The Use of Generalization:
in order to classify ("label") a person a Hitler, a Nazi, a Fascist, or a racist or a potential Hitler, Nazi, Fascist, or racist.
The dialectic (dialogue) 'logic' of 'liberalism' is based upon the improper use of the syllogism, "if a equals b, and b equals c, then a equals c"—if the cake is made with flour and flour is made from wheat then the cake is made from wheat. The 'logic' of the 'liberal's' "synergism," improperly mixing facts with "feelings" (when facts get in the way of "feelings"), goes like this. "You have a red barn [the "fact" is you have a barn and it is red—you may not but this is for illustrative purpose only]. Hitler had a red barn [everybody hates Hitler who was evil—hate being a "feeling"]. That makes you a Hitler or a potential Hitler [everybody should hate you because you have a red barn, i.e., you are evil or have the potential of becoming evil if you do not get rid of your red barn and "support us ('me') in getting rid of red barns")]."
In other words, by taking a specific fact or truth (say for example, doing your parent's will, i.e., cleaning your room, thus not being able to go out) which you dislike, i.e., which gets in the way of your desires, i.e., your "feelings" of the 'moment,' identifying them with someone you and/or others dislike or hate (Hitler), thus generalizing them, you are able to make a specific fact or truth (the parent's authority) subject to your desired "feelings based" definition and outcome—'justifying' not only your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates but also your hatred toward the parent's authority which gets in the way. This process, i.e., improper use of a syllogism, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., praxis of "self" ("feelings") 'justification' (establishing "feelings" over and therefore against truth) is explained in the scriptures. "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
When it comes to people we like ("feelings"), who do something wrong (fact), we tend to (depending upon what they have done) forgive them, look the other way, or correct them in private (the idea being, what they do wrong in private is dealt with in private in order not to destroy them, at least at first, then if they do not repent but persist or they do wrong in public it is dealt with in public). But when we do not like them or we hate them ("feelings") we tend to "jump all over them," i.e., publicly martyr them. Unlike children who (being "feelings" based) can not separate their hate of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment' and their hatred toward the one causing them to miss out on it, parent's, as God (being commands, rules, facts, and truth based) do not hate their children, loving their children even when they do wrong and/or disobey, or in God's case sin. Parent's, as God, only hate what their children do when they do wrong, disobey, sin, 'judging' them (chastening, i.e., correcting, reproving, rebuking them) according to their actions, forgiving them when they repent. In the child's way of "thinking," right and wrong, good and evil are subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment' (generalization—situational, i.e., 'changeable' or capricious), which makes them "confrontational" in a world based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in the way of their "feelings" of the 'moment.' In the parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's way of thinking, right and wrong, good and evil are subject to commands, rules, facts, and truth (specific—established for all times and in all places, i.e., unadaptable to change or at least rapid 'change,' or formal, logical, contradictory, i.e., rigid), which makes them "confrontational" in a world of 'change,' i.e., in a world based upon "feelings."
It is not that parents are perfect. They are not. They may be (or may have been) down right tyrants, using the office which God (who is perfect) has given them (to serve Him in), which is perfect, for their own "selfish" pleasure ("feelings")—Hebrews 12:5-11. While it is true that parents have "feelings," the office itself requires that "feelings" become subject to commands, rules, facts, and truth in order for "feelings" to be in order—with parents setting aside pleasure if and/or when necessary in order to do the job at hand right (and not wrong). It is this "selfishness," i.e., child's nature, i.e., "human nature" in the parent that those who improperly use the syllogism "if a equals b, and b equals c, then a equals c" (inserting "feelings" in the facts), i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' are after—Genesis 3:1-6—getting the parents into dialogue in order to gain access to and use their "feelings," i.e., their desire for their children's and/or others approval aka affirmation so they can use the parent's "feelings" against their commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to negate their authority (accountability to commands, rules, facts, and truth) so everyone can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without "feeling bad," thus negating their need to repent for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—Romans 7:14-25.
These two different ways of thinking (thinking from commands, rules, facts, and truth and thinking from "feelings") can be explained with the use of the word "prejudice." The parent's "prejudice" is established upon commands, rules, facts, and truth which they have learned (and pass on to their children). They will only change their facts and truth, i.e., their mind, i.e., their "prejudice" when they are persuaded through discussion that their facts and truth are wrong and the other persons facts and truth are right. The children's "prejudice" is based upon their "feelings," i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and their dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward whoever is preventing them from enjoying them. This makes them—hostile toward parental authority, i.e., toward commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in their way—readily adaptable to 'change,' i.e., subject to seduction, deception, and manipulation. The only way to arrive at a consensus, where "feelings" determine the outcome, is to draw facts and truth based people into dialogue, where discussion (prejudice based upon facts and truth), confronting dialogue (prejudice based upon "feelings"), causes con-fusion, i.e., cognitive dissonance (since everyone is trying to merge the two, i.e., their "feelings" and their facts and truth), resulting in "feelings," i.e., dialogue winning the day (since everyone, seeking "relationship," i.e., consensus, i.e., affirmation is working to overcoming the tension of "confrontation," which was caused by discussion, i.e., the prejudice of facts and truth, i.e., the parent's authority which gets in the way). When you discuss prejudices, the parents authority remains in place, changing their prejudice only through persuasion, i.e., facts and truth (specifics). When you dialogue prejudice, the parent's authority is negated, replacing prejudice based upon facts and truth (details) with prejudice against parental authority (generalization) being the outcome.
The parent's way of thinking aka the Patriarchal paradigm is based upon preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is by faith, and discussing (at the parent's discretion) any question(s) the children might have in the 'moment,' with the parent's "Because I said so" cutting off any dialogue, i.e., the children's "feelings" of the 'moment' when they are aimed at controlling the definition of terms, i.e., the parent's authority and thereby the outcome. The children's way of thinking aka the Heresiarchal paradigm is based upon their "feelings," i.e., their dialoguing with their "self" their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates as well as their dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward whoever is preventing them from having and/or enjoying them.
You discuss facts and truth. You dialogue "feelings." You persuade in a discussion. You manipulate in dialogue. You suspend pleasure in a discussion in order to continue discussion—the issue being doing the job right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth you have learned. You suspend commands, rules, facts, and truth in dialogue in order to continue dialogue—which requires you to not hurt someone's or everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., in order that everyone "feels good," i.e., "feels" wanted, needed, important, etc., so they will continue in dialogue (manipulation). In a discussion, commands, rules, facts, and truth are difficult if not impossible to change. In dialogue, commands, rules, facts, and truth are rapidly 'changed.' The "old" world order, i.e., nationalism is based upon discussion (persuasion). The "new" world order, i.e., globalism is based upon dialogue (manipulation—with nature, i.e., rocks, plants, and animals you do not have to seduce and deceive in order to manipulate but with men, women, and children, i.e., that which is made in the image of God, you do). In discussion there is fear in being or doing wrong, resulting in doing the job right. In dialogue their is fear of being rejected, resulting in "feelings" 'driving' the outcome—whether the job is done right or not. The conscience, i.e., doing right and not wrong is involved in a discussion. The "super-ego," i.e., "feelings" are involved in dialogue. Discussion focuses upon "the details" (specifics). Dialogue depends upon generalization (ambiguity).
When you merge the two, discussion and dialogue (as in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus meeting), conflict and tension result, with only one of the two, i.e., facts and truth or the "feelings" of the 'moment' winning out. Whoever controls the meeting, enforcing discussion or "encouraging" dialogue, determines the outcome. Being "positive," i.e., focusing upon everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment,' in order to make sure they "feel" wanted, needed, important, etc., i.e., a part of the outcome ("the team"), and not "negative," i.e., focusing upon commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is by faith in order to do the job right requires the negation of discussion in order for dialogue to take place. Capitalism depends upon discussion—in order to do the job right. Socialism upon dialogue, i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation—until it gains control over everything, then its "do this," i.e., "shut up" or else. Therefore capitalism rewards good work. Socialism bad. While you can dialogue with your children what color they want in their room the conversation can quickly move to discussion and then "Because I said so" when the color "gets out of hand"—the truth being it is your house, i.e., you are the sovereign over the land, including "their" room. If you remain in dialogue, when the color is absolutely wrong, you loose the land and therefore your sovereignty. This is how globalism works, taking over your children, property, business, liberty, sovereignty, rights (unalienable rights, under God—which you abdicate, as two in a garden called Eden did) through the praxis of dialogue in establishing policy, whether it be in the home, in the classroom, at work, in the town hall meeting, at the capital, or in the "church."
In a discussion, any change to a persons facts or truth is the result of hearing facts or truth that are right, making their facts or truth wrong or incorrect, with the other person in the discussion doing the same, making facts and truth, i.e., being right and not wrong the focus of the discussion. In dialogue, any change to a persons 'facts' or 'truth' is the result of their "feelings" toward their 'facts' or 'truth' (opinion) being 'changed,' requiring them to suspend (as on a cross) any fact or truth that gets in the way of dialogue, i.e., that prevents the other person from sharing their "feelings," with the other person in dialogue doing the same, making "feelings" the focus of the dialogue, making 'facts' and 'truth' subject to "feelings." By bringing the two together, i.e., merging the two, i.e., bringing the parents preaching, teaching, and discussing (of commands, rules, facts, and truth) into dialogue ("feelings"), the parents have to set aside, i.e., suspend, as on a cross, their commands, rules, facts and truth in order to make the children "feel good," i.e., affirmed, making commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to the children's "feelings," i.e., approved or rejected by them. This effectively negates the parents authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the process. This is the heart and soul of counseling today, with psychiatrists, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' focusing upon "the family," bringing the father, mother, and children "together" in dialogue, killing the father's authority in the home in the process.
Making the parent's facts and truth (objective truth) right or wrong, based upon a the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' makes 'facts' and 'truth' subjective. By simply 'shifting' discussion to dialogue, objective facts and truth which are specific become subject to "feelings," i.e., subjective, i.e., generalized. In this way of "thinking," "positive" facts or truth, i.e., facts or truth that make people "feel good" become "good," i.e., right. And therefore any fact or truth that makes people "feel bad" i.e., that "hurts peoples feelings," i.e., causes tension and division (engendering "controversy") becomes "negative," "bad," wrong, or evil. When you bring facts and truth into an environment of dialogue, facts and truth (as well as you) become subject to the "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., your own "feelings" and "the group's feelings" of the 'moment,' pressuring you to turn "your" facts and truth into just another opinion amongst opinions, making them and you subject to 'change.' This is all based upon your desire for "the groups" approval (affirmation) and/or your fear of being rejected by them ("self" esteem is "group" esteem), which in essence reveals your socialist (globalist) or "authoritarian" (nationalist) tendencies, i.e., where along the spectrum of 'change' (adaptability to 'change') you reside in the 'moment,' in the specific situation. Either you hold to the facts and truth (until they/you are proven wrong) or make them subject to your "feelings," i.e., your "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., your "sense experience," ever subject to 'change,' dying in your sins. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
While your soul seeks to know truth, i.e., to know right from wrong your carnal nature seeks after the pleasure of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates. You can feel your soul dying when you 'justify' your "self," i.e., when you choose pleasure and hate (you can not choose one without the other coming along) over and therefore against the truth, when you know the truth is right. Choose truth and live. "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 "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. 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. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17
'Liberalism' is based upon a process called "general systems theory," i.e., generalizing specifics which makes desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., the pleasure-pain spectrum of "human nature," i.e., "feelings" the basis of "science," placing facts or truth based individuals in a "feelings" based environment, which requires compromise in order to "get along," i.e., in order to be a part of "the team" in order to observe their reaction (their willingness to 'compromise, i.e., their 'changeability' or their refusal to 'compromise,' i.e., their inadaptability to 'change' or rigidity) with their desire to belong, i.e., to be a part of "the group" (affirmed) and/or fear of being rejected by "the group" being used to draw them into participation with and thus into supporting their desired outcome—becoming at-one-with them, i.e., a 'liberal,' i.e., letting "feelings" direct their thoughts and actions instead of just facts and truth. By treating "feelings," i.e., man's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (which the world stimulates), i.e., by treating man's natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain as fact and truth, i.e., as you treat the laws of nature, which are observable and repeatable, i.e., "if you do this then this will happen, i.e., "cause and affect," which are established once and for all times, 'liberals' are able to treat all facts and truth (which get in the way of their "feelings," i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates) as an opinion, making all things relative, i.e., situational, i.e., subject to stimulus-response, i.e., subject to manipulation., i.e., subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the world only.
By participating in the 'liberal's' "syllogism" you become a victim of their 'logic,' i.e., subject to their desired outcome—making "feelings" the foundation from which to establish what is "right" and what is "wrong," i.e., what is "good" and what is "evil." By their use of this "syllogism," i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' any fact or truth that gets in the way of their "feelings," i.e., their "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (which the world stimulates) becomes wrong or evil (in their eyes). 'Justified' in their desires, i.e., their "lusting" after the things in the world, they are thus 'justified' in their dissatisfaction with, resentment or hatred toward anyone demanding they accept any fact or truth which gets in the way of their desires—forcing them to apply it over and therefore against their carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., their nature. Through this 'logic,' i.e., "syllogism" (making facts and truth subject to their "feeling" of the 'moment') they are able to make their desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint "good" in your eyes. Thus 'liberals,' as you will see, are able to turn good, i.e., doing the father's/Father' will, i.e., the father's/Father's authority into evil, turning evil, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the heart of man, i.e., "human nature" into "good" making all things (everyone) subject to that which is of the world only. "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 "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
For example, in the dialectic (dialogue, i.e., "feelings" based) 'logic' of 'liberal's, if you believe in the father's/Father's authority you are a Hitler or a potential Hitler. By generalizing the father's/Father's authority as "authoritarian" and Hitler's authority as "authoritarian," all those who are of or supportive of the father's/Father's authority are a Hitler or potentially a Hitler, i.e., a racist. What is missing in this 'logic' is that Hitler would not allow anyone to discuss with him their grievances, showing no mercy, grace, love, or "benevolence" toward them when and if they did, thereby negating the father's/Father's authority (system) in his actions.
Something all socialists have to do, whether "nationalist" aka Fascist or globalist aka Communist (today know as leftists) is negate the father's/Father's authority in order to initiate and sustain control over "the people." By 'shifting' the individuals focus from having to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to focusing upon "the group," i.e., society, i.e., "building relationships," "feelings" become predominate in his thoughts, resulting in him establishing his "feelings" over and therefore against the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which gets in the way. As Kurt Lewin noted, "it is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "The group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions" (Kurt Lewin, Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics) "Kurt Lewin emphasized that 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." "It changes his cognitive structure, the way he sees the physical and social worlds, including all his facts, concepts, beliefs, and expectations." "It modifies his valences and values, ... his attractions and aversions to groups and group standards, his feelings in regard to status differences, and his reactions to sources of approval or disapproval." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) Therefore, Kurt Lewin concluded that a "hierarchy of leaders has to be trained which reach out into all essential sub-parts of the group." "Hitler himself has obviously followed very carefully such a procedure." "The democratic procedure will have to be as thorough and as solidly based on group organization." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie Human Relations in Curriculum Change) As Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [under the father's/Father's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to be "of and for self" only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)
The 'liberal,' hating the father's/Father's authority, classifies anyone demonstrating or supportive of the father's/Father's authority as a Hitler or a potential Hitler. By using "prejudice" ("racism") as their generalization they are able to classify anyone demanding those under their authority (to have faith in and obey them, i.e., to "do right and not wrong" according their commands, rules, facts, or truth) as being a Hitler or a potential Hitler, making all parent's (those who insist upon their children obeying them, i.e., obeying their commands and rules and accepting their facts and truth as given, by faith) a Hitler or a potential Hitler, making God the Father, and anyone who has faith in and obeys Him a Hitler or potential Hitler as well. By using this method of 'logic,' i.e., generalizing specifics 'liberals' are able to 'justify' their agenda of negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., Hitler from the face of the earth, doing so without having a guilty conscience—so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., with no accountability (other than to their 'logic,' i.e.., their praxis of generalization). This is why 'liberal's' find it difficult, if not impossible, to admit that they are ever "wrong"—which is an attribute (the language) of someone under the father's/Father's authority. In the mind of the 'liberal', the father/Father's authority, i.e., "authoritarianism" engenders nationalism aka Fascism (or potential Fascism). Therefore, according to the praxis of 'liberalism,' if "worldly peace and socialist harmony" (globalism) is ever to become a reality the father's/Father's authority must be negated not only in the children's, i.e., "the peoples" thoughts but in their actions as well—resulting in them refusing to submit to ("resisting") the father's/Father's authority wherever they are or in whatever they are doing.
The Marxist Theodor Adorno wrote: "Authoritarian submission 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, thus negating the father's/Father's authority, Hitler used the office for his own carnal desires, '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.' By taking control over the definition of terms 'liberal's are able to use generalized words ("fusion-words" like "mature, evolved, developed, stunted, crippled, fully functioning, graceful, awkward, clumsy" in order "to solve the 'is' and 'ought' problem," i.e., in order to make the child's "feelings" 'facts,' making the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' not the parent's authority, the way the world "ought" to be, as Abraham Maslow explained it in his book, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) in order to initiate and sustain control 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.
This 'logic,' i.e., abuse of logic is being applied to the field of science as well, resulting in any scientist questioning its use in science "no longer being a scientist."
"Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology." "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it." "Kuhn states 'If a paradigm is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied . . . (which eventuates in) an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances (where upon) the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; the last quotation is Max Planck's famous dictum)
Through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in education the praxis of generalizing specifics has found its way into the classroom, resulting in the breakdown of the traditional family—through the negation of the father's authority in the child's mind as he correlates a dictators authority to the father's (parent's) authority. The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., "group grade" classroom puts into praxis the dialectic 'logic' that declares: since dictators demand their way without question and parents likewise demand their way without question, all parents are dictators, needing to be converted, i.e., made into socialists, silenced, or removed. Benjamin Bloom admitted in his second taxonomy (by which teachers "grade" their students way of thinking, i.e., thinking from their "feeling" of the 'moment,' i.e., from their opinions instead of from their parents commands, rules, facts, and truth) "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) All teachers are certified and schools are accredited according to their use of "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.
Benjamin Bloom wrote: "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain) "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom Book 2 Affective Domain) "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) In applying this "scientific process," i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'logic,' i.e., praxis of generalization on children in the classroom, Benjamin Bloom's "Educational Objective" was to produce children who were loyal to their carnal nature and the world over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.
By replacing the preaching of commands and rules, the teaching of facts and truth, and discussion (at authorities discretion)—in order to solve any questions—with the dialoguing of opinions ("feelings") to a consensus (affirmation), with the praxis of generalization, "group psychotherapist," i.e., facilitator's of 'change' are able to take control over the students, thereby the home, the community, and the nation, with "public-private partnership" being an example, where, through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus ("feelings") that which is nobodies business ("private," i.e., specific) becomes everybody's business ("public," i.e., general), with those who seduced, deceived, and manipulated "the people," by getting them to participate being unaccountable for the outcome since it was "the people" who affirmed it with their consent ("feelings"). Are we really this stupid?. By their ability to control the definition of terms, i.e., choosing what is "appropriate information," i.e., introducing or accepting that information which is supportive of their desired ("feelings" based) outcome and what is "inappropriate information," i.e., rejecting and not recognizing (dismissing or not bringing up) that information which gets in the way of their desired outcome (using indicative reasoning, i.e., subjective, i.e., "feelings," i.e., dialogue based 'truth' in order to negate deductive reasoning, i.e., objective, i.e., facts, i.e., discussion based truth in identifying and solving personal-social issues), makes all students subject to their "totalitarian" outcome.
This same method is being applied to the issue of "mental illness"—with relationship based upon "self interest," i.e., socialism vs. relationship based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority being a determinate of whether a person is "mental healthy" or "mental ill." According to those who generalize specifics, i.e., socialists, the further a person moves toward socialist aka "democratic," i.e., "feelings" based ideologies (away from the father's/Father's facts and truth, "right-wrong," "top-down" based authority) the more "healthy" he becomes "mentally" and conversely the further he moves toward the father's/Father's facts and truth, "right-wrong," "top-down" based authority (away from socialist aka "democratic," i.e., "feelings" based ideologies) the more "mentally ill" he becomes. It is important to note: you persuade people to change their mind with facts and truth while you seduce, deceive, and manipulate people to 'change' their minds with "feelings."
"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 1 Timothy 3:13
"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19
What makes the praxis of generalizing specifics work is the heart of the child, i.e., the child's (our) desire to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, hating whatever gets in its way, making pleasure the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father' will, hating the father/Father and his authority when he gets in the way. This makes all men, women, and children, "lusting" after the carnal pleasures (dopamine emancipation) that the world stimulates, i.e., "coveting" (desiring to have for themselves) what others have, that stimulates pleasure in them, hating the father's/Father's authority (restraint, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth) since it gets in their way, seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., by those who, as pimps and pedophiles, want to use them as "natural resource" for their own pleasure and gain. If continued pleasure is to be "guaranteed" it is not enough to become aware of the object that stimulates pleasure, or locate it, i.e., see it, possession of the object (controlling it, i.e., "owning it" as one's own) is "necessary" as well. This is the praxis of coveting—when the object is not yours but someone else's. By leaders, legislators, and judges generalizing—what is "good" for the land and "the people" is "good" for the person who possess the object of pleasure they desire—they can pass laws which establish themselves over that which the person possess, making it theirs in the process (and the person subject to them as well). It is in this praxis that the praxis of generalizing specifics, i.e., covetousness takes control over a person's mind, making him subject to seduction, deception, and manipulation.
The scriptures warn us of our adaptability to 'change,' i.e., of our propensity to "lust" after, i.e., covet the things of the world, instructing us to humble, deny, die to our "self," i.e., to our propensity to covet, in order not to be deceived. "And through covetousness [your "self interests"] shall they with feigned words [plastic words, Gr., i.e., doublespeak, i.e., saying one thing while meaning another, i.e., giving you what you want to hear in order to gain their trust thereby being able to move you down their pathway] make merchandise of you [turn you into "human resource" to be used for their own pleasure and gain—turning the children against their parent's authority, the citizens, including the "church," against Godly restraint so they can be bought and sold in the market place of man's carnal desires]." 2 Peter 2:3 "Building relation upon covetousness," i.e., "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., the dialectic (dialogue) process of "self" 'justification' before men (affirmation) is what the "new" world order (globalism aka common-ism aka Marxism) is all about. "Self interest," i.e., covetousness, i.e., dialoguing with your "self" your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and your dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward those who prevent, i.e., inhibit or block you from having them is the initiator and sustainer of 'change,' making everyone subject, as "human resource," to those who facilitate 'change'—to be used and discarded as "natural resource" according to their desires, i.e., their "self interests" of the 'moment.' It is what the consensus process is all about. "[T]hough hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6
"And he [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9, 7:21, 12:50 "My kingdom is not of this world:" John 18:36 When we humble, deny, die to our "self" daily, i.e., put to death our "lusting" after (coveting of) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates—refusing to be seduced, deceived, and manipulated by those tempting to draw us into sin—endure the rejected (hatred) of men for getting in their way, i.e., for not affirming their carnal thoughts and actions, i.e., for exposing their praxis of 'justifying' "human nature," man's love of pleasure and hate of restraint as being "normal" as being sinful instead, and following the Lord, do his Heavenly Father's will we are 'liberated' from the praxis of generalizing specifics, i.e., from being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by the world, being content in what the Lord has given us for the day instead. "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." Hebrews 13:5, 6 "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content." 1 Timothy 6:8
While we might not know the specifics regarding the deception that is coming our way, we are able to discern that something is wrong, and checking our priorities, turn to the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ for direction instead. "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding." Proverb. 3: 5 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 "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; 3:12
Whoever defines terms for you controls your life. The father's/Father's definition carries with it mercy, grace, love, benevolence, inheritance, posterity, sovereignty, i.e., the right of private property, business, and convictions, etc., the other (dialectic 'logic,' i.e., dialogue) does not. It is all in the details, i.e., either in the Word of God (the Father's and the Son's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., specifics, which, with man repenting, leads to eternal life) or the "wisdom" of men ("self" 'justification,' vain speculations, i.e., generalizations, which, leaving man in his sins, leads to eternal death).
After all, it was the first (and master) facilitator of 'change' who, generalizing a specific, told the woman in the garden in Eden she would not die—from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—the half truth being the tree did not kill them, it was, as she "saw" as good as the other trees in the garden, the full truth was (it is all in the details) she and Adam and all men would die (by being removed from the tree of life) because of their sins, i.e., for their praxis of "self" 'justification,' for making their love of pleasure (covetousness) the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will, i.e., for not having faith in and obeying Him (who is the author and giver of life).
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018