"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)
Consensus "bypasses," i.e., circumvents, i.e., transcends local control, i.e., the parent's authority over their children and God's authority over man (reflected in the constitution's authority over their representatives—restraining their representatives abuses, i.e., their representatives desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' that circumvent or "bypass" the constituants authority over their families, property, and business), negating private convictions, property, and business in the process, making everyone and everything "equal," therefore subject to "society" only, instead. In defiance to the "the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof" (1Corinthians 10:26), the Lord giving man dominion over it (Genesis 1:26), Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in dialectic fashion, declared: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine' [as God made a garden for man, driving him and the woman out of it when they disobeyed/sinned, thus declaring it "My garden. Not yours," from where we derive private convictions, property, and business], and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society [what Rousseau (and Freud) saw as evil, i.e., "My family, i.e., wife/husband/children, property, business, neighborhood, city, state, and/or Nation. Not yours"]. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) Emphasis added. Georg Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born), wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for pleasures of the world, including (and especially) their desire for approval from one another (affirmation), i.e., "self" esteem], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromising,' i.e., setting aside, suspending (as on a cross) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth for the sake of affirmation, i.e., group approval, i.e., consensus] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to be "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world (and its pleasures) only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)
Start with the child's nature, i.e., his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., i.e., his opinion, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (making him subject to the world stimulating it and anyone manipulating it) and his dissatisfaction with (hatred toward) the father's/Father's authority (which restrains him from enjoying or lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires) and all the above will fall in place, i.e., will follow. Hegel wrote (in defiance to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., in defence of the child's carnal nature): "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Karl Marx wrote (in defiance to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., in defence of the child's carnal nature): "Once the earthly family [where the child is subject to the earthly father's authority, preventing 'change'] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where man is subject to the Heavenly Father's authority, preventing 'change'], the former [the traditional family with the father's "Do what I say or else," "Mine. Not yours." authority system] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in the child's thoughts and in his relationship with others]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) Sigmund Freud wrote (in defiance to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., in defence of the child's carnal nature): "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [that is the father no longer insists upon his children obeying him, doing his will over and therefore against their nature, 'discovering' common ground with them (according to "human nature" only) instead]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)
In the consensus process, without being cognizance (aware) of it, a person sells (abdicates) their birthright, i.e., their inheritance, i.e. their inalienable rights, i.e., their soul, i.e., their individuality (which comes from the father's/Father's authority, which requires faith and obedience) for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire. From then on they become indebted (in debt) to those who "helped" them 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, who are now in control of and living off their inheritance.
Consensus means "with feelings." A group coming to consensus is a group of people deciding they can do whatever they "feel" like doing in the 'moment' without accountability to the commands, rules, facts, or truth, i.e., the standards of the "past" and those who created or now support them, thereby overcoming local control, i.e., overcoming those who prevent or resist 'change.' The key ingredients to the consensus process are 1) dialogue, i.e., setting aside established commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to understand another persons "feelings," , i.e., where they are coming from, not judging then for what they are about to say, are saying, or have said, 2) opinions, which are based upon everyone's desire or "self interest" of the 'moment' (including their desire for approval or affirmation from others in the 'meeting'), as well as their dissatisfaction with or resentment toward whatever or whoever is preventing (inhibiting or blocking) them from attaining their desires of the 'moment,' and 3) someone (the facilitator of 'change') who is knowledgeable in how to prevent those insisting upon the standards of the past from usurping, i.e., from taking over the "feelings" based meeting, someone knowing how to draw (seduce, deceive, and manipulate) everyone into participation or get them to be silent or leave the meeting, turning "the group" against them, i.e., against their way of thinking if they resist. Moving the meeting from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith—through discussion trying to persuade others, with facts and truth, that their position is right and the other person's is wrong—preventing compromise (inhibiting or blocking 'change'), to where everyone can openly dialogue (share) their "feelings" (desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment' and "thoughts" (how they think the world "ought" to be), without being "judged," i.e., asking "the group" to be "positive" and not "negative" does the trick. By simply shifting communication from belief (facts and truth) to being "positive" and not "negative" (feelings) negates belief, turning it into an opinion, making the participant readily adaptable to 'change' for the sake of approval from others, i.e., for the sake of "group approval." In this way, approval from "the group," "the people" (a generalized concept)—rather than approval from parents, teachers, boss, constituents, ... God, along with any contracts or promises that were made with them in the "past," which prevent 'change'—controls the persons thoughts and actions, affecting the outcome of the 'meeting,' i.e., how policy is established, law is made, and they behave.
"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [representative, local control, majority vote, constitutional, limited form of Government, where the citizens, as a father, rules, and not the children, i.e., the representatives, manipulated by facilitators of 'change,' serving their "self interest"], our objective centers upon transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) Consensus removes the father's authority, i.e., the citizens vote ("private convictions"), i.e., local control from the decision, placing the facilitator(s) of 'change' in control of law (and "the people") instead.
The standard for UN policy is explained by Harry Stack Sullivan: "It is proposed that no facts or opinion be considered by the Congress unless the facts and opinions be the established consensus of a group of collaborators." (Harry Stack Sullivan, The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science) It is how your child is learning to "Reason" in his (her) "group grade," "relationship building," i.e., "team building," i.e., soviet classroom.
The consensus process is the soviet system—1) a diverse group of people (including the deviant), 2) dialoguing their opinions (their desires and dissatisfaction of the 'moment,' i.e., their desire for pleasure and their resentment toward restraint) 3) to a consensus, 4) in a facilitated meeting, 5) to a pre-determined outcome, that no personal-social decision will be made without the use of dialectic 'reasoning' and the consensus process.
"Has authority been banished in these later days? Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?" (Will C. Woods, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California, March 1921, responding to socialist education methods which were creeping into California's school system back in the 20's.)
The scientific method is our ability to observe and evaluate something according to established conditions, according to pre-established commands, rules, facts, and truth. We apply pressure, heat, or other conditions to what is to see how it responds. If we see abnormalities, i.e., behavior we do understand, we set aside the laws we have learned and theorize (speculate) what new law we might be encountering. When applied to the laws of nature, which are established by God, we simply 'discover' a new law we did not know about before, providing our theory is proven observable and repeatable, i.e., consistent and dependable. Until then all it is is an opinion or a theory. We can only say, we "think" or we "feel." We can not say we "know." To put it into practice puts all in jeopardy.
When the so called "scientific method," i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., man 'reasoning' through his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e., the consensus process is applied to man all he will 'discover' is his carnal nature, that which is of the flesh, stimulated by and responding to ('driven' by) the world, i.e., manipulated by anyone manipulating it, resulting in anyone accepting it (as the tool for discovering his 'purpose' in life, i.e., the purpose of life) becoming carnal, of the world only, i.e., a humanist, i.e., a common-ist (finding and advocating that which he has in common with all men, i.e., his love of pleasure and his hate of restraint, rejecting/hating the father's/Father's authority, including the citizens, under God's authority). This is why the Apostle Paul warned Timothy "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 All who use dialectic 'reasoning' and the consensus process to 'discover' their 'purpose' in life lose their faith, even if done in the name of the Lord. This is why those who have no faith use it in meetings, turning all who participate away from having faith in the Lord God to trusting in themselves, not only individually but collectively as well, leaning to their own understanding, worshiping the creation, themselves, and the master facilitator of 'change,' instead of the creator, who gives them their next breath. "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
© Institution for Authority Research Dean Gotcher 2014-2017