" information, i.e., "feelings" based information that guarantees his desired outcome, rejecting any "inappropriate," i.e., "negative" information, i.e., facts or truth based information that "hurt" peoples "feelings," i.e., that make them and others "feel bad" or guilty for doing, thinking about doing, or having done wrong, disobeyed, or sinned) thus preventing globalism, i.e., 'change'—"rapid" 'change.' On the other hand, dialogue (feelings of desire and dissatisfaction, which we all have in common, which makes us all "one" in the flesh, i.e., which is "positive" to the child's carnal nature) 'liberates' the liberal from having to discuss facts (all the facts), which can prevent him from getting his way. This is why 'liberal's always move communication away from discussion to dialogue, i.e., from facts to feelings, i.e., from truth to theory or opinion (treating others facts and truth as an opinion , i.e., alleged, "so and so said," etc., and their opinion as fact or truth, spoken didactically as fact, to be accepted on face value because they made the statement), i.e., from conclusive data or statistics to emotionally laden stories, from persuasion (facts) to manipulation (feelings), i.e., from knowing to "thinking," going "off subject," i.e., sidestepping, circumventing, bypassing, ignoring, setting aside, rejecting any fact or information that gets in their way, "discussing" personal-social (feelings based) issues instead of discussing the ramifications of their decision in the light of the facts (lessons) of the past as well as the facts of the present—if they do they evaluate and interpret the past, i.e., history from their own life experience ("sense experience," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of their childhood) of desiring pleasure and resenting restraint while under authority—so they can 'justify' their thoughts and actions of the past as well as in the present and future, i.e., have their own way without having a guilty conscience, i.e., engender 'change,' calling anyone who refuses to dialogue with them (who "hurt" their "feelings" and/or prevent them from having their way) hateful, intolerant, irrational, unreasonable, phobic, "psychological," a sociopath, neurotic, a lower order thinker, divisive, maladjusted, negative, unadaptable to 'change,' a resistor to 'change,' a bigot, prejudiced, a Fascist, not a "team player," "in denial," etc. The list goes on and gets really hateful (nasty). To "agree to disagree," for example, turns commands, rules, facts, or truth into an opinion, 'liberating' the 'liberal's' mind from any constraint, turning the conversation away from right-wrong (facts and truth) to feelings ("building relationship," i.e., compromise) instead. As rebellious children, if anyone refuses to dialogue with the 'liberal,' i.e., if anyone refuses to abdicate their authority in order to become equal with them, they will have a "fit," i.e., a tantrum, i.e., "tear up the kitchen" in order to have their way, i.e., in order to get what they want, thinking and acting like they "will die" if they do not get their way, NOW!
The 'liberal,' once in control of the situation is paranoid of anyone getting in a position of authority—prevent him from getting his way or expose him for any wrong he has done. While not believing in sin (and judgment, i.e., damnation), the 'liberal' is able to do what they want without having a guilty conscience yet is quick to condemn (attack) the conservative for doing wrong when he does wrong, disobeys, sins or is accused of it in order to negate any influence he has. The 'liberal' is always in it for his "self," i.e., is always "of and for self," while claiming he is doing "it," i.e., whatever he is doing for "the people," i.e., "the ends," i.e., whatever benefits "the people" 'justifying'" the means," i.e., his immoral, unethical, and/or illegal (crooked) actions. Not believing in borders, the 'liberal,' thinking he owns whatever he sees, requires those who really own it to do what he says, obey the laws he passes, so he can enjoy it as his own (and take credit for it) in the name of "the people," i.e., requiring everybody to contribute their "fair" share, with those who own it paying him, i.e., supporting him and his cohorts, i.e., paying his and their salary, benefits, trips, and retirement via tax dollars, voluntarism, socialist programs, etc., as he regulates (controls) their actions, i.e., what they can and can not do with their land, taxing and regulating them off their land in order to fulfill his socialist programs and projects, giving tax brakes to those who support his socialist programs and projects instead. The 'liberal' lives off of crisis, using it, through the consensus process, to herd (manipulate) people into applying his way of thinking, resolving crisis through "compromise," where all who oppose him must accept his information and solution or be perceived of and treated as an enemy of "the people."
The 'liberal' MUST always focus upon, develop, support, and defend the dissatisfied child, i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "felt needs" (the "disenfranchised," the "repressed," the "alienated," i.e., those who want 'change,' i.e., those who are inclined to break, are breaking, or have broken the law, i.e., disobeyed, i.e., the "deviant," the "illegal," the "perverse," etc.,) over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., obeying the law) or he or she will fall "victim" to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., become guilty of doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—the idea being if there is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., punishment for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning there is no guilty conscience or accountability for doing wrong, disobey, sinning against the father/Father. By 'liberating' law from the father's/Father's authority law becomes, by default, subject to the carnal nature of the child, subject to continuous 'change,' i.e., subject to the child's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' the situation, and the one manipulating it, making everyone "human resource," to be used as "natural resource" by the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of men, women, and children (as a pimp or a pedophile) for his own pleasure and gain. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) According to Karl Marx: "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's/man's carnal desires, i.e. pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [carnal desires and abilities] of the people [and those in leadership] change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) What better way to make laws subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the facilitator of 'change' than to make them subject to the child's carnal nature, i.e., subject to his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with or resentment toward restraint which the facilitator of 'change' can manipulate for his own pleasure and gain (power). When applied to government the following comes into play. "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state [keeping those in power who want to use the people as "human resource" for their own pleasure and gain, doing so in the name of "the people"]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)
While dad and mom are not perfect, their office is, given to them by God, who is perfect, to do His will in. When they use their God given office purely for their own "self," i.e., purely for their own pleasure and gain (acting as children, insisting upon having their way, only focusing upon satisfying their carnal desires of the 'moment,' refusing to hold themselves accountable to God's authority, who asks us to discuss things with Him, as they hold their children accountable to their authority, refusing to ever discuss things with their children) they become tyrants. Instead of being mature, doing the Father' will, i.e., holding themselves accountable to doing right and not wrong despite their carnal desires of the 'moment,' abiding by the law, the 'liberal' thinks on how to circumvent law so he can "do his own thing." The 'liberal,' perceiving all father's/Father's as being or potentially becoming tyrants, i.e., Hitler, 'justifies' (in his mind) his need to 'liberate' all children from the father's/Father's authority. Dialogue is their means to that end, i.e., to the creation of a "new" world order where children of disobedience, i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change' make their living (find their identity, purpose, and paycheck) 'liberating' children from the father/Father with his/His authority, taxing (oppressing) everyone in order to support their "habit," i.e., their addiction, i.e., their love of money and the praise of men, if they follow any religion it is one that is no-condemning of, i.e., tolerant of, i.e., 'justifies' (tolerates) their carnal thoughts and carnal actions.
"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other [through the praxis of 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)
Our carnal nature of talking to our "self" about what we want in the 'moment' and our dissatisfaction (grumbling within) regarding what or who is preventing us from having it, i.e., 'justifying' our "self," makes us subject to the world, even when we are doing "good" for others. It is this murmuring (dialogue) within us which makes us subjects of the 'liberal' mind, with us deviating from what is right in order to satisfy our carnal "feelings," i.e., our carnal desires of the 'moment' (covetousness), which "seem to be" "good" or "right" in our own eyes in the 'moment'—which makes us subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the facilitator of 'change,' who by encouraging us to evaluate the situation from our own "feelings," i.e., our "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' or situation (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3), "helps" us 'justify' our "self" before others (affirmation), 'liberating' us from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. By being drawn into dialogue, i.e., the liberal mind (which we are already doing internally by nature), we make manifest to others that which we are already desiring in the flesh, as well as our dissatisfaction with authority for getting in our way, making us sitting ducks to those wanting a the world of 'change,' a world subject to "the peoples" "self interests" of the 'moment,' which are ever subject to 'change' (making them subject to anyone manipulating the situation or information of the 'moment'). If we do not humble, deny, die to our "self" daily and willingly endure the rejection of others (which we by nature so much desire, their approval of us that is, along with their approving of us having or doing what we desire—which is actually affirmation, i.e., with others approving our carnal desires, i.e., our carnal nature thus affirming their "self," i.e., their carnal nature, which God does not affirm, he only approves of what we are doing when we are doing His will; we can only be affirmed by the world and affirm the world) we can not follow the Lord, doing His Heavenly Father's will as He directs, overcoming, in Him, the temptations which come our way (within and without) in this life. "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:14 "And this is the condemnation, that light [the true light, the Son of God] is come into the world, and men loved darkness [their "self"] rather than light [doing the Father's will], because their deeds were evil ["of and for self"]." John 3:19
The hallmark of philosophy (thinking about how the world "is," still subject to the restraints of authority, how it "ought" to be, with everyone, in consent, doing what they want when they want, according to their natural urges and impulses, i.e., carnal desires of the 'moment,' and how it "can" be once authority, with its restraints, is negated), socialism (from Common-ism to Fascism or the combination of the two, replacing purging the world of a race with purging the world of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, making all nations and people one and the same in theory and practice, i.e., in thought and action—resulting in all being "of and for self" and the world only), psychology (which is based upon a person's "feelings," i.e., his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' and the world that stimulates them, making all things material, subject to man's carnal "feelings," i.e., "sense experience," even religion), anthropology, etc., i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., the approval (affirmation) of the carnal nature of men (which began in the garden in Eden, with the "help" of the first facilitator of 'change', i.e., the first seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of mankind—Genesis 3:1-6) is the praxis of someone coming between the father/Father and his/His children, 'liberating' them from his/His authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), "seducing" them into dialoguing their opinions (their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') to a consensus (the same system as a soviet which is used to 'change' how participants think and act, 'creating' laws which enforce socialism aka common-ism, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against individualism, under the father's/Father's authority), 'justifying' (affirming) their "self" before one another, washing their brain of the father's/Father's authority, turning them against the father/Father so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can be "of and for self," i.e., of and for their carnal nature and the world which stimulates it, doing wrong, disobeying, sinning without having a guilty conscience, seeing no evil in their deceitful and wicked ways, i.e., in their unconscionable and abominable deeds (praxis), even doing so in the "name of the Lord," therefore, seeing no wrong in themselves, seeing no need to repent, ask for forgiveness, and be saved (Romans 7:14-25), blaming someone else (character assassination), the situation (insufficient support from others, i.e., others failing them), or "misunderstanding" (others not communicating correctly with them) when caught or exposed.
The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to pre-select the "Legos" that are put in the box (the "appropriate information") so the children can only build the object he wants built. When only the children's "feelings" of the 'moment' (in the 'light' of the given situation), that which is "positive,' i.e., their opinion guides them in making decisions, i.e., in deciding right from wrong—excluding their parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which divides them from one another, i.e., which is "negative")—the only outcome will be their carnal nature, 'liberated' from parental and/or Godly restraint, which makes them one and the same, i.e., of and for the world only, hating parental and/or Godly restraint, calling their parent's and/or God (or anyone preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted by faith and obeyed) "hateful" for getting in their way, i.e., for making them "feel" bad, i.e., for making them "feel" guilty for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—not seeing their hate of the father's/Father's authority as being what it is, hate itself. While the father hates what the child does when he does wrong, he loves the child, chastening him that they might learn to do right and not wrong, forgiving him when he repents and asks for forgiveness (showing him mercy and grace), the child on the other hand hates the father when the father gets in the way of his "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—in that 'moment' he would kill the father if he could. Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud all had this in mind.
The merging of Marxism and psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy" made it possible for Marxism to enter the classroom without public outcry, the parents being told their children were learning how to get along with one another—not telling parents this meant their children were learning how to excluding their commands and rules in the process, turning their children into liberals, 'liberating' the next generation (society) from the father's/Father's authority system. "Only when the immediate interests [of the children] are integrated into a total view [brought to a consensus] and related to the final goal of the process ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority] do they become revolutionary." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness) György Lukács writings along with his "Marxist work week" training sessions in Germany—later becoming National Training Laboratories (NTL's) in America (publishing, what a friend of mine, Phil Ring calls "a cookbook on Humans," Human Relations in Curriculum Change)—became the focus of Marxists teaching at Frankfurt University, who in the 30's immigrated to the United States to continue their work here in our Universities and in our government. Their key to success was the merging of Marxism with psychology. "As the Frankfurt School 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) It was their agenda to 'liberate' children from their parent's "top-down" authority system. Theodor Adorno, a member of the "Frankfurt School" explained how they defined the "authoritarian," writing: "Authoritarian submission [children humbling, denying, dying to their "self" in order to do their 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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) It was therefore imperative that social-psychologists, i.e., transformational Marxists, i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change' came between the children and their parents, 'liberating' the children from their parent's authority system, if social 'change,' i.e., 'liberalism' was to not only to be initiated but also sustained. "Any non-family-based collectivity [social-psychological based organization or institution] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing [liberalizing] impact on that relationship." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) Martin Jay, wrote (regarding the 'changing' of America from a traditional democracy to a transformation democracy—because of the influence of the "Frankfurt School" and its associates, such as Kurt Lewin—"unfreezing, moving, refreezing," "force field analysis," and "group dynamics"—and Wilhelm Reich—the "sexual revolution"): "The antithesis of the 'authoritarian' type [, i.e., the opposite of the father's/Father's authority] was called 'revolutionary.'" "By The Authoritarian Personality [the 60's] 'revolutionary' had changed to the 'democratic,'" i.e., the democratic party was taken over by Transformational Marxism, i.e., the merging of Marxism with psychology, made manifest in the consensus meeting, affecting every fascist of society, from the home, via education, i.e., via the facilitated "group grade" classroom with teachers, as 'change' agents,' coming between the parents and their children, 'liberating' the children from their parent's authority (more about this below), to the highest offices of the nation, via "bipartisan meetings," with facilitator's of 'change' coming between the people and their representatives, i.e., manipulating the "feelings" of their representatives, i.e., 'liberating' them from the people who put them in office to "re-present" them and their views, and the 'liberal' minded media (programed by institutions such as the Aspen Institute, in Aspen Colorado—implementing György Lukács' "Marxist work week" as is done in the NTL's mentioned above and Tavistock, based in London, applying the same procedure around the world). The stories (bias) that the media write today become the material students "study" in the classroom today and tomorrow, as well as the material the next generation will read about in their textbooks, the media 'creating' the history the students will use to determine what to do and what not to do in the present and the future, 'liberating' themselves and society from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the lessons of the "past," which their parents teach them. (Jay) The "Frankfurt School's" works influenced Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Maslow wrote in his journal: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory [Freud considered all children sexually active, i.e., sexually promiscuous with themselves, one another, and their mother, which he approved of and advocated] 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 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." "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.)" (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) It was therefore essential the "authoritarian," with his "top-down," "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting be removed from any policy setting environment, including in the classroom, if 'change' was to take place, i.e., everyone was to "actualize" their "self," i.e., 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority. "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [students who remain loyal to their parent's and/or God'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." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) Carl Rogers believed it was necessary to 'liberate' the child from his parent's authority system through the use of "group psychotherapy." "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy [dialogue] the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy) With the introduction of "Bloom's Taxonomies" (a "psychological classification system") in the public school's in the 50's and 60's, Marxism, under the guise of psychology, took control of the American education system. It has continued unabated to this day, turning students into 'liberal's, questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking parental/Godly authority, i.e., restraint.
"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) This from the books all teachers are certified and schools are accredited by today, referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies," 'changing' how teachers (and students) communicate with one another in the classroom—away from the teachers preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (which is "negative" to the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature"), to the teachers "encouraging" students to dialogue their opinions (being "positive") to a consensus (the "group grade" classroom), making teachers therapists, counselors, social-ist engineers, facilitators of 'change,' 'change' agents, transformational Marxists (all being the same), 'changing' traditional minded students into socialists/globalists, defying and/or attacking authority when it gets in their way.
"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure 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]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 If you start with the heart of the child, with dialogue, you can only end up with a world of deceitfulness and wickedness, i.e., all that is of the world, hating the father's/Father's authority.
The solution is simple to the 'liberal'—to those hating authority (equating authority to Fascism). By creating a classroom environment where children can dialogue their opinions (reflecting their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, i.e., their "self interest" and their dissatisfaction with restraint), to a consensus (to affirmation), resulting in their challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority when they get home, parent's are pressured into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus with their children, negating their office of authority in the process—their participation (abduction of their authority in order to dialogue with their children in an effort to "build relationship" with them establishing their "feelings," i.e., their desire for relationship with their children, i.e., affirmation over and therefore against "doing right and not wrong") accomplishes the deed. In this way, those hating the father's/Father's authority are 'justified' in accusing anyone supporting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., those being "negative," i.e., inhibiting or blocking their carnal nature (desires of the 'moment') as being hateful, thereby 'justifying' their passing laws against hate, i.e., against the father's/Father's authority; through tax dollars and government agencies forcing all, including those supporting the father's/Father's authority, into support them and their hatred toward authority, calling it "freedom of expression and speech." The very praxis of dialogue engenders hate, i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., toward restraint, i.e., toward "Because I said so," toward "It is written," which cuts off dialogue. If you reject (strike out against) the father's/Father's chastening of you for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, you are a sulking, pouting, spoiled, unthankful, hateful child of disobedience, who God calls a "bastard," i.e., a 'liberal,' thinking that everyone owes you a favor, that no one has the "right" to 'judge' you for your deceitful and wicked heart, that they should be taking care of you and worshiping you instead.
It ('liberalism') all starts with you dialoguing with your self, talking to our "self" about what you want as well as your resentment toward anyone keeping you from having it. Only God knows what you are talking to yourself about (until you, through dialogue, share it with others). When you leave God out of your discussion with your "self," you become God, with dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' leading the way, i.e., directing your steps. Karl Marx resides in your heart, in you talking to your "self," 'justifying' your love of pleasure and hate of restraint, with you waiting for a facilitator of 'change' to come along and "help" you 'liberate' your "self" from the father's/Father's restraints (so you can play with and enjoy what God has given you, including your next breath, without you having to listen to, obey, and thank him). "Because that, when they knew God [the creation bearing witness of Him, i.e., of His power and greatness, along with man's ability to be in awe (aware) of it, i.e., in awe (aware) of His works and therefore in awe (aware) of Him], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21, 22, 28, 32
In the 'liberal's' world of "oughtiness," a world of their "imagination," i.e., a world subject to their heart's carnal desires of the 'moment' they are preparing the world for judgment, as in the day's of Noah. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21) "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
While you, by nature, love pleasure and hate restraint the Father loves you, hating your deceitful and wicked ways, chastening you that you might learn to do right, obey, and not sin, i.e., repent and receive his blessing, which includes eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:16-19
The question is are you a 'liberal,' i.e., a phosophobe (fearful of the light), i.e., a Marxist? It is not that the father/Father does not have compassion on the children, not desiring them to have "a better life." It is that he wants them to do right and not wrong in getting there. What distinguishes his children from the children of the world is their humbling and denying of "self" in order to do his will, not being "of and for self," i.e., questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his authority, as the children of the world do. What you see happening in the political realm is a manifestation of what is happening in the spiritual world, which is taking place in the hearts of men, with man either humbling, denying, dying to his self daily, enduring the rejection of men, following the Son, doing the Father's will or 'justifying' his "self," "lusting" after the things of the world. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:21
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "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 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2:15 "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
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018