authorityresearch.com

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Issues (current), Articles (archived), Links, Booklet, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Sources, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!, Donation, P.S., Censorship of this website by McAfee.
deangotcher@gmail.com
(Bracketed information in quotations and verses is information added by me.)

Diaprax: Facebook mentality.
by
Dean Gotcher

Introduction of Part 1
(Part 2, Part 3)

"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

   The dialectic (dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) process is the praxis of socialists, i.e., 'liberals', as children of disobedience, "Reasoning" from their "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, 'justifying' their "self," i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., dopamine emancipation, which the world stimulates, including affirmation, i.e., the "feeling" which comes with others approving them and their carnal desires, and their dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred against authority, which gets in their way, i.e., which makes them "feel bad," negating (in their thoughts and actions) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without being held accountable for their actions (at least in their mind), i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a sense of guilt, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience. This process directly affects you, your family (your spouse and your children), your friends, your neighbors, your educators, your fellow workers and workplace, your media, your entertainment, your police, your military, your leaders, legislators, and judges, your minister and the "church," etc., i..e, you and the world you live in—destroying respect for traditional authority wherever it goes. It's seedbed is found in the "group grade," "group psychotherapy," facilitated,' Transformational Marxist, soviet, brainwashing, "safe zone/space/place," "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus classroom (from pre-school to and beyond the University and Vo Tech—public, private, and Christian, including the home school), 'liberating' children and adults (in their thoughts and actions) from their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (something Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud all had in mind). "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
   Preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is by faith, and discussing any questions or misunderstandings the children might have (at my discretion) in my classroom, rewarding or blessing the children who do right and obey, correcting or chastening the children who do wrong or disobey sustains the father's/Father's authority in the home. Dialoging opinions to a consensus in my classroom negates the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children. I do not, as an "educator," have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home, they will do it automatically after participating in my dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e.., "group grade" classroom. "The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

    Socialists, i.e., 'liberals' (confirming the Word of God, i.e., Matthew 6:24) know that you are subject to, i.e., yield or submit your "self" to one of two paradigms, i.e., ways of thinking and acting, i.e., relating with/responding to your "self," others, the world, and authority. You either, as a child of disobedience, 'reason' from your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., according to your "sensuousness needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment'—in response to the current situation, stimulated by the world (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)—or, honoring the father/Father and his/His authority, reason from established commands, rules, facts, and truth (doing right and not wrong) which you have been taught.
   One paradigm makes you subject to the world, i.e., to the creation only (based upon your "feelings," i.e., your "sense experience," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, as a child of disobedience, 'justifying' and esteeming your "self," making you "of and for self" and the world only, 'justifying' your dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred against authority which gets in your way—ibid.). The other paradigm makes you, as a child, subject to his father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), subject to a "higher authority," i.e., subject to God, i.e., to the Father, i.e., to the creator (based upon your faith in and obedience to Him, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining your "self" in order to do His will, i.e., accepting and honoring His authority), having a guilty conscience when doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25).
   One paradigm is represented in the traditional home, with the wife submitting her "self" to her husband's authority (Ephesians 5:22-29), the children, humbling, denying their "self," submitting their "self" to their parent's, i.e., to the father's authority (Ephesians 6:1-3), and the parents, humbling, denying their "self," i.e., submitting their "self" to God's authority, i.e., to the Heavenly Father's authority (resulting in the husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church, providing for, protecting, and directing his family in the Lord; ideally as 1 Timothy 3:2-12 speaks of elders and deacons, "ruling over his family well")—God being a "higher authority" than their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' and the world stimulating them. The other is represented in the children of disobedience who, "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (which are stimulated by the world) follow after "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2, 3), i.e., the master facilitator of 'change' (Genesis 3:1-6) who manifests himself (advances his cause, rebellion against authority) through "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) seducing, deceiving and manipulating all who come under his (their) influence, 'liberating' their dissatisfaction with, resentment, hatred toward authority—questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, striking out against authority when/since it gets in the way of pleasure, i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment.'
   In one paradigm the child learns to preach, teach, and discuss with his "self" commands, rules, facts, and truth which he has been taught, learning to control and discipline (correct, reprove, reprimand) his "self," making his "self" subject to those commands, rules, facts, and truth and thereby accountable to the authority (author) preaching and teaching them to him and discussing them with him, in order to do right and not wrong, obey, not sin, without having to be reminded or reprimanded by authority and/or suffer the consequences which come with questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, etc., them, i.e., doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. In the other paradigm the child, dialoguing with his "self," 'justifies' his "feelings," i.e., 'justifies' his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth, i.e., authority which gets in the way of, i.e., inhibits or blocks him from "enjoying" (experiencing, i.e., "lusting" after) his carnal desires of the 'moment.'
   You dialogue "feelings." You discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth. To dialogue commands, rules, facts, and truth makes them readily adaptable to 'change.' To "discuss" "feelings," i.e., "personal-social issues" makes you readily adaptable to 'change.' For example, in the study of history you preach, teach, and discuss the events of the past. In social(ist) studies you dialogue your "feelings" regarding the events of the past and present, making them adaptable to, i.e., subject to, i.e., interpreted according to your "feelings" of the 'moment.'
   In the one paradigm, concerned about doing right and not wrong, setting aside his "self interests," the child discusses with his "self" the right thing to do (despite what it might cost him personally—willing to suffer/endure the consequences, i.e., "missing out," rejection, pain, suffering, and even death in order to do right and not wrong, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will). In the other he is concerned about what he can get out of the situation for his "self"—'reasoning' (dialoguing) with his "self," i.e., evaluating the situation (aufheben) in order to determine how best to 'justify,' i.e., "preserve," i.e., save his "self," in order to get/do what he wants, i.e., in order to "actualize" his "self interest," selling his soul to "the group" ("building relationship upon self interest") and the one facilitating (guiding/couching aka "leading," i.e., seducing, deceiving, and manipulating) it (and him) in the process, turning him (and it), into "natural resource" (to be manipulated, used, and "discarded" aka recycled when longer of use or of interest) into "human resource."
   In one paradigm the child makes commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., his "self interests," disobeying, disregarding, questioning, challenging, and/or attacking commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in his way, and anyone preaching, teaching, and discussing them so he can do/get what he wants. In the other he makes his "feelings" subject to commands, rules, facts, and truth, setting his carnal desires of the 'moment' aside, i.e., denying his "self" in order to do what he is told, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong. In both paradigms the child is accountable for his thoughts and actions, either making his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' stimulated by the world the foundation from which to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" or the established commands, rules, facts, and truth which he has been taught. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin ["lusts," i.e., carnal desires of the flesh and eyes] unto death, or of obedience [to the Father] unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16
   Because of the authority of the father, i.e., his use of force, i.e., chastisement for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, the child (still alive after chastening) is now able to and willing to separate right and wrong, life and death from his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., his "If I can't have what I want I'll just die." He learns, through chastisement, to either humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self," i.e., stop dialoguing with ('justifying') his "self" or (yet still not able to and/or refusing to separate right and wrong, life and death from his "feelings" of the 'moment') begins to or continues to "murmur," i.e., to dialogue with his "self," 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his carnal desires of the 'moment,' keeping his carnal desires and his dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward authority alive, but private, i.e., to his "self"—out of fear of being reprimanded, i.e., rejected and/or cast out, i.e., disenfranchised. If he rejects the chastening, his "feelings" of the 'moment' remains a life and death, right and wrong issue (pleasure being "right," i.e., life, the pain of missing out on pleasure being "wrong," i.e., death). If he accepts the chastening, doing right and not wrong becomes the issue of life itself.
   The father's or parent's "Because I said so," or "Do what I say" (with "or else," i.e., the use of force being implied)—in response to the child's "Why?" regarding a command or rule he has been given—is a form of right and wrong ("I am right, you are wrong"), cutting off the child's effort to bring the parent into dialogue in order to get his way (the child's "Why?" revealing his dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' which is already taking place within his "self"). On the other hand, the child's "Why?" in response to facts and truth he is being taught, leads to discussion (at the parent's/father's discretion), leaving faith in authority and doing right and not wrong in place. It is here that discussion (at the parent's/father's discretion)—which will be explained in greater detail below; simply put, the tyrannical father never discusses things with his children, always saying "Because I said so," the benevolent father does, when time permits or the child is receptive and able to understand, respecting authority—is a part of the child's learning to evaluate from right and wrong, i.e., from what he has been taught instead of from his carnal "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment.' During the Korean war, for example, in their effort to brainwash American soldiers, the North Koreans, who first used torture only—resulting in the soldiers retaining their right-wrong way of thinking, i.e., 'loyalty' to America, i.e., nationalism to the death—learned that through the use of dialogue the soldier's 'loyalty' to authority aka nationalism was replaced with 'loyalty' to themselves (their "self") and "the group," i.e., to "the people." Soldiers captured by the North Vietnamese experienced the same thing, with some returning to America going into politics, carrying the effect of brainwashing ('loyalty' to America, i.e., nationalism replaced with 'loyalty' to "the people," i.e., globalism) into office with them.
   Socialism, by keeping "right and wrong" attached to, i.e., subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., subject to the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' makes the child who is "forced" to humble, deny his "self," i.e., who sets aside or rejects his carnal desires of the 'moment' in order to do his parent's will a "victim" of "authority abuse," i.e., of "parental abuse." The socialist's objective is therefore to prevent (keep) the child from thinking (reasoning, i.e., knowing) outside of his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires, hates, and fears of the 'moment,' , i.e., his "felt needs" of the 'moment,' thereby making him subject to the environment or situation stimulating them and anyone manipulating it, i.e., manipulating the environment or the situation—who is thereby manipulating him. "Preventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future)
   The "empty space" (the 'moment,' i.e., "self") is what we fill either with dialogue, filling it with our carnal desires ("self interests") of the 'moment,' along with our dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint or with discussion, directing, i.e., reproving, correcting, rebuking our "self," i.e., humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining our "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth we have been taught or keep promises we have made (which is the basis of trust). We discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth with our "self" in order to do right and not wrong, feeling guilt when we do wrong. We dialogue our "feelings" of the 'moment' with our self in order to "get our way," 'justifying' (at least attempting to 'justify') our "self" when we do wrong (or are thinking about doing wrong). In essence, "filling the empty space" with our (and other's) "feelings," i.e., dialogue, makes "right and wrong" subject to our (and their) "feelings," i.e., our (and their) carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'—"right" being our enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, "wrong" being anyone preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking us from enjoying it. "Filling the empty space" with "right and wrong," i.e., discussion, makes our (and other's), i.e., our (and their) "feelings" subject to doing right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth we have been taught by authority. What we put in "the empty space" directly affects the outcome, i.e., our thoughts and actions. It is here where we decide to either walk in faith (righteousness), in obedience to authority or according to sight (sensuousness), in rebellion against authority. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6
   Dialogue, which is informal, keeps "right and wrong" attached to the child's "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment' (his opinion, i.e., you can not say "I know" in an opinion, only "I think" or "I feel"), making facts and truth and "right and wrong" subjective, i.e., subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal desires, i.e., his "lusts" of the 'moment,' i.e., his "sense experience," i.e., his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' and therefore subject to the environment (the world) which stimulates them, as well as subject to whoever is manipulating the environment, thereby seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the child. Discussion, which is formal, keeps the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and facts and truth as well as "right and wrong" apart from one another (knowable, i.e., established), making facts and truth and "right and wrong" objective, i.e., external to, i.e., not subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., carnal desires, i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment.' By the child, when it comes to issues of "right and wrong," holding onto discussion, i.e., holding onto and demanding facts and truth, i.e., refusing to go into dialogue, where everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment' help in determining the outcome (consensus, i.e., affirmation), he is able to keep his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' the environment or situation stimulating them, and anyone manipulating it—the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Transformational Marxist (all three being the same, i.e., the "vanguard party"), who is attempting to seduce, deceive, and manipulate him (as "natural resource")from controlling him, i.e., his feelings and thoughts, turning him into "human resource" (in order to use him for their own pleasure and gain). In discussion, even though he might disagree with authority (still doing what he is told, unless it goes against his conscience—which is based upon doing right and not wrong—willing to suffer the consequences—which is not based upon his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., opinion, which is the foundation of the so called "super-ego") he can hold on to what he believes is right, keeping facts and truth, right and wrong the foundation from which to reason from, not only in the present but in the future as well. Those of the paradigm of dialogue (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification') consider this way of thinking as being "authoritarianism," correlating it to Fascism (labeling anyone who obeys authority, i.e., who thinks and acts this way a Nazi, racist, etc.,).
   This would be just some intellectual exercise if it were not for the fact that contemporary education (which is based upon what are called Bloom's Taxonomies) is based upon this same 'reasoning.' "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values [not of and for the father's/Father's authority], the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed.... many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern [the father's/Father's authority] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
   Philosophy is based upon such 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' through dialogue. After all, the essence of philosophy is a person thinking about how the world "is" (where "feelings" are subject to, i.e., "repressed" by someone in authority preventing them from being expressed, keeping the child from doing what he wants, when he wants—enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates), how it "ought" to be (with him doing what he wants, when he wants), and how it "can" be (once authority gets out of the way of his "lusting" after pleasure, i.e., "lusting" after the things of the world which stimulate it).
   It is not that "feelings" are not important, they are. It is that they must be subordinate to commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "right and wrong" or they become "lusts," engendering chaos, rebellion, anarchy, and revolution, with leadership, acting as children, oppressing the people. (Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud) By focusing upon the child's "feelings," i.e., the world of "ought," i.e., "oughtiness," socialist seek to 'create' a "new" world order where "is" is what children "can" be, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "of and for self" and the world only, so they can rule the world without the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., so they can think and act, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., with no accountability (other than to themselves, i.e., their carnal desires, i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment,' and the world which stimulates them).
   While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be or may have been down right tyrants, their office is perfect, having been given to them by God in which to do His will, i.e., in which to serve Him (training up their children in the admonition of the Lord). Socialist, from national (Fascist, i.e., racist) to global (common-ist aka communist, i.e., paradigm-ist)—rejecting accountability to God for their thoughts and actions, i.e., rejecting the Father's authority over them—reject the office of authority God has given to parents over their children, i.e., to the earthly father over his children (which engenders individualism, under God, i.e., "freedom of the conscience"—socialism, initiating and sustaining "freedom from the father's/Father's authority," engenders "freedom from the guilty conscience" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning). 'Driven' by their "lusts" and "pride of life" (dialectic or dialogue 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification'), socialist, i.e., 'liberals' can only find one 'purpose' in life, that of 'liberating' the child's heart from parental/Godly restraint, so that they can be "of and for the world" only, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. It is here that dialogue, i.e., the child's "feelings" (his or her heart's carnal desires and hates) over and therefore against discussion, i.e., the parent's authority (doing right and not wrong) comes into play—National socialism, i.e., Fascism, while preventing dialogue, prevents discussion as well (as does global socialism), discussion (at the father's discretion) being a key element of the benevolent (forgiving, merciful) father's authority, with (unlike the traditional father system, where the father, still loving the rebellious child, has to judge and chasten him in order to teach him to do right and not wrong or cast him out if he becomes revolutionary—questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his authority) all forms of socialism inhibit or block immigration, i.e., escape from the socialist system, whether national or international (global), the idea being the process, i.e., socialism is not successful until no one can escape, i.e., all "citizens" must participate (or at least cooperate) or be censored, i.e., silences, imprisoned, or removed (killed). This follows after the nature of the child (who is unable to separate "right and wrong" from his "feelings"), whose hatred toward restraint (which is "right," i.e., 'justified' in his eyes) is at the same time hatred toward the restrainer, i.e., the "resistor of 'change,'" i.e., the inhibitor or blocker of pleasure (including the elderly and unborn). For socialists, without the child's conversion, i.e. 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority or removal (negation) there can be no "worldly peace." For the global socialist, by simply bringing the child into dialogue (with other children) regarding "personal-social" issues, making "right and wrong" subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., the "affective domain" the deed is accomplished ("Bloom's Taxonomies")—parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority is negated in the child's mind, negating the guilty conscience (the "negative valance") for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process (Kurt Lewin).
   "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 "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 Marxist, Theodor Adorno wrote: "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access [through getting him or her to dialogue, i.e., to share his or her "feelings" of the 'moment' with others] is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential [for 'change,' i.e., to become of and for his or her "self" and the world only'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority; Genesis 3:1-6]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure [Hebrews 12:5-11], . . . have all left man overly docile [obedient to authority], but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic [believing one thing while feeling and/or acting contrary—called belief-action dichotomy, i.e., desiring to obey God, yet sinning, feeling guilty for sinning; Romans 7:14-25]." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities [sinning, i.e., "lusting" after the things in the world], demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being [our flesh and eyes "lusting" after the pleasures of the world] to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower [to submit to the father's/Father's authority]. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the child's carnal, i.e., sinful nature, i.e., in "human nature"]; the foundation has to be recovered [the child must be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the child, dialoguing with his "self" (his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer) must be "grouped" with all the children of the world, who are themselves dialoguing with their "self" (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer), and through dialoguing ('discovering' common ground) with one another unite upon what they all have in common (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer)—making the child's love of the world and hate of the father's/Father's authority the basis of life, 'creating' common-ism through dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' with others, i.e., affirmationdialogue is the pathway to common-ism, making "feelings" the foundation of right and wrong, making all children, i.e., mankind seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable (as "human resources," like Pavlov's dog, Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats) by the facilitator of 'change' for his own pleasure and gain]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3
   "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity ["of and for self"]." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 12:8, 13-14 "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9
   By nature when children grow up, i.e., become parents themselves, i.e., have children of their own they tend to revert to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm—1) preaching commands and rules to their children, to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to their children, to be accepted as is, by faith, and discussing (at their discretion) with their children any questions their children might have in order for them to do what is right (and not wrong), 2) blessing their children when they do right, obey, do not sin, 3) chastening their children when thy do wrong, disobey, sin, so they might learn to do right, obey, not sin, and 4) casting out any child who questions, challenges, disregards, defies, attacks their authority—thereby inhibiting or blocking the process of 'change.' It is because of this tendency that those of a third paradigm (coming between the children and the father/Father) seek to gain access to the children's private "conversation," i.e. dialogue with their "self," thereby, by gaining access to, affirming, i.e., 'justifying,' and liberating their carnal desires of the 'moment,' being able to gain access to, affirm, i.e., 'justify,' and liberate their dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward authority, using it, i.e., their "self" 'justified' "feelings," i.e., hatred toward authority (the "tyranny of the masses") to negate the father's/Father's paradigm so they—"group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same, i.e., the "vanguard party")—alone can rule the world, i.e., rule over "the people," in the name of "the people."
  
By children 'justifying' their love of pleasure ("lusts"), with affirmation from others, they are 'justified' (in their mind) of their dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, and/or hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority. By gaining access to your child's private conversation with his or her "self," i.e., what he or she is dialoguing with his or her "self" about, i.e., his or her "feelings" of the 'moment,' access is gained to his or her dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, and/or hatred ("feelings") toward your authority as a parent. You can figure out the consequences of such praxis, making your child's "feelings," i.e., his or her "affective domain," i.e., his or her desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (which you inhibit or block) and his or her dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward authority a part of the classroom/school curriculum. "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
   One of the two textbooks (referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies"), which all teachers are certified and school are accredited by, reads: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "The affective domain [the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her love of pleasure and hate of restraint] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a "box" full of evils, which once opened, i.e., liberated from parental authority, i.e., from the father's authority can not be closed].'" "[W]e 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." "By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed by the educative process . . . change in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions [change in their paradigm]." "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [through dialogue, 'liberating' the child's "lust" for pleasure and hate of restraint in the classroom] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [challenging his parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth] and getting them to discuss issues [share their "feelings," i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint, in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., group affirmation (fear of rejection), learning to question, challenging, defy, disregard, attack authority in the process—which is the basis of enlightenment]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Through the use of the "group grading" system in the classroom, done in the name of "team building," i.e., "relationship building," etc., "Bloom's Taxonomies" (which is "a psychological classification system") grades all children along a spectrum or continuum of how they feel about, what they think about, and how they respond to authority—one end of the spectrum (the Patriarchal paradigm) being the child remaining 'loyal' to his or her father's/Father's authority (refusing to compromise his or her parent's principles, accepting them as being his or her own, therefore, being "negative" to, i.e., 'judgmental' of, i.e., prejudiced toward other children when they are "wrong," hurting other children's "feelings," refusing to "get along"with the so called Taxonomy classifying the child as being a "resister to 'change,'" i.e., a "lower order thinker") to the other end of the spectrum (the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change') where the child has accepted the questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking of the father's/Father's authority (called "higher order thinking skills") as being an essential part of life, i.e., the pathway of 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority.
   Establishing the child's carnal nature (love of pleasure, including the pleasure which comes with affirmation by "the group," i.e., by society, and hate of restraint, including hatred toward the restrainer) as being the 'drive' of life over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (doing right and not wrong), "Bloom's Taxonomies" establishes "the group," i.e., society, affirming the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (thus 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority) as being the 'purpose' of life. Negating the father's/Father's authority (individualism, under God) in all children's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in their relationship with one another and the world (so they can be "of and for their self" and the world, i.e., society only) is the "Taxonomies" desired outcome, i.e., its "Educational Objective." Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child subject to the father's/Father's authority, doing the father's/Father's will instead of his own] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," i.e., finding one's identity in "the group," i.e., in society] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [being "of and for self" and the world] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6) Sigmund Freud believed "the individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'—the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History—history not being the lessons of the past to be used to evaluate the present but the life experience of the child, i.e., the past and present "feelings" of the child evaluating the past and present in order to purge history, himself, and society, i.e., the past, present, and the future of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., of the traditions and restraints of the past).
   Government (civil to revolutionary) is based upon which paradigm predominates in the heart of men. Government (how those in government, from the home, to the classroom, to the highest offices in the land, think and act) directly affects your paradigm, your spouse's paradigm, your children's paradigm, your friends and relatives paradigm, your neighbors paradigm, your co-workers/employer's/employees paradigm, your legislator's paradigm, your leader's paradigm, your ministers paradigm, etc., not only in your home, in your neighborhood, in the workplace, in government, etc., but also in the "church."
   Change the way you communicate with others (and others communicate with you)—from 1) the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed, the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and the discussing of any differences or disagreements (at the one in authorities' discretion), 2) blessing those who do right, 3) chastening (correcting, reproving, rebuking) those who do wrong, that they might learn to do right and not wrong, and 4) casting out those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority to the dialoguing of opinions (everyone's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and their dissatisfaction with, resentment, and/or hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward authority) to a consensus ("building relationship upon self interest," i.e., affirming each others desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and each others dissatisfaction with, resentment and/or hatred toward authority, which all those "of the world" have in common, the basis of common-ism)—and your (and their) paradigm is 'changed.'
   This is what the process of 'change,' i.e., the dialectic (dialogue) process is all about, 'changing' the world by negating the father's/Father's authority in our communication with one another—moving us from preaching commands and rules, teaching facts and truth, discussing with others any differences or disagreements we might have with them and they might have with us (at our discretion), insisting upon everyone doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth to where we are pressured (out of fear of being censored, i.e., unfriended, i.e., un-liked) to be "tolerant of ambiguity," to make "feelings" the standard from which to determine right from wrong, with dialogue becoming the pathway to unity (consensus), i.e., to "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., to globalism, with those of and for the father's/Father's authority (refusing to compromise their position for the sake of unity—thus becoming the source of controversy, division, and war—thus, to the 'liberal' mind, being 'rightfully' hated) needing to be either converted or silenced or removed.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24
"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
   "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

    The carnal nature of the child (the child's desire for, i.e., "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his or her natural resentment toward restraint—which gets in the way of pleasure) is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority (the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—which requires the child to do right—and not wrong—to obey, to not sin, inhibiting or blocking the child from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he or she is "lusting" after, which the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth restrain). The child's natural desire for ("lusting after") the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "dopamine emancipation"—which the world stimulates ("emancipates," "liberates" within the child)—and his (or her) natural dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint (and the restrainer) are antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which is to be accepted (by faith) and obeyed. The father/Father, while loving the child, hates his doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (chastening him when he does wrong, disobeys, sins in order that he might learn to discipline, i.e., humble, deny, die to, control his "self" and do right, obey, not sin on his own instead). The father/Father (benevolent, i.e., loving father/Father) will discuss any questions the child might have (at the father's/Father's discretion—based upon the father's/Father's desire to share, the time or right time to share, the child's ability to understand, the child's desire to know the father's/Father's answer, and/or his willingness to accept the father's/Father's authority). But when the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth, i.e., authority is questioned and/or challenged by the child the father's/Father's "Because I said so"/"It is written" cuts off the child's "Why?," i.e., prevents dialogue, i.e., prevents the child from having his way, i.e., prevents 'change.' This is especially true when it comes to the father's/Father's commands or rules.
   While the father/Father preaches commands and rules to be obeyed as given and teaches facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), discussing with the child (at the father's/Father's discretion) any questions the child might have in order for the child to understand, it is the child's nature to dialogue his carnal desires ("feelings") instead, trying to draw the father/Father into dialogue in order to overcome (negate) the father's/Father's preaching and teaching, "getting his way" in the process. You preach, teach, and discuss facts and truth. You dialogue "feelings" (opinions).
   These are two different political systems or paradigms (ways of thinking and acting—behaving). One is based upon the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—known as the Patriarchal paradigm. The other is based upon (influenced by) the child's "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment'—known as the Matriarchal paradigm.
   The child's political system is established upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., upon the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., the child's impulses and urges, with, as Karl Marx explained it, his "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience," i.e., "only that which is of nature" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)—confirming 1 John 2:16, "the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life," i.e., that which "is of the world" only (I John 2:16)—helping him decide right from wrong (right being the enjoyment of pleasure, wrong being missing out on it), "directing his steps" (rebellion and anarchy). According to Marxism (dialectic 'reasoning'), the basis of 'reality' is found in the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world only, being satisfied. "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') According to Karl Marx, instead of "reconciliation" being between the child and the father/Father—according to his or her faith in the Son—it is between the children themselves—according to that which they all have in common, i.e., enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates. Abraham Maslow explained where this "enjoyment of the present" leads us. "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) Whether it is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "fenceless," i.e., "borderless" society or Georg Hegel's world of equality, based upon the carnal nature of the child it all ends in totalitarianism, where no one can find refuge from the consensus process, where all must participate or be silent (tolerant), or else be removed (censored or killed).
   The father's/Father's political system is established upon children having faith in the father/Father, accepting his facts and truth, and obeying his/His commands and rules, i.e., recognizing, accepting, and honoring the father's/Father's authority (rule of law). The Marxist, György Lukács, addressing the "problem" of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., its influence upon the child, affecting how he or she felt and thought about his or her "self," others, and the world and responded to authority, wrote: "for the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)The Marxists, Theodor Adorno, who, along with Erik Fromm, was the "Weltanschauung" (world view) of "Bloom's Taxonomies," wrote: "Authoritarian submission [nationalism, tantamount to Fascism in the mind of 'liberal's'] 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." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
   What is present in both the father's paradigm and the child's paradigm (under the influence of the father's/Father's authority) is the guilty conscience (engendered by the child/father having faith in the father/Father and/or fearing his/His disapproval/chastening/rejection), with the conscience making the child/father "feel bad" (guilty) when he is "doing his own thing," i.e., doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., going against the father's/Father's will. While the child might want to do "his own thing" (or goes ahead and does it), it is the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience which it engenders that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks him from achieving it in peace, with affirmation—preventing "worldly peace and socialist harmony."
  It is this "peace and affirmation," i.e., 'justification' of the child's carnal nature by others, i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority that those of a third political system seek to achieve—know as the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' where "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) come between the father/Father and the children/men (taking his/His place in directing their steps, 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority in order for the children to follow, serve, protect, praise, and worship them, i.e., become like them instead). This can only be accomplished by focusing upon ("Reasoning" from, i.e., 'justifying') the child's carnal nature ("feelings," i.e., carnal desires, i.e., "self interest"). Georg Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father'/Father's authority to become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), of (and now for) "self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) By establishing the child's carnal nature (his or her "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his or her carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "sense experience") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth), the father's/Father's authority is negated in the child's feelings and thoughts, negating the guilty conscience (feeling guilty) for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—making his thoughts and actions one and the same, of and for "self" and the world only—creating a "new" world order where children of disobedience, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, can be "of and for the world" only, i.e., can be "of and for self," i.e., can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, so that all children (and especially those "guiding" them) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (revolution). "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) Karl Marx wrote: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Only by 'liberating' the child from "the fear of God," i.e., from the father's/Father's authority (which the child "created" by having faith in and obeying the father/Father in the first place) can the child' be of and for "self" and the world only.
   According to this third political system, the only way to overcome the effect the father's/Father's authority has upon the child is to negate the father's/Father's authority not only in his physical surroundings (society) but in his personal thoughts (reasoning) as well. Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's personal thoughts and social actions—no longer "building relationship" with others based upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (customs, traditions, doctrine) but, through dialogue, upon common "'self interests'" (carnal desires of the 'moment') instead]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)
      Only by 'shifting' communication from discussion (details, facts, formality; the cognitive domain) to dialogue (ambiguity, feelings, informality; the affective domain) can 'change,' i.e., the third political system be initiated and sustained. While the father/Father (at his discretion) discusses commands, rules, facts, and truth with his children, which prevents or limits change. Children, on the other hand, try to draw the father/Father into dialogue in order to engender 'change,' i.e., in order to get their way. By the father/Father abdicating discussion (facts and truth and position) to dialogue or discourse (feelings and opinions), feelings predominate over and therefore against established commands, rules, facts, and truth, "human relationship," i.e., socialism, globalism, common-ism predominates over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., local control and nationalism, under God. "For to accept that solution [where all citizens, including parents, must participate in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the child's perspective, from his carnal nature] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parent's authority]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) There is no "top-down," "right-wrong," "above-below," father's/Father's authority in dialogue. By all participating in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, the father's/Father's authority is negated in any thought or action ("theory and practice") which takes places during or follows the praxis. It is what Lenin preached and put into praxis, i.e., social action in Russia.
   This 'shift' in communication carries with it a 'shift' in culture from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (rule of law) to love of pleasure and hate of restraint, 'liberating' ('justifying') the child's anger (hatred) towards authority (revolution). Of note: while not condoning public violence against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., private business (at least not publically), the third political system, with its rhetoric, incites it, using it (refusing to squelch it) in order to pressure people (out of fear) to conform (abdicate) to their agenda.
   According to this third political system, if you start with the father's/Father's authority, making the child's faith in the father/Father, acceptance of his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, and obedience to them and him/Him the focus of life (typical of the traditional home, school system, workplace, government, etc., i.e., "old school") then the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child himself is "repressed," the father's/Father's standard, with the child obeying them, insisting that others obey them as well, "alienating" him from the other children of the world—whose father's standards differ from his—resulting in "neurosis," i.e., a guilty conscience for being "human," with the child caught between his desire to please the father/Father, receiving the father's/Father's approval (by obeying the father/Father, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's standards) and his desire to "do his own thing," i.e., to be his "self," i.e., to become at-one-with his "self" and the world, approaching (loving) pleasure and avoiding pain (hating restraint). But if you start with the child's carnal nature, making the child's "feelings," i.e., his desire to approach pleasure and avoid pain (which all children have in common), i.e., the augmentation of pleasure and attenuation of pain the focus of life, which includes the pain of missing out on pleasure (made manifest in the child, resenting restraint, striking out against father/Father when his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth "get in his way"), then the father's/Father's authority becomes the obstacle which all children must overcome (negate) if they are to become their "self," i.e., if they are to become "free" to think and act according to "human nature" only. Simply put, according to the third political system with its use of dialectic 'reasoning' (dialogue) the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint (the child's carnal nature) is the 'drive' of life and the augmentation of pleasure ("peace and affirmation," i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony") and the attenuation of pain (the negation of the father's/Father's authority) its 'purpose.'
   The father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience prevent this from happening, i.e., prevent the child from being his "self," i.e., prevent him from thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, i.e., "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and hating (striking out against) restraint—with the child being chastened or cast out by the father/Father if/when he tries. Without the aid of a third political system with its use of a "group psychotherapist," i.e., a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a Transformational Marxist (all three being the same) with his or her use of the dialectic process, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, children tend to initiate and sustain the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right, not wrong," "obey me, or else," "Mine. Not yours" authority, i.e., patriarchal political system (engendering local control and/or Nationalism, under God) when they grow up and have children of their own, initiating and sustaining rule of law and the guilty conscience ("neurosis," i.e., "mental illness") in the next generation when they do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., when they desire to be "human," i.e., when they desire to "do their own thing."
   By those of the third political system insisting upon the "positive," focusing upon and 'liberating' the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' thereby getting rid of the "negative"—pressuring it out of the room for the sake of consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness"—the outcome is the "positive," i.e., the child's carnal nature only in the facilitated meeting. The third political system is established not only upon 'liberating' the children (the child's carnal nature) from the father's/Father's authority (from the father's/Father's restraints) but also upon negating the father's/Father's authority itself as well—called "the negation of negation" (getting rid of the "negative")—thereby negating the guilty conscience ("neurosis"), i.e., "feeling bad" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for being "human," so that all children (including the facilitator of 'change' himself or herself) can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can be of and for nature ("of and for the world") only with impunity.
   It is important to realize (and recognize) that the third political system does not consider the benevolent father (the loving father, under law himself, denying himself in order to do right and not wrong, compassionate, merciful, and forgiving, discussing things with his children when they can and are willing to understand, that they might obey and do right and not wrong) as being any different than the tyrannical father (the hating father, above the law, selfish, refusing to discuss things with his children, always insisting upon his own way with no compassion, mercy, or forgiveness), the patriarchal system, structure, or paradigm (way of thinking and acting, i.e., relating with self, others, and the world, i.e., responding toward authority—honoring and obeying the father's/Father's authority). The third political system sees the father's/Father's authority itself (whether benevolent or tyrannical) as being "the problem"—initiating and sustaining the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for being "human," i.e., for being "of the world (nature)" only, i.e., for being "of and for self." Of equal importance to realize (and recognize) is that while the earthly father is not perfect, he might have been or may be a down right tyrant, his office is perfect, having been given to him by God to serve Him in, who is perfect. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the office, it is the man in it, using it for his own selfish (childish) ways. Since, according to the third political system, it is the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) that engenders the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25) and it is the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (against the father/Father) which it seeks to negate (Genesis 3:1-6) it is imperative that it negates the father's/Father's authority so that all children (and especially those "leading" them) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.
   By the third political system's use of generalization, making the benevolent and tyrannical fathers one and the same, it exonerates the child's hate of restraint—thereby negating the earthly father's authority, classifying the father's political system itself as evil (getting in the way of pleasure), negating the Heavenly Father's authority, classifying it as being evil as well. By synthesizing ('justifying') the child's carnal (natural) thoughts, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and his carnal (natural) action of approaching pleasure and striking out against restraint, making them one and the same, i.e., both of and for "human nature," i.e., "of and for self"—thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (which is a product of the father's/Father's authority)—all children can do wrong, disobey, sin (be "human," i.e., be "of the world" only) with impunity. This is why 'liberals' see no "wrong," i.e., have no guilty conscience in questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority when (since) it "threatens" their carnal ways, i.e., their carnal thoughts and actions.
   Since the children's carnal nature, i.e., the children's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., "human nature" and their 'justification of it, i.e., their (in private—out of fear of reprimand) dialoguing with their "self" their carnal desires (including their desire for approval from others, approving their carnal thoughts and actions—affirmation) and dissatisfactions is common to all children, the dialectic process, i.e., the children 'justifying' their carnal nature, i.e., 'justifying' their "self" with one another (through dialogue coming to a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness") is the basis of common-ism. According to common-ism it is the father's/Father's authority (the "negative") that stands in the way of children becoming their "self," i.e., thinking and acting according to nature, i.e., thinking and acting according to "human nature," i.e., thinking and acting according to their carnal "feelings" of the 'moment' (which are stimulated by the world, i.e., by "the group," i.e., by one another, i.e., by society), i.e., thinking and acting according to their carnal desires and dissatisfactions only. Thinking through their "feelings," i.e., "thinking" through their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (their "self interests") and their dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint—perceiving the father's/Father's authority as being the source of hate—they, hating the father's/Father's authority, can not reason (find common ground) with those of the father's/Father's authority. They can only find 'purpose' in life, i.e., find common ground (identity) in those dedicated to negating the father's/Father's authority (along with those who support it's negation) only, instead.
   The 'shifting' of communication away from discussion (of facts and truth, which support the father's/Father's authority) to dialogue ("feelings," i.e., "self interests" of the children, which are of the children's carnal nature) accomplishes the deed, making anyone who holds to the can not's, must not's, "Thou shalt not's," i.e., the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father (which get in the way of "building relationships") the enemy, i.e., the barrier, i.e., the resistor of 'change.' It is upon this love of pleasure, i.e., the child's natural "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and hate of restraint, i.e., the child's natural hatred toward the father's/Father's authority that common-ism is built. The disenfranchised, resentful, and rebellious child thus become the seedbed from which globalism, i.e., the third political system is built. Without the discontent it could not survive.
   Whoever comes between the father/Father and the children, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the children, i.e., 'liberating' them (through dialogue) from the father's/Father's authority, establish themselves as the third political system, i.e., establish themselves over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, using the children as "human resource" for their own pleasure and gain. In this political system, where "the end justifies the means," when things go wrong or fail it is not that those of this system (the 'liberal') did anything "wrong," it is that they just did things "badly," the only people being "wrong," in their mind, being those who resisted, opposed, or refused to cooperate, i.e., refused to support their way of thinking and acting, i.e., refused to affirm their political system (praxis) of "self" 'justification.' In this political system's use of the consensus process, where "feelings" 'drive' the outcome, anyone resisting, inhibiting, or blocking, i.e., preventing consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness," affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature") is perceived as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, etc., needing to be converted, silenced, or removed for the sake of "the people"—requiring that everyone follow after, serve, and protect those who are in control, i.e., the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' , i.e., the Transformational Marxist (all three being the same).
   The consensus process—with "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists coming between the father/Father and his/His children, "helping" children, through dialogue 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (which the world stimulates) and their resentment toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority ('liberating' their carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority)—not only negates the father's/Father's authority in the children's thoughts and actions (turning the children against the father/Father and his/His authority) but also negates the children having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., with no fear of judgment or accountability. "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 dialectic (dialogue) method or formula of the consensus process is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 (the 'justification' of "self," i.e., you "thinking" through your "feelings," i.e., your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, i.e., the surrounding situation or circumstances—including, and especially, your desire for affirmation from others, i.e., "the group"—and your dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint/authority, which/who is getting in the way of pleasure) being used to negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority), negating Romans 7:14-25 (the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) in the process. It is this dialectic (dialogue) method or formula of "positivity" that "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists, i.e., those who merge "the group," i.e., society and psychology, i.e., the individual (bypassing, i.e., circumventing the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process) are using, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating your children, spouse, relatives, neighbors, educators, co-workers, entertainers, media, legislators, lawyers and judges, leaders (both secular and religious) as well as you into "joining" with them, creating a "new" world order of 'change,' i.e., a world void of parental/Godly restraint (the father's/Father's authority), i.e., a world void of having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., a world void of "negativity." Like a train rolling down the tracks (with no brakes) it has become impossible to stop. It has become so much a part of the American (and worlds) culture ("psyche"), who would dare expose it, i.e., speak against it? To do so would expose them to censorship (and hate), i.e., to being called ("labeled" or classified as being) negative, divisive, hateful, intolerant, prejudiced, a "lower-order-thinker," maladjusted, not a "team builder," "psychological," mentally ill, "in denial," a sociopath, a Fascist, a Nazi, a racist, neurotic, phobic, unreasonable, irrational, irrelevant, etc.,.

  The so called "'new' world order" (common-ism aka socialism-globalism) is affecting you and everything you see going on around you today—in the home, in the classroom (textbooks, assignments, tests, and classroom projects, inside and outside the classroom are being affected with it today—via the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies"), in the neighborhood, in the workplace, in entertainment, in the media, in the government, and even in the "church." It is antithetical to the "old" world order (individual-ism, under authority aka nationalism) which it must negate (amalgamate) in order to initiate and sustain itself. It is here, in the "new" world order, which is engendered from and supportive of the child's' carnal nature, i.e., the child's natural desire ("lust") for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint (hatred toward the restrainer) that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' manifests itself. It is this desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, with the child dialoguing within himself (of note: you dialogue "feelings," i.e., opinions, 'justifying' your "self," esteeming your "self" in order to "get what you want," i.e., in dialogue you 'reason' from your own "sense experience," i.e., your "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment, in the "light" of the situation, requiring the suspending of your position in order to hear someone else's opinion, i.e., "feelings" and "thoughts" which makes 'reasoning' informal, making your position readily adaptable to 'change,' while you discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth, requiring the humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining of your "self," holding your "self," i.e., your "feelings" and "thoughts" accountable to commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "do right and not wrong," making 'reasoning' formal, logical, i.e., either-or, i.e., contradictory, i.e., not readily adaptable to 'change'—the conscience is based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth, the "super-ego" upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment'), 'justifying' his "self" (which is common with all children, which is the basis of "common-ism") that 'change,' i.e., 'liberation' from the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—along with the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith—is initiated and sustained, 'creating' (in the child's mind) a "new" world order where he can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be of and for the world only, in pleasure with impunity, i.e., with no sense of guilt (which explains the 'liberal' mind, which, makes "pleasure" the standard for "good" instead of "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will, making it impossible for him to hear, much less receive the truth—you can preach and teach the truth to him all day long but, like a rebellious, spoiled, obstinate child, he will not hear a word you say, turning whatever you say into an opinion or, if you persist, considering your position as being "irrational," i.e., "unreasonable," i.e., "hurtful" and therefore hateful—by perceiving your position and therefore you as being "irrelevant" he can, 'justifying' his "self," do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with no sense of guilt).
  As Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [those who are dissatisfied with how the world "is," i.e., subject to authority (as a child is subject to the father's authority, as man is to God's), thinking about how it "ought" to be, i.e., satisfying their carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [establishing, i.e., preaching and teaching their "opinion" as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking others from enjoying the carnal pleasures ("lusts") of the 'moment' which they desire], the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Karl Marx's "change" is the process of 'change' itself, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus where, 'liberated' from "the Father's" restraints, i.e., from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, everyone can be "of [and for] the world" only, i.e., enjoying "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (which the father's/Father's authority engenders). The idea being: by negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "old" world order with its preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and its teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, i.e., by "encouraging" (pressuring) everyone in a "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meeting, to dialogue their opinion to a consensus (thus 'justifying' the child's' carnal nature, i.e. identifying with the "disenfranchised," i.e., the "repressed" and the "alienated" with their carnal desires and dissatisfactions over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority is negated, making it possible for all to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., to be of and for the world only (transcending local control and nationalism) with impunity—making the child's hate of restraint the catharsis and the one in authority the oppressor, the tyrant, Hitler. As will be pointed out again, Hitler, by removing discussion (which is always a part of the father's/Father's authority, subject to the father's/Father's discretion) engendered Fascism, 'justifying,' in the 'liberals' mind the negation of the father's/Father's authority itself, something all socialists, i.e., national and global socialists do. Those of the "new" world order, i.e., the children of disobedience, following after the ideology of Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud, will always side with the angry child, i.e., with the "disenfranchised," i.e., with the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., over and therefore against doing right and not wrong, i.e., over and therefore against the commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., over and therefore against the laws of the 'past' which get in the child's way, making laws subject to the child's "feelings" i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' letting the child's "lust" for the things "of the world" and his anger toward the father/Father (and his/His restraint) guide them, i.e., direct their steps in making law instead. The idea being "don't just study Marx," forcing everyone to do what he says—what traditional Marxists do—"be Marx," i.e., experience the Karl Marx in your "self," resenting restraint, hating the restrainer, putting your "feelings" into social action (praxis), "helping" others, thought dialogue, 'discover' the Karl Marx in themselves, putting their resentment toward restraint and hatred toward the restrainer into social action (praxis) as well—what Transformational Marxists do (resenting and silencing anyone being "negative," i.e., preaching commands and rules to be obeyed and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, i.e., discussing commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to arrive at "the truth," i.e., the "right" answer or solution in a meeting which emphasizes being "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions in order to arrive at a consensus instead). While the father's/Father's authority entails preaching, teaching, and discussion (at the father's/Father's discretion), the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions are wrapped up in dialogue. When the father removes discussion from his repertoire, he becomes a tyrant, 'justifying' to those of the "new" world order the use of dialogue in order to negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "old" world order, initiating and sustaining a world of 'change.'
   The "old" world order is associated with or structured upon the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), i.e., the commands, rules, facts, and truth "of the Father," with children having to obey the father, doing the father's will, engendering local control, i.e., private convictions, property, and business, i.e., a "top-down," "above-below," "Mine. Not yours," "right-wrong" way of thinking , i.e., humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining, dying to "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth being preached and taught by those in authority, using deductive reasoning, i.e., reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth and acting in a way, i.e., respecting, honoring, and obeying authority which leads to sovereignty, i.e., nationalism, creating division between people and nations based upon established (local) principles and traditions. The "new" world order is associated with or structured upon the carnal nature of the child (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the child's desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., dopamine emancipation which the world stimulates and the child's resentment or hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, which gets in his way, engendering socialism (globalism), a way of thinking (inductive reasoning, i.e., reasoning from the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' in the 'light' of the current situation) and acting which is 'purposed' in removing commands, rules, facts, and truth which divides the child from his own nature and thus divides him from other children, seeking to unite him with other children instead upon their common "self interests," i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment,' initiating and sustaining a society "of and for self," based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," which is universal, i.e., which all children have in common (the basis of "common-ism"). It is the guilty conscience—which the father's/Father's authority engenders (Romans 7:14-25) and the child carries around with him—that prevents him from becoming at-one-with his "self" and the world in pleasure. Without it's negation, the father's/Father's authority is carried from the past, into the present, and into the future, preventing "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., globalism, i.e., 'change.'
   As you will see, by 'changing' communication (in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the government, in the "church") from the language of the parent's, i.e., the father/Father, i.e., the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given, the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discussion (at the discretion of the one in authority—you discuss facts, which are used to persuade, you dialogue opinions, i.e., "feelings" which are subject to manipulation, with authority using discussion to clear up any misunderstanding or for clarification without loosing their position of authority) to the language of the children, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (Facebook mentality), where, with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' their "feelings" of the 'moment' (in the 'light' of the given situation) guide them in determining right from wrong, i.e., the right way to think and act in the situation (known as "situation ethics," "values clarification"), the "new" world order is able to usurp, i.e., negate the "old" world order, making all children the same, i.e., of and for their carnal nature, i.e., "of [and for] the world" only. Children are in fact being seduced, deceived, and manipulated in the consensus environment by a facilitator of 'change' since children do not come to consensus naturally, tending to divide themselves from one another based upon their "self"-ish interests of the 'moment' or their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, insisting upon doing things their or their parent's way, initiating and sustaining their parent's way of thinking and acting, i.e., a "top-down," "Mine. Not yours," "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting. In other words (according to those intoxicated, addicted, and possessed with the "new" world order, i.e., the consensus process), when children yield to their parent's authority (or any authority) against their carnal desires of the 'moment' they "create" the father's/Father's authority, a "top-down," patriarchal way of thinking and acting. Karl Marx wrote: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) The Marxist Theodor Adorno explained it this way:

"Authoritarian submission [nationalism, tantamount to Fascism in the mind of 'liberal's'] 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) By removing discussion, Hitler negated the father's/Father's authority, used the office for his own carnal desires instead, thus 'justifying' to the socialist-commonist-globalists their use of dialogue, i.e., the language of the children of disobedience in order to initiate and sustain 'change,' taking control over and keeping themselves in power over "the people"—for the sake of "the people." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." ibid. This is the paranoia of the liberal mind.

   The only solution to the "problem," according to Karl Marx, i.e., to those of the "new" world order is to negate the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, 'changing' how they communicate with their "self," others, and the world, as well as how they respond to authority. Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's personal thoughts and social actions (behavior)]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
   The "old" world order is based upon faith and obedience, i.e., doing "right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., righteousness"trusting in the Lord," letting the Lord "direct [your] steps." The "new" world order is based upon "sense experience," i.e., upon that which is of nature only, i.e., loving and approaching that which is pleasurable and hating and avoiding that which is painful, i.e., hating and avoiding or attempting to remove (negate) that which inhibits or blocks the enjoyment of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' making "truth" subject to the persons "own understanding," subject to their carnal desires, i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment' (which are being stimulated by the world around them in the 'moment')—making deductive (didactic) reasoning, i.e., reasoning from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to inductive (dialectic) reasoning, i.e., subject to their opinion, i.e., reasoning from their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' thus negating the father's/Father's authority as a means to making judgment regarding right and wrong thinking and acting, treating facts and truth as theories and opinions, thus treating theories and opinions, i.e., "feelings" as fact and truth, making themselves subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the facilitator of 'change' who "helps" them 'discover' what is "relevant," "reasonable," "rational," practical," i.e., "positive" and what is not—with pleasure, i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment' being "positive," the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which inhibit or block it being "negative," therefore "irrelevant," "unreasonable," "irrational," impractical," especially, according to Karl Marx, when it comes to determining what is real or "actual" and what is not. Karl Marx wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') The Marxist, György Lukács wrote: "for the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." According to Lukács it is the father's/Father's authority that stands in the way of common-ism (Globalism), i.e., "reality"—which can only be initiated and sustained through dialogue. "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Without dialogue, common-ism (Globalism) cannot become "reality." "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) Abraham Maslow's "self actualization" is simply Karl Marx's "reality" of the child's "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life" being 'justified' before men and put into practice, which requires (demands) the negation of the father's/Father's authority. Maslow wrote: "Nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Maslow wrote of the merging of Marxism and Humanism (socialism and psychology and philosophy) in order to rid the world of sovereignty, stating that it would "cost much blood." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory [Freud considered all children sexually active] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." ". . . I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN, & the like." "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." "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.) ibid.
   The "new" world order is established upon Karl Marx's dictum that 'reconciliation' is to be with one's "self," others, and the world in pleasure instead of with the Father in faith and obedience, 'changing' our response toward authority from respecting, honoring, and obeying it to questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking it instead. This applies to the laws of the land as well, with the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father (rule of law), which restrains man's carnal nature, being replaced with the opinions of men (rule of men), which 'liberates' the carnal nature of man from the father's/Father's authority so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that all can break or ignore (circumvent) laws when "deemed necessary" (for the "good" of "the people"), i.e., when they get in the way of man's (especially the facilitator's of 'change's') carnal desires of the 'moment.' By creating a cycle of children increasingly disrespecting authority with those in authority increasingly using force to bring them under control, rebellion can lead to revolution, resulting in the children 'liberating' their "self" once and for all from the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a world where "reality" is no longer based upon the father/Father and his/His authority but upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., man's "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life," i.e., all that is "of the world" only.
   The "new" world order is 'driven' by the child's carnal nature, i.e., by the affective domain, i.e., by the child's "feelings" of the 'moment, i.e., by "human nature" (which is stimulated by the world, including the approval of other children, i.e., affirmation) and is 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure, i.e., the child's carnal nature (that which is of the world only) over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (along with his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth), 'justifying' the negation of the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and anybody who, and anything which honors and perpetuates it, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's dictums of "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh without the law of God, and "purposiveness without purpose," i.e., "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates without having to do what the father/Father says, thereby no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud all had the negation of the father's/Father's authority in mind, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so they could do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be "human" with impunity, demanding that all people be like them, i.e., "of [and for] the world" only as well.
   Their ideology is reflected in the so called "public-private partnership," i.e., consensus process being "promoted" today. By uniting that which is private, i.e., that which is nobody's business with the public, i.e., with that which is everybody's business, creating "public-private partnerships," socialists are able to make what is private, i.e., your private convictions, property, and business everybody's business, bringing that which is private, i.e., your private convictions, property, and business under their control, creating a "new" world order where government is no longer limited by local control, i.e., by the father's/Father's authority, i.e., by the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., by your "private convictions" or restraints but is "empowered" to control you by the "feelings" of those being seduced, deceived, and manipulated in facilitated meetings, so that all can, as children of disobedience, do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, convinced in their "self" that whatever they see, be it your children, spouse, property, business, etc., including you is theirs as well. Beware: if you insist upon negating the father's/Father's authority so you can do what you want, when you want without his/His restraint, God will grant you your wish, i.e., turn you over to your carnal desires, but you (and your children) will pay the price in the end. "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9 "And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' 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

"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 when confronted with or restrained by 'conservative' principles, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, manifesting their love of pleasure (love of the world) and their hate of restraint (hate of the father's/Father's authority). They think and act as children of disobedience, doing what they can to get rid of the father's/Father's authority so they can (as a "big brother") rule the world instead—believing that everyone is just like them, i.e., a child of disobedience (just not knowing it yet, i.e., still in "denial"), needing their "help" in order to be converted or be silenced and/or removed instead. The hallmark of philosophy, socialism (all forms of socialism from Common-ism to Fascism), psychology, anthropology, etc., i.e., "group psychotherapy" (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 by "encouraging" them to dialogue their opinions to a consensus (the same system as a soviet which is used to initiate and sustain laws enforcing socialism aka common-ism), '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), therefore (seeing no wrong in themselves) seeing no need to repent, ask for forgiveness, and be saved—Romans 7:14-25.
   The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to preselect the "Legos" that are put in the box (the "appropriate information") so the children can only build the object he wants built. When only their "feelings" of the 'moment' (in the 'light' of the given situation) guide them in deciding right from wrong, i.e., excluding their parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which divides them from one another), the only outcome will be their carnal nature, 'liberated' from parental 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 their/His 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.
   The solution, for the 'liberal,' i.e., for the common-ist is simple. By creating a classroom environment where children can dialogue their opinions to a consensus, resulting in them going home challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority, parent's are pressured into counseling, i.e., into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus with their children, i.e., into no longer chastening their children when they do wrong, disobey, sin, negating their office of authority in the process—their participation (abduction of their authority in order to dialogue with their children) accomplishes the deed. In this way, those hating the father's/Father's authority are 'justified' in accusing those supporting the father's/Father's authority of 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 supporting them and their hatred toward authority.
   "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 'liberals' world of "oughtiness," a world of their "imagination," i.e., a world subject to their heart's carnal desires 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)

"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

   There is no freedom of religion (and freedom of the conscience, i.e., private convictions) in the consensus process, only freedom from religion (and freedom from the conscience, i.e., private convictions, replacing it with the "super-ego," i.e., the "feelings" of the child instead), unless you make humanism a religion, requiring all religions to be tolerant (non-judgmental) of the child's carnal nature, making all religions subject to the world and the scientific method of social-psychology, i.e., dialectical/historical materialism. Consensus can only be arrived at through the dialoguing of opinions, with opinions 'liberating' all participants from the father's/Father's authority, dialogue (vain speculation) making all 'equal,' and the consensus process uniting all as one, affirming the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority—which is the motto of the French Revolution: "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité," i.e., "liberté" from the father's/Father's authority so that all children can be "of and for self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of and for the world only, "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, "égalité" (equality) based upon the child's carnal nature of "lusting" after pleasure and hating restraint, resulting in "fraternité," i.e., community, i.e., the children united in negating of the father's/Father's authority in the name of "the people," protecting the "rights" of the children, "doing what feels good" in the 'moment' ("good sense") according to the children over and therefore against "doing what is right" according to the father/Father. It is not that the father/Father is against pleasure. It is that pleasure can not supersede the father's/Father's authority, i.e., go against doing the father's/Father's will without it becoming "lust," i.e., anarchy and revolution, i.e., "of and for self" only. While the pleasures of this life pass away (are temporary) the joy of the Lord (which the world can not experience, i.e., can not know) is eternal. Thus, those leaning to their own understanding, i.e., subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from and for their carnal nature, removing all that is not "of and for self," have to remove those filled with the joy and peace which can only come from trusting in the Lord, walking in the Spirit, doing the Father's will—since the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the Father being preached and taught judge and condemn (damn) them for their deceitful and wicked thoughts and actions (ways).

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

   Education, i.e., how children are raised or trained up (including in the home) has been at the forefront of this 'change' or paradigm 'shift,' i.e., how children feel, think and act as well as respond to others, the world, and authority—either recognizing, honoring, having faith in, and obeying authority or questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking it instead. "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, making teachers therapists, i.e., counselors, i.e., social-ist engineers, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., 'change' agents, 'changing' traditional minded students into socialists. "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) Detached from his parent's authority, in the pain of isolation, the child finds his identity in "the group," i.e., in those he can reality identify with, who have his "self interest" in mind. "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' to be his "self" again, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Those students who refuse to "participate" in the 'change' process, i.e., who defend the father's/Father's authority in the classroom face the wrath of the facilitator of 'change' (as well as rejection by the rest of the class out of fear of what might happen to them if they behaved in the same way), as expressed by 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, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Welcome to the "group grade" classroom, "helping" the students 'liberate' their "self" from the restraints of the father's/Father's authority.

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:16

   The "old" world order is in similitude to God telling Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "lest ye die," i.e., "lest ye" lose your inheritance, which is the tree of life (as a father telling his children, "Do what I say." "Because I said so," or else you will not be in my will). Psychology, in defence of the child's carnal nature, i.e., in defiance to the father's/Father's authority was the key ingredient, as in the garden, in which to initiate and sustain 'change.' "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) The "new" world order is in similitude to the Serpent, as a facilitator of 'change,' telling the woman that she would not die if she disobeyed, "beguiling" her, i.e., seducing, deceiving, and manipulating her into believing that she could do what she wanted to do, when she wanted to do it, when it "seemeth right unto" her, i.e., when it seemed to be "reasonable," i.e., "rational," i.e., "practical" to her in the 'moment' despite it being in opposition to God's will, i.e., that she could do wrong, disobey, sinned against God, i.e. disobey the Father and not be held accountable, thereby in her (and Adam's) praxis of disobedience, i.e., doing her will instead of God's, i.e., choosing sensuous knowledge, i.e., "sense experience" ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" which the world stimulates) over and therefore against the Word of God (faith which leads to obedience), abdicating her inheritance of eternal life (which is a gift from God for obedience) for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which is "of the world" only, which is temporary, i.e., which is passing away), resulting in her, along with Adam (who joined her in disobedience, then, together with the woman, both acting as "liberals," refusing to repent, blaming someone or something else for their problems, i.e., for their sins) being cast out of the garden, resulting in all men, who in defiance to God, i.e., who, as children of disobedience rejecting the Father's authority, doing their will instead, dying in their sins, missing out on eternal life, having to endure eternal death instead. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
   Just know this, your body, which you spend your life trying to please, will (figuratively speaking) someday drag you into the grave with it (your soul actually separates from your body at death, awaiting judgment). Where you spend eternity depends upon whether you, pleasing your body, i.e., 'justifying' your "self," did your will or you, pleasing the Father, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to your "self" daily, enduring the rejection of men, and following after the Lord Jesus Christ, did the Father's. After all, while Jesus Christ—who being perfect, came to save us—divides us from our earthly father—who being imperfect, can not save us—he did not negate the office itself, he simply put His Heavenly Father, who is perfect, in its place, i.e., in our earthly father's place. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "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 Apart from the Son, Christ Jesus, there is no 'redemption.' Apart from the Father their is no 'reconciliation.' "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 While those of and for the world might accept the Son, seeing him as someone trying to rescue man from the "establishment," they, loving their "self" and the world, can not accept the Father, judging, condemning, and damning them for their sins—refusing to accept the Father's love for them, sending His Son to 'redeem' them from their sins (by His Son's death, i.e., shedding His blood on the cross to cover their sins), 'reconciling' them to Himself (in resurrecting His Son from the grave), that they might inherit eternal life.

"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

   While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be (or may have been) down right tyrants, their office is perfect, having been given to them by God, who is perfect, from which to serve Him. Diaprax seeks to negate the office, negating both the earthly father's and the Heavenly Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, as well as in his or her relationship with others and the world, turning the child against his or her parent's and/or God's authority, the child's communication from then on being based upon the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her "felt needs," i.e., carnal desires of the 'moment' rather than upon doing right and not wrong according to the parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth. In this way the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, which go against (is antithetical to) the child's carnal nature is overcome (negated) through the praxis of dialogue, i.e., the children sharing with one another their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' becoming one, i.e., building relationship, i.e., coming to consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness") based upon their common "self interests" of the 'moment,' transcending parental/ Godly restraint (authority), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobedience, sinning in the process.
   Diaprax is the dialectic process ("self" 'justification,' i.e., you 'justifying' your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') being put into praxis (practice or social action). It is the manifestation of the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure (dopamine emancipation), which is stimulated by the things of the world, hating the father/Father for chastening him when he does wrong, disobeys, sins, refusing to humble, deny, die to his "self" in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, turning against the Father instead. The father/Father on the other hand, loving his/His children, chastens them that they might learn to do right, obey, not sin, and live, i.e., so they might receive an inheritance from Him. As the prodigal son 'discovered,' thinking life was all about the pleasures of the 'moment,' using up his inheritance for his carnal desires, in the act of humbling, denying, dying to his "self" and returning to the father, his inheritance was his father's love for him.
   Children can not separate their hate of missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which they desire and their hatred toward the one inhibiting or blocking them. The father/Father on the other hand, while hating his children doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, loves his/His children, disciplining them in order that they might learn to do right, obey, and not sin, i.e., learn to discipline and control their "self", i.e., grow up and become mature instead. Fathers who "love the world" and "the things that are in [it]" are children in adult bodies (which describes most fathers today, i.e., forty year old playing with toys), using the office of authority God gave them for their own carnal "self"-ish pleasure and gain. Children can, on the other hand, having been chastened by their father for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, repenting and desiring to do their father's will instead, have "the love of the father" in them, loving others while hating what they are doing, even to them. The same is true of man (as a child of God), repenting, turning from his wicked ways, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to his "self" daily, doing his Heavenly Father's will, having "the love of the Father" in him for others, even when they, in sin, are doing wrong (evil things) to him—something a "child" who is "of and for self" can never understand. While the child, by nature, sees the father's/Father's chastening of him as being evil he can not see his hatred toward the father/Father and his/His authority as being evil. The gospel message is after all about a Son who came to tell us about His Heavenly Father, i.e., who wants us to know His Heavenly Father, i.e., who wants us to know His Heavenly Father's love for us. The dialectic process is all about rejecting "the love of the Father" since it—incorporating his chastening for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—gets in the way of man's love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, a love which never satisfies, i.e., which is always passing away.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves [your "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life"] before men;" Luke 16:15

   Diaprax is man 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, i.e., his "love of the world," i.e., his "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life" through the praxis (social or group action) of dialoguing his opinion, i.e., sharing his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' with others (in a "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meeting), setting aside, i.e., suspending as on a cross, any command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., "private convictions" which get in the way of "building relationships," in order (as in "new" world order) to come to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness" with his "self," others, and the world. Diaprax is man putting dialogue, i.e., dialectic or dialogic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., his "lusts," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates, including his desire for the approval of men, i.e., affirmation, and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., his dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority (the "old" world order) into social action (praxis), 'liberating' his "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his relationship with others and the world, i.e., washing his brain of the father's/Father's authority thereby negating his having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that he (along with his newly found "friends" of the world, 'discovered' through dialogue, as children of disobedience, in consensus, i.e., void of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., void of parental/Godly restraint, i.e., void of having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that he (along with his newly found "friends" of the world) can do unconscionable things with no sense of accountability, having 'justified' his (and their) deceitful and wicked thoughts and actions as being necessary for the 'liberation' of all children from the father's authority. Until you know of God's wrath toward you for your praxis of unrighteousness you can not know His love for you, sending His Son, Jesus Christ to 'redeem' you from it, taking your place instead, imputing His righteousness to you (by your faith in Him) that you might live. If you refuse to accept the "bad news" that your heart is "deceitful above all things" and "desperately wicked," you can not accept the "good news," i.e., the gospel of the Lord changing your heart, putting "the love of the Father" in it instead, that you might know the Father and His love for you, inheriting eternal life instead of dying in you sins, suffering eternal death. Pleasure is a gift from God—that you might "enjoy" what He has created, giving Him thanks and praise. Since life is from God (and not from the world), when you choose pleasure over and therefore against obedience to God, which is required for inheritance, all you can receive after death is eternal death and a "life" (if you want to call it that) void of any pleasure, a "life" filled with pain and regret.

"Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., who 'justifies' his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes "self," i.e., "human nature" as being equal with, therefore above or greater than, therefore against God, i.e., the Father's authority, thus negating the Father's authority, i.e., the fear of God in his thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

   In review, diaprax is man's praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of man 'justifying' his "self" before others, being affirmed by and affirming them, i.e., their love of pleasure (the world and all that is in it) and hate of restraint (the father's/Father's authority), negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, thereby negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., negating the need for contrition, repentance, and forgiveness, i.e., redemption and reconciliation, having a "fit" when the father/Father gets in his way instead. God has warned us of diaprax, i.e., of the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of the praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., of the praxis of the so called "new" world order where children of disobedience rule, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus in facilitated, "group psychotherapy" meetings, establish their "self," i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., living for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' rejecting the Father's authority, rejecting eternal life, choosing eternal death instead. If you do not start from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, weighing your thoughts and actions from it, you will "naturally" start with your "feelings," weighing the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth from your carnal desires of the day, liberating' your "self" from its restraint. When you are silent, i.e., refuse to correct, reprove, or rebuke unrighteousness in order to initiate and sustain relationship, i.e., "build relationship" with it, unrighteousness becomes the "norm." "Qui tacet consentit," i.e., silence gives consent.

   "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24
   "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
   "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

Behind closed doors:

   When you attend a meeting or a class where you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative," you are being "encouraged" by a facilitator of 'change' (if you hold to the father's/Father's authority you will appear as being prejudiced, judgmental, divisive, i.e., "hateful" to "the group," pressuring you to "willingly" participate with "the group" or at least be silent—which is participation—submitting yourself and the group to the facilitator's control) to dialogue your opinion (your desire for the things of the world and your dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, which you are already doing if you have not denied, humbled, died to your "self" before the meeting, willing to stand alone with the truth, i.e., willing to be rejected by "the group" if need be, instead of uniting) with others to a consensus, preparing your "self" and your children, spouse, neighbors, co-workers, leaders to participate in the "new" world order—a world void of the father's/Father's authority, where you, including your children, your spouse, etc., especially the facilitator of 'change' (who convinced you to think and do what naturally comes to you, without the fear of being punished, as the Serpent in same fashion told the woman in the garden she would not die) can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience. Setting aside, i.e., suspending, as on a cross, commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., your "private convictions," i.e., "It is written," "Because dad said so," etc., in order to be "positive," i.e., in order to be affirmed by "the group" means you are willingly participating in and promoting the broad path "that leadeth to destruction." "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves," seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you in order to use you as "natural resource" for their own pleasure and gain, deceiving you into believing that they have your "best interest" in mind when it is theirs instead (when they "help" you to 'justify' or at least tolerate your and others sinful nature, their sinful nature is 'justified,' affirmed as well), seducing you with your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, including your desire for their approval, i.e., affirmation. (Matthew 7:13-15) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3 "Covetousness," i.e., your natural desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' and your resentment toward whatever or whoever is preventing you from having and enjoying it, i.e., dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' makes you subject to seduction, deception, and manipulation. You can not be merchandised (bought and sold) without it.

Continued ....

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2018