Dialogue engenders riot-eousness. by Dean Gotcher


Dialogue engenders riot-eousness.


Dean Gotcher

   It is important to bring this up now in order for you to know the difference between discussion (which is of the father's authority system of doing right and not wrong, i.e., faith, engendering in the one under authority, hate of doing wrong and love of doing right along with love of the one in authority, leading to obedience) and dialogue (which is of the children's system of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., "feelings," , i.e., "sense experience," i.e., "sensuous needs and sense perception," engendering love of pleasure and hate of restraint along with hate of the restrainer—which includes indifference to what happens to the restrainer, whether good or bad—leading to disobedience). Discussion is based upon doing right and not wrong, leaving all participants with a respect for authority (though they may not agree with the person in authority, respecting the system or office of authority itself, leaving inheritance in place, i.e., the right of the one in authority to have what is his, using or distributing it as he pleases, leaving it to whoever he pleases). Dialogue is based upon a person's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, engendering a disrespect toward authority (the system of authority itself) when it gets in the way of him having his way, i.e., inhibiting or blocking him having the pleasure of his heart in the 'moment,' negating the right of inheritance (since the inheritor must accept the system of authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the one in authority in order to recognize the right of inheritance—there is no recognition of the "right" of inheritance in dialogue since reward, in dialogue, means satisfaction in the "here-and-now").
   Discussion does not engender rioting (the overthrow of authority, i.e., the system of authority itself, just justifying the removal of the one in authority, leaving the system of authority in place). It is through dialogue that riots are incited against authority (against the system of authority itself). It is why facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "children of disobedience" can say they do not agree with those who are rioting (with tongue in cheek, i.e., with doublespeak), while in fact knowing they incited the riot through their promotion of dialogue, i.e., engendering disrespect for authority, i.e., hatred toward the system of authority itself, resulting in the facilitators of 'change' taking over control of the children's inheritance (via fiat, i.e., executive orders and taxation), supposedly distributing it "equally" amongst all children (through socialist projects) in order to be "fare," living off of it themselves while promoting dialogue everywhere they go, in order to apprehend more inheritance money—putting the children, addicted to pleasure, into debt "lusting" after more pleasure of the 'moment'—no longer concerned about doing right and not wrong ("self restraint") according to the father's will—in order to keep them under their control, making more money for themselves in the process—why our government (and country) is the way it is today.
   Illegal immigration is the result of dialogue as the immigrant is not brought under (does not embrace) the culture, i.e., the traditions he is entering into, i.e., not submitting himself to its authority.  Illegal immigration has always been engendered by those in government who use dialogue (amongst themselves, i.e., knowing what is best for the citizens), forcing diversity upon the citizens in their effort to negate the traditions of the past, i.e., culture with its restraints upon their desires in the "here-and-now," with illegal immigrants, now in mass (critical mass) not only depleting the culture of its routines and resources, rioting or threatening to do so if it does not get its way.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016