'Liberals,' Socialists (National and Global) "abhor not evil."
"All cooperative schemes which provide equal remuneration to the skilled and industrious and the ignorant and idle must work their own downfall. For by this unjust plan they must of necessity eliminate the valuable members and retain only the improvident, unskilled, and vicious." (Robert Dale Owen, Robert Owen's son)
"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
The father's/Father's authority is about doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth—according to the traditions or customs of men (culture)/the Word of God. While the traditions or customs of men (culture) are in the world, i.e., they are not holy, pure, righteous as God, they are the same in structure, i.e., Patriarchal, "top-down," with those under authority having to humble, deny, die to their "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth—being held accountable for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.
"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11
The father/Father 1) preaches commands and rules to be obeyed, as given, teaches facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discusses (at his discretion) any questions or misunderstanding the children might have, 2) rewards or blesses the children who obey or do right and not wrong, 3) does not reward or chastens the children who do wrong or disobey, and 4) casts out or rejects any child who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks him/Him and his/His authority, resulting in the children who recognize, respect, and honor the father's/Father's authority humbling, deny, dying to their "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, engendering doing right and not wrong in them, i.e., engendering a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. The father's/Father's authority establishes a traditional (Patriarchal) "top-down," "right-wrong," "above-below," "Mine. Not yours." way of thinking and acting in the next generation of citizens, i.e., individualism, nationalism, under God. (I am not advocating a "theocracy" here since Jesus Christ made it clear: "My kingdom is not of this world." It is that believers, holding themselves accountable to God, desiring the same for others, carry a "top-down," "do right and not wrong," respect for authority, "rule of law" into the culture—making those in government accountable for their actions, under God, which those of the world, resenting restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, resist.)
"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
The child's carnal nature is about approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates and being dissatisfied with, resenting, hating whoever/whatever is preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking him (or her) from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, which the world stimulates.
The child, who is dissatisfied with, resents, hates the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, discipline, control his "self," i.e., capitulate to the father's/Father's authority (which is the essence of capitalism) in order to do the father's/Father's will, wanting to "do his own thing" instead, dialogues his desires and dissatisfactions with his "self," i.e., 'justifies' his "self," i.e., 'justifies' his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer (which is the essence of anarchy and revolution, i.e., socialism), establishing his "self" over and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority. While the child, through dialogue, 'justifies' (esteems) his "self"—in order to have his way, i.e., in order to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates—the father/Father, through preaching, teaching, discussing, rewarding, and chastening requires the child to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self"—in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth. You dialogue your "feelings," i.e., your "likes" and "dislikes" with your "self" (and with others). You discuss facts and truth, i.e., how to do what is right and not do what is wrong with your "self" (and with others).
Dialogue is what you "like," where right and wrong (good and evil) is based upon your "feelings," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your resentment toward restraint, with enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' being right (good) and missing out on the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' (especially when it is due to restraint) being wrong (evil). Discussion is what is good (whether you "like" it or not) and what is wrong or evil, where right and wrong (good and evil) is based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth, with doing right, obeying, not sinning being right (good), and doing wrong, disobeying, sinning being wrong (evil). The former is the attribute of the ("self" willed, carnal minded, disobedient) child. The latter is the attribute of the (benevolent, i.e., loving) father/Father.
It is important to note that the earthly father (father/_____), while having in his "self" the same nature as the child, i.e., being carnal, i.e., subject to "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, has the same "top-down," "do right, not wrong," "above-below," "author and authority" ("Do what I say or else," i..e, "Because I said so," i.e., "It is written") method, system, structure, way of thinking and doing, paradigm as the Heavenly Father (_____/Father), who is holy, pure, righteous—making the earthly father and his children subject to Heavenly Father (who/which the carnal nature of the child, even in the father resents, resists, rebels against). The more the earthly father has the nature of the child in him, i.e., the more he is into his "self," the more he will dialogues with his "self," i.e., 'justify' his "self," i.e., 'justify' his carnal desires of the 'moment,' cutting off any discussion with his children (or anyone else, especially the Heavenly Father), which would expose his compromise, i.e., condemn him for his compromise, i.e., for his—as a "self" willed, carnal minded, disobedient child—"lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, fearing the lose of his authority (becoming subject to the Heavenly Father's authority) in the discussion (so he could not do as he willed, with authority to silence any objection, i.e., condemnation, including from God).
"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
In the "exercise" of being "chastened" by the father/Father (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) the child learns to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self," i.e., stops dialoguing with his "self," i.e., stops 'justifying' his "self," discussing with his "self" how to do things right and not wrong instead—correcting, reproving, rebuking his "self" for doing things wrong, disobeying, sinning in order to do what is right according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in the future. Having gotten "self," i.e., his love of pleasure out of the way—which blinds him to the father's/Father's love for him (providing the father is a benevolent, i.e., loving, forgiving, merciful father)—the child now knows the father's/Father's love for him, i.e., "the love of the Father is in him." 1 John 2:15
"The heart is deceitful above all things ['justifying' pleasure, making it 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? [you can not see your hatred toward restraint as being evil, with "self," i.e., love of pleasure standing in the way]" Jeremiah 17:9
It is in dialogue, i.e., the child's desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., authority that those who want 'change' are interested—needing to initiate, gain access to, and 'liberate' it (dialogue, i.e., the child's dissatisfaction with restraint) in order to initiate and sustain 'change.' You can see the nature of the "self" 'justifying,' dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' child in the 'liberal', socialist, as "children of disobedience" "abhorring not evil," perceiving his (or her) "self" as being a "victim" ("repressed," "alienated"), 'justifying' his hatred toward authority, having a tantrum (a melt down) when he can not have his way, dialoguing with his "self" how best to "get his way," i.e., "get his just dues."
"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
Without "the Father," "lust" and "pride" are not "lust" and "pride," i.e., evil, they are simply "human nature," i.e., the way the world is on display. Turning good into evil and evil into good is simply making the child's carnal nature, i.e., his love of ("lust" for) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, and his hate of restraint, i.e., his "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world, i.e., which are stimulated by the current situation (and whoever is manipulating it) the standard for "good," making the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth "evil." "The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes," i.e., the carnal nature of the child seeks after pleasure, making the child's life experience (from birth to the present) the ground from which to determine good from evil and "the pride of life," i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' the means whereby to determine what is "good" and what is "evil." With the carnal pleasures of the 'moment, which the world stimulates being "good," anyone preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking the child from having and enjoying it (pleasure) becomes "evil"—making the child subject to the world (and whoever is manipulating it and him).
"[P]reventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future)
By making knowing subject to "feelings" (which are ever 'changing,' i.e., 'changing' according to the current situation—and whoever is manipulating it), knowing (from being told) is negated. "I think I know" ("I think, therefore I AM"—"I AM GOD;" i.e., the determinate of right and wrong, good and evil) is an opinion. By making dialogue, i.e., an opinion a "position," "feelings," i.e., the affective domain ("sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience") become the basis of facts and truth, making all positions (established facts and truth) subject to dialogue, negating the right to have and hold yourself (and others) accountable to a position (established commands, rules, facts, or truth). This is why it is next to impossible, if not impossible, to discuss facts and truth with a 'liberal.' They can only see facts and truth as an opinion, i.e., subject to 'change.'
"In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)
"[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." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)
By adding this way of thinking, i.e., 'reasoning' from your "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., from your "self interest" of the 'moment' to any discussion, discussion is sacrificed upon the alter of opinions, i.e., facts and truth are sacrificed upon the alter of "feelings," i.e., the father's/Father's authority is sacrificed upon the alter of the child's carnal desires of the 'moment.' All educators are certified based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom. All schools (pre, grade, high schools, universities, collages, trade schools, etc. including private and "Christian") are accredited based upon "Bloom's Taxonomies" being used as their curriculum for all classes. "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from your "feelings," i.e., the affective domain, i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest," i.e., using "subjective" 'truth' instead of from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., objective truth to determine right from wrong 'changes' how you determines what is worth knowing, i.e., what is reasonable, rational, relevant and what is not.
"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
"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness [of having to do the Father's will], and going about to establish their own righteousness [thinking and acting according to their own carnal nature, i.e. their "felt" needs, i.e. pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts," desires of the 'moment'], have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [who make the truth subject to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'];" Romans 1:18
It is not that imagination is evil in and of itself. It is how it is being used. By making imagination subject to "feelings," i.e., to your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., by rejecting imagination which is restrained by established commands, rules, facts, and truth, imagining a world which is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's restraints instead, the heart is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, free to think of a world which "ought" to be, "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only.
"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." Genesis 6:5 "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" Genesis 6:5; 8:21 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Luke 17:26
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:" For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:" "God gave them over to a reprobate mind," excerpts from Romans 1:21-32
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:3-6
Karl Marx, understanding the power of the imagination, wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the Christian, who, in faith seeks to obey "every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God"] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith [in the Father and in His obedient Son, Jesus Christ; where reasoning is subject to God's Word instead of his carnal desires of the 'moment'], of true love, i.e., of love of God [of the Son's love of the Father, which, through the Holy Spirit, is in him], of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ [to have the Son's will in himself, to obey His Heavenly Father in all things commanded]." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Karl Marx, understanding that the Christian lives by "faith, love of God, will in Christ," wrote: "Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (ibid.) By making the Christian subject to the earth, i.e., subject to the family and therefore society (what Karl Marx filters all things through), he recognizing the Christian's temptation to go astray, i.e., to compromise (at least in his imagination) for the sake of sensuousness, supporting the child's carnal nature, i.e. his propensity to sin, i.e. "human nature," i.e. the child's desire to have relationship (oneness) with the world over and against righteousness, i.e. doing the father's/Father's will. Marx concluded: "It is not sensuality which is presented [in the imagination]..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden ["human nature," i.e. the child's desire to become at-one-with his own nature and the world in pleasure, in the 'moment']." (ibid.)
This is best demonstrated in how the child is perceived by those of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' over and therefore against God's. "And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:2-5 Note the words "converted" and "humble." Freud stated: "'Except ye become as little children [of the flesh only], ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven [here on earth]." Freud believed: "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression – in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "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' [one the child (along with the family and society) is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority]." (Normal, O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) All the world has to do is speak to your carnal desires, i.e., your "self interest" and get you to respond in the affirmative, and it "owns" you.
The soul, which is made in the image of God, seeks after doing right and not wrong. This is why God could give Adam a command and warn him of the consequences for disobeying, making him subject to the "Father's" authority, i.e., making him accountable to the "Father" for his actions. By negating the father's/Father's authority, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor domains become the definition of the soul. By 'justifying' the child's questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father's/Father's authority when it gets in his way the child's soul is 'liberated' from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father. Psychology (the "study of the soul"), by establishing the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" as the "norm," 'justifies' the negation of the father's/Father's authority (his hatred toward the father's/Father's authority) in the life of the child. By making the soul subject to what it has in common with the child (and the world), love of pleasure and hate of restraint (sense experience), instead of what it has in common with the father/Father, knowing right from wrong (from being told), the child can only find his identity in what he has in common with other child, i.e., with the world, i.e., with society, engendering socialism.
"The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6)
"Only within a social context individual man [finding what he has in common with all men] is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)
"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)
"It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education)
"The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"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
"For they [our earthly fathers] verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure [according to his, i.e., the child's carnal nature within him]; but he [our Heavenly Father] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." Hebrews 12:5-11
The earthly father has (within himself) the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." The Heavenly "Father" does not. Yet they both have the same "top-down," "I'm above and you are below," "do right and not wrong - or else" authority structure, giving commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted and obeyed as is, rewarding, chastening, casting out according to how those who are under their authority response. The more the earthly father claims the Heavenly Father's authority for his "self," ruling over the children as God, i.e., without restraint from above (refusing to humble, deny, die to, discipline, control his "self" in order to do the Father's will, while he demands his children humble, deny, die to their "self" before him, not showing love, nor offering forgiveness, mercy, and grace to his children as God shows and offers forgiveness, mercy, and grace to him) the more despotic, dictatorial he and those who follow him become—whether a local tribal leader or a fascist (national socialist). The more the children reject the father's/Father's authority outright, i.e., following after those who 'justify' "their lust of the flesh, their lust of the eyes, and their pride of life" the more anarchist or revolutionary they become—whether "commune-ists" or globalists (global socialists). In either case, whether it is the father rejecting the Father's authority or the children rejecting the father's/Father's authority, they both, having "no fear of God before their eyes, flatter their 'self' in their own eyes, until their iniquity be found to be hateful." "The words of their mouth are iniquity and deceit." "They have left off to be wise, and to do good." "They devise mischief upon their beds." "They set themselves in a way that is not good." "They abhor not evil." (Psalms 36:1-4)
"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
The negation of the father's/Father's authority is a political system.
"Once the earthly family [with the children having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do the Father's will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to have faith 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, making their love of pleasure and hate of restraint the 'drive' of life, thus making the augmentation of pleasure and the negation of the father's/Father's authority the 'purpose.' By focusing upon and 'justify' the first (pleasure) in the mind of the child, making pleasure the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, the second (the child's hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority) naturally takes place, i.e., is 'justified']." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Karl Marx knew that by claiming what was the father's/Father's, i.e., the King's as their own, i.e., as their "right" of "ownership" ("The proletariat thus has the same right as has the German king when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse."), "the people" would turn on the father/Father, i.e., the King and those who followed after him—honoring, supporting, and perpetuating has way of thinking and acting in their children. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said the same: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. 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) "The people" knew who to shoot in the French, Russian, Chines, etc., Revolutions: whoever said "Mine. Not yours." i.e., whoever believed "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26), with God giving them the right to have "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)—with God, because of their disrespect for, i.e., rejection of His authority, driving the woman and Adam out of the garden in Eden, establishing the right of private property, saying in action: "My garden. Not yours." When you make pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from eating of the "forbidden fruit," i.e., taking that which is not yours the standard for life then whoever told you you could rules over your life, with no consideration of what is yours, i.e., your children, your spouse, your property, your business, and even you, using you and them for their own pleasure and gain (at your demise).
"[F]or 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 rational ["self" 'justification,' i.e., the 'liberating' of "self" from 'obedience to laws'] alone is real." (Georg Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right) "Rational" is the child saying to the parent, "You're not being 'reasonable,'" "You don't understand," "You're not being fair" when he can not have his way—becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure (which seems 'reasonable' to him).
"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) Those under authority, i.e., the disenfranchised, i.e., "the people," according to Karl Marx, "create" the father's/Father's authority when they humble, deny, die to their "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to obey it (against their carnal nature, which resents it). It all beings in the traditional home, with the children having faith in and obeying their parents, i.e., exonerating the father's/Father's authority.
"... the hatred against patriarchal suppression [the father's/Father's authority]—a 'barrier to incest,' [getting in the way of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the children desire, which the world stimulates] ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother [whose "feelings" are more in harmony with, sympathetic to the children then with their father, i.e., her husband]—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [socialism, although Freud called it "neurosis of civilization" since the father's system of authority, i.e., established commands and rules to be obeyed, facts and truth to be accepted as given, by faith comes back into play (in a group this time), in order to keep order—"The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his restoration.... The crime against the reality principle is redeemed by the crime against the pleasure principle: redemption thus cancels itself." i.e., reality is canceled when established commands and rules repress pleasure]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
"'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 [the father no longer exercises authority over his children]." (ibid.)
"Freud noted that patricide and incest [the children killing the father (thus negating the guilt conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process) so they could have sensual (sexual) relationship with one another and their mother, i.e., praxis abomination without "feeling guilty"] are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
"Group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change,' Transformational Marxists are the vanguard party of the "new" world order.
Socialism (social-psychology) does not work on its own, i.e., does not happen naturally since children by nature re-establish the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right and not wrong," "do what I say - or else," authority system in their homes and communities when they have children of their own, i.e., "My children." "My wife." "My property." "My business." "Not yours." They actually demonstrate "Mine. Not yours." from birth. For globalism to work that cycle has to be broken. It is imperative therefore, that those who desire 'change' gain a position of "authority" and retain it. "Group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change,' Transformational Marxists are the vanguard party of the "new" world order. They all admit the process will not work without their presence (forcing it upon "the people," for their own "good"). Karl Marx's "Workers of the world unite" fell apart as workers gained a fair (at least a fairer) pay for their days labor, quit complaining (as much) about their conditions and settled down to raising their families, engendering a "middle-class," teaching their children to do right and not wrong, i.e., respect authority in order to "get ahead." It was Vladimir Lenin who realized there was a need for a "vanguard party," which had no heart for, i.e., compassion on "the people" (only a perception of it, i.e., "We care about you," "We are here for you." in order to gain and retain power over "the people," in order to make the process of 'change,' i.e., their control over "the people" work). When that did not work, i.e., when Communism turned into Socialist Nationalism, with one leader dictating his terms (Fascism), the work of the "Frankfurt School," building on the work of György Lukács and Karl Korsch, psychology came to the rescue. "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research) The works of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, came to the "rescue" later—in the 60's. They realized that Karl Marx had addressed the issue but that it was not being put into praxis correctly.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways [yet like a father, insisting upon everyone carrying out their interpretation of the world once they have attained a position of authority]; the point is to change it [the object is to praxis 'change' itself, i.e., to put the dialectic (dialogue) process, i.e., "self" 'justification' into practice, in the individual and in society—dialogue cries out for 'change, i.e., compromise,' negating discussion, which cries out for facts and truth, i.e., holding to a position]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 11)
"The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is a process." "The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality [it is common to everybody, i.e., it is of nature]." "When the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming." "The whole emphasis is upon process, not upon end states of being … to value certain qualitative elements of the process of becoming, that we can find a pathway toward the open society." "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
Since all carry the child's carnal nature, making them all by nature one and the same, according to dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' all things therefore belong to the collective—this 'logic' rejects the child's natural ability to learn commands, rules, facts, and truth as given, accepting them by faith as well as the child's ability to comprehend the consequences for disobeying or for doing things wrong.
Hegel's Particular is the child's carnal nature, i.e., "self" seeking 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the child 'reasoning' within his "self," how best to get around the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which is in his way. Hegel's Universal is all becoming one as they unite upon their carnal nature which they all have in common, i.e., loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, hating restraint, i.e., resenting the father's/Father's authority, 'reasoning,' as one, on how best to circumvent, i.e., negate the father's/Father's authority. Hegel wrote, regarding the Particular: "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 [as he tries to 'liberate' his "self" from the father's/Father's authority, so he can be his "self" again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, carnal, of the world only]."
Hegel's Universal is thus all becoming—though dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification'—subject to "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature only—thus making all subject to those who are "helping" them 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority. "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for (coveting after) the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, including the affirmation of men—you affirm what you have in common with others, making the job you (or they) do either done right or done badly, which is not a crime (how 'liberal's' critique themselves when caught doing wrong), while you approve what a person does based upon established standards, with either the job being done right or wrong, making the person guilty, i.e., it a crime for his doing the job wrong (which 'liberal's use to punish those who do not agree with them or who oppose them)], 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) Thus your wife (or husband) is not just yours, but the village's. Your children are not just yours, but the village's. Your business is not just yours, but the village's. Your property is not just yours, but the village's. etc.—with the village under the control of the seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of men, women, and children, i.e., the "group psychotherapist," the facilitator of 'change,' the Transformational Marxist, i.e., the vanguard party, who claim they have your "best interest" in mind, when it is actually their "best interest" they have in mind, with your affirmation ("or else").
"Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive?)
"In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; [A patriarchal culture] is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." "Any company that restricts its goals purely to its own profits, its own production, and its own sales is getting a kind of a free ride from me and other taxpayers [who are living the good life on the parents taxes dollars (and donations, loans, etc.,), turning their children against them, using them for their own personal pleasure and gain instead]." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
Therefore, according to those who push dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' parents have no right over their income, which must be equally distributed to the children (including those children who the parents would judge and condemn as wicked, i.e., deviant)—which is determined by socialists, who are paid from the parent's income as well, for their oversight of the parents and their, i.e., now "the socialists" children. How they treat parents who get in their way is how they treat children who get in their way in the "group grade," "relationship building," dialoguing opinions to a consensus classroom. As Abraham Maslow explained it:
"I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [students who manifest the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., who resist the process of 'change' in the classroom, i.e., who insist upon learning facts and truth instead of dialoguing opinions] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
Intoxicated with, addicted to, and possess with the dopamine emancipation which comes with affirmation, in Marxist fashion, students along with their "educators" find common cause (common-ism) in the praxis of hating, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority not only in their classmates but in the community (and world) as well, silencing or removing all who get in their way—labeling any who resist them as racist or fascist or any other name, i.e., "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, prejudiced, a "lower-order-thinker," maladjusted, not a "team builder," "psychological," mentally ill, "in denial," a sociopath, neurotic, phobic, unreasonable, irrational, irrelevant, etc., until all who are around them (out of fear of being rejected, i.e.,being labeled as a racist or fascist as well) join them in the chant.
"For one class to stand for the whole of society, another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits. A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
In the social tension which follows, both in the home and in the community, the parents "feel" pressured to join in the process of dialogue in order to solve the crises at hand (not only in the home but in the community), not knowing that their participation in the process of dialogue is what those who engendered the crisis in the first place wanted—with their use of the process of dialogue in the classroom—thus finalizing the negation of the parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the home, and thereby the community, the nation, and the world.
"For to accept that solution [where all citizens, including parents, must participate in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process in order to solve problems, i.e., differences], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the child's perspective, from the child's carnal nature] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's position of authority]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely [by consent, affirming that the child's carnal nature supersedes their authority]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
The agenda is to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child," i.e., to bring the parent's into the process of 'change,' i.e., dialogue itself, effectively negating the father's/Father's authority in the home, thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, for disobeying, for sinning, in the "community," the nation, and the world in the process. (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
To be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is to make unrighteousness the "norm." Your silence in the dialoguing opinions to a consensus process, in order to "get along," i.e., in order to receive the approval of men, reveals the compromise that has already taken place in your heart. When people are silent before you (with that deer in the headlights look), when you are trying to warn them of the dialectic (dialogue) process, they are revealing the compromise that they have made in the consensus meeting (in the workplace, government office, at school, or in the "church"—the true "fellowship" preaches the word of God as is, the apostate "church" dialogues the opinions of men regarding their interpretation of the word of God).
By beginning with "feelings," i.e., opinions first and foremost, making them the foundation from which truth is arrived at, facts and truth become subject to the desires, i.e., "self interest," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of those who are in power, who select or accept only those 'facts' and 'truths' which support their desired outcome. Through their use of inductive reasoning, selecting or recognizing and supporting only that information that supports their desired outcome, they are able to neutralize and therefore negate deductive reasoning, which evaluates the current situation according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. When they use deductive reasoning it is only from their axioms, switching to inductive reasoning when any fact or truth begins to poke holes in it. "Rule of law" is thus replaced with the tyranny of the 'moment,' i.e., accusations and innuendos, i.e., opinions and theories, i.e., "self interests." By the 'liberal's' use of inductive 'reasoning,' selecting, recognizing, supporting "relevant information," i.e., only that information which is supportive of their desired outcome, i.e., their "self interests," mole hills (opinions with some supportive facts) are turned into mountains (commands, rules, facts, and truth), and mountains (commands, rules, facts, and truth) are turned into molehills (opinions with some supportive facts), making all who challenge the desired outcome the enemy of "the group," "the people," "the state," i.e., the instigators of controversy, division, racism, hate, etc.,. Thereby laws become subject to the "felt needs" of those in power.
"Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's carnal desires, i.e. "self interest," i.e., pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [carnal desires and abilities] of the people [read: of those in power] change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)
"Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules [rules which are developed in the consensus meeting] which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules ["tolerance of ambiguity" engenders "unpredictable law" and "spontaneous changes in rules," i.e., laws and rules which are developed from and are supportive of the "self interest" of those in power] to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)
The 'liberal,' with his desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (which the world stimulates) blinding him to the fact that his hatred toward restraint, i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., rejection of established commands, rules, facts, and truth is evil ("desperately wicked"), can only see those who are standing in his way as being hateful, i.e., evil. By making rules and facts subject to their desired outcome, i.e., to their "feelings," i.e., to their "self interest," the laws of nature, rules and facts become subject to their theories and opinions, requiring all bow to their world of con-fusion (trying to make facts and "feelings" one and the same), where ambiguity, i.e., rejection of absolutes becomes the law of the land (and science). Anyone rejecting, proving they are wrong with facts and truth, will be punished.
"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." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
"Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be ‘unprovable,'" (Benjamin Bloom, Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect)
"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." "It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form ['loyal' to authority or questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority] have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals, observable and describable therefore classifiable." "Only those educational programs which can be specified in terms of intended student behaviors can be classified." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "… a psychological classification system." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)
"By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
"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)
"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 [socialism, i.e., '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)
"Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many 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 is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
"What better way to help the patient [the student, your child] recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [to the facilitator of 'change']? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists [facilitators of 'change'] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the student, your child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [if his classroom experience] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient [the student, your child] changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
"Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education)
"Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power. " "One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society)
"A change in the curriculum [method of educating children] is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents ....." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." "No hypothesis in this body of writings has been fully tested. Nor will it be tested fully until it has been used widely in thoughtful experimentation with actual social changes. The school offers an important potential laboratory for the development of a truly experimental social science. Experimentally minded school workers can develop and improve the hypotheses suggested in these readings as they put them to the test in planning and evaluating changes in the school program." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"Concerning politics in North America the need of a firm cohesion is not yet present...[Georg Hegel is writing this several decades after the founding of the United States of America]." "For a state to become a state it is necessary that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating ["go west young man"; children went west, in some cases to get away from their parents, carrying their traditions, customs, faith, authority west with them], but that the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside, presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban professions ["it takes a 'village'"]. ... for a real state and a real government only develop when there is a difference of classes [no middle-class], when riches and poverty become very large and a situation arises where a great number of people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way." "But America does not yet approach this tension." "America is therefore the land of the future." "But what has so far happened there is only an echo of the old world and an expression of an alien aliveness ['loyalty' to the father's/Father's authority], and as the country of the future it does not concern us here." [Today that has changed.] "Contemporary social science, especially in America, bears the impact of Hegelian thinking to an extraordinary degree. Cultural anthropology and social psychology, especially of the psychoanalytic and Gestalt variety, and much of present day sociology… are more Hegelian than they would like to admit, or do acknowledge." (Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)
George Washington warned us of the dangers of the "heart" of men in government—explaining why our government was broken up into three separate and distinct branches, limiting government, not only in the nation, but in the states, the counties, the cities, and the villages, so the citizen could rule over his home, his property, and his business as a King without those in government encroaching upon him, i.e., what is his.
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." (George Washington, Farewell Address)
Globalists, following after the teachings of Karl Marx and his followers, believing man can become "good" with proper social(ist) upbringing, see the separating of the branches of government as being evil, restraining 'change,' i.e., inhibiting and blocking them from having complete control over "the people." They are 'purposed' in overcoming ("bypassing") the separation of branches through their use of "bipartisanship," i.e., the consensus process. With everyone thinking and acting the same way, all branches become the same, i.e., are united in the outcome.
"The workers' council [with their dialoguing opinions to a consensus (soviet) meetings] spells the political and economic defeat of reification [the end of right and wrong, "Mine. Not yours." i.e., the father's/Father's way of thinking and acting in the citizens]. In the period following the dictatorship it will eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary [which protected the father's authority in his home, over his property, and in his business]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness, March, 1920)
Shortly after Lukács article came out, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Vladimir Lenin) stated: "...a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [the citizens honoring (submitting to) the Kings authority over them, the property and business owners expecting the workers to do the same to them, i.e., to honour (submit themselves to) their authority over them, as children, honoring (submitting themselves to) their father's authority over them, as man honors (submits himself to) God's authority over him; all being the same in structure, system, or paradigm (patriarchal)—"top-down," "do it right, i.e., My way, or else," "Mine. Not yours"], whose resistance ... and whose power lies in ... the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production [in private business, where workers must submit to their bosses authority as children must submit to their father's authority]. Unfortunately, small-scale production [local control, under the father's authority] is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism [capitulating to the father's authority] and the bourgeoisie [the middle class which initiates and sustains, i.e., engenders and supports the father's authority] continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. Capitalism and the bourgeois environment … disappears very slowly even after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, (since the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie) give rise to what is essentially the same bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty-bourgeois vulgarity [belief or faith in a higher authority than themselves], etc. —merely varying insignificantly in form—in positively every sphere of activity and life. … until small-scale economy and small commodity production [private property and business under the father's authority] have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, … in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception. We must learn how to master every sphere of work and activity without exception, to overcome all difficulties and eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder; An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success, May 12, 1920)
"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)
According to dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' without the child desiring the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and resenting the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrain him, dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., hatred toward authority, i.e., hatred toward restraint—which is the driving force behind dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning'—the "new" world order (void of the "old world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority) can not become a 'reality,' 'reality' being not only the child's carnal nature, i.e., his love of pleasure and his hate of restraint but his ability to 'justify' his "self" ('reason' from his "feelings") as well. "I think. Therefore I AM." After all, philosophy is simply dialoguing with one's "self" about how the world "is" (still subject to the father's/Father's authority), how the world "ought" to be (subject to the child's carnal nature), and how the "can" be (once the father's/Father's authority is negated)—as Karl Marx stated it in his day:
"Only Christianity and morality are able to found universal kingdoms on earth." Karl Marx, The Holy Family)
"The only practically possible emancipation [from the father's/Father's authority] is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man [that the child's carnal nature is the supreme being for the child]." "The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society." "The state arises out of the exigencies of man's nature [the child's carnal nature]." "Laws [the father's/Father's authority] must not fetter human life [the child's carnal nature]; but yield to it." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
"The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual. [Tillich] is telling those Christians who can hear that they can accept humanism without relinquishing Christianity if they will accept man [their "feelings" for "relationship" (affirmation) with others—which can not escape their carnal nature] as the true meaning of God." "Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God [doing the Father's will—which gets in the way of "building relationship" with those of the world]. Humanism elevates man ["self," i.e., "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e., human 'reasoning'] to the rank of God." "Tillich's message is that God is man, mankind, humanity." "Sin is the estrangement [alienation] of man from man." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)
"Alienation [the children separating (dividing) themselves from one another based upon their father's insistence upon their doing right and not wrong according to their commands, rules, facts, and truth] has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "God [doing the Father's will] is thus the anthropological source of alienation." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
"The more 'is' something becomes [the more parents demand obedience], the more 'ought' it becomes [the more the children, wanting their way, dialogue with their "self"], the louder it 'calls for' particular action [the more the children (hating authority) question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack authority, seeking to negate it]." "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness [the carnal desires of the child]." "Oughtiness [the child's love of pleasure and hatred toward restraint] is itself a fact to be perceived." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
"The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
"Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science [read: "behavior science"] is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception [how the child sees the world for his "self"] and sensuous need [the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)
"The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason [his own "feelings," i.e., his own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., his own "sense experience," i.e., "self" 'justification'] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the Word of God, i.e., the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given and his/His facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith] nor that authority of the church [the Son of God, Jesus Christ] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)
"Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
But, as one Marxist wrote (correctly understanding the options): "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12
It is not that the woman in the garden was wrong about the tree itself, regarding it not killing her (as the serpent had said it would not-"Ye shall not die"), it was in fact "good for food," "pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" (as her "perception" of it, i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' told her), it was that in disobeying God (the "Father") she (along with Adam—for following after her, placing "human relationship" over and therefore against obedience to God) was removed from having access to her inheritance, eternal life, i.e., the tree of life. She was removed from the "Father's Will" for her rejection of the "Father's authority," as was Adam. In the act of disobedience she and Adam chose "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against faith in and obedience to God, i.e., the Father. (Genesis 3:1-6) As a result, both become 'liberal's—with Adam throwing the woman "under the buss" in order to save his hide and the woman doing the same with the serpent. Refusing to admit they were "wrong," refusing to repent and ask for forgiveness (turning from their wicked ways, i.e., "self" 'justification'), they blamed someone else for their failure, i.e., for their disobedience, i.e., for their sin instead.
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called ["science" which is based upon "human nature," 'i.e., the child's desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates and his resentment toward authority—through the use of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' establishing the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority]: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20, 21
It is the individual, under God, i.e., doing the Father's will, who is a nemesis to those promoting dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning.' His presence, i.e., faith in the Lord, stands in the way of 'change,' i.e., in the way of "worldly peace and socialist harmony."
Max Horkheimer (a member of the "Frankfurt School") wrote in his book, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung (Reasoning and the Preservation of Self), "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism [individualism, under God, i.e., personal accountability before God, i.e., the "priesthood of all believers" before God, i.e., "Doing the Father's will," etc.,]." Protestantism was the rejection of the Aristotelian doctrine, which was being propagated by the Catholic Church, that by doing "good works" man becomes "good," that man is innately "good," only needing to be trained up, i.e., indoctrinated property. Martin Luther wrote: "If Aristotle had understood the innate sinful condition, he would have called it a disposition, not only an affection. For original sin is a root and inborn evil." "These are dialectical phantasies or opinions, that man can without the Holy Spirit love God above all things. ... They likewise said that human nature is untainted. All these ideas come from ignorance of original sin." "Inborn evil makes acts evil. That is the condition, that is to say, original sin is the root of actual sins. But Aristotle contradicts this, holding that passions are moderate virtues. For philosophers understand sins to be passions." "It is the Parisian school that is condemned in this connection, that impure and foul whore which has declared that Aristotle's teachings on morals are not in conflict with the teachings of Christ." "'By doing good we become good.' The Christian conscience curses this statement as bilge water of hell and says, 'By believing in a Christ who is good, I, even I, am made good: his goodness is mine also, for it is a gift from him and is not my work.'" (Luther's Works)
The Marxist Norman O. Brown wrote: "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex [the father's/Father's authority] only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God [constitutional, representative, limited government, "One Nation under God," replacing it with "bipartisan," dialoging opinions to a consensus government]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;" Ephesians 6:10-19
"The world cannot hate you but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." John 7:7
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." 1 John 15:18
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matthew 10:22
The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus.
The dialectic (dialogue) agenda is to encourage children to openly share with one another their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, along with their hatred toward restraint and the restrainer (without fear of being reprimanded, i.e., in a "safe place/space/zone"). Thus they are able to unite all the children of the world in the common cause of negating the father's/Father's authority from their "self" and the world, so they can be "of and for self" only, i.e., so they can be for "all that is of the world" only.
"Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) This is why socialist look for any who are disenfranchised ("oppressed") in the world, in order to use them for their cause, i.e., the negation of the father's/Father's authority, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process.
"The individual may have 'secret' thoughts [desires and dissatisfactions which he is dialoguing with his "self" about] which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it [out of fear of being reprimanded and/or rejected]. To gain access [through getting him or her to dialogue, i.e., to share his or her "feelings" (desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., love and hate) 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"—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
The sequence of events usually goes like this: 1) the child, desiring to go out and play with his "friends," heads to the door, 2) the father, seeing what is going on (not liking his "friends"), tells him he can not go out, 3) the child responds with "Why?" (to get the father into dialogue—there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue) with 4) the father/Father, responding with "Because I said so" ("It is written"), cutting off dialogue—the message being "do what I say or else"—resulting in the child, knowing he will be reprimanded if he persists, 5) dialoguing with his "self"—his desire of the 'moment,' as well as his hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father/Father and his/His authority—'justifying' his "self" to his "self." Conversely, if the child accepts the father's/Father's authority, knowing right from wrong according to the father's/Father's standards, he will discuss with his "self," i.e., correct, reprove, rebuke, i.e., humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self," in order to do the father's/Father's will, cutting off/refusing to dialogue with his "self," accepting the father's/Father's facts and truth, obeying his/His commands and rules, making his "self" subject to the father's/Father's authority instead of following after his carnal desires (love and hate) of the 'moment.' This is known as having "private convictions," which those of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' seek to negate.
"[We] must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those children/student's (representatives) holding on to their parent's (constituents), i.e., the father's/Father's authority, preaching their commands and rules, teaching their facts and truth] in joint deliberations [in the facilitated, dialoguing opinions to a consensus, "group grade" "relationship building" classroom, workplace, government chambers, etc.,] as a vice rather than a virtue [as being "negative," i.e., "the problem" instead of "positive," i.e., contributing to the solution—the solution not necessarily being "fixing the bridge," but "fixing (neutering) the men."]." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
A class of twenty students, whose fathers hold differing positions on issues, can only become united as one in 'drive' and 'purpose' on that which they have in common, their love of pleasure and hate of restraint. By placing students (or adults) in a class of dialogue (which must include the deviant to make it work, i.e., in order to pressure all to compromise their parents' principles in order to "get along," i.e., "build relationships") instead of preaching, teaching, and disusing commands, rules, facts, and truth to be obeyed, their way of thinking and acting, i.e., their paradigm, i.e., their 'loyalty' to the father's/Father's authority (facts and truth) and/or their 'loyalty' to their own carnal desires, i.e., their "self" ("feelings"), or somewhere in between is made manifest. It is here, when dialogue appears, whether in an authority (facts) or a dialogue ("feelings") based environment, that benevolent and tyrannical authority manifest themselves, cutting off (or attempting to cut off) dialogue, i.e., resisting 'change.'
The difference between the benevolent and tyrannical authority is the former incorporates discussion in resolving differences or disagreements (at authority's discretion) while the latter does not. The benevolent authority is willing to discuss (commands, rules, facts, and truth)—not dialogue ("feelings")—with the child, 1) providing the one in authority has time, 2) the child is able to understand, and 3) respects authority, i.e., is not challenging or questioning authority itself, just wanting to do what is right (not do things wrong), with the one in authority forgiving the child when he has done wrong, disobeyed, sinned, providing he has repented, asked for forgiveness, and is 'purposed' in turning from his wicked ways, i.e., willing to do the father's/Father's will, obey his/His commands and rules, and accept his facts and truth from then on, instead of demanding his ways, i.e., "doing his own thing"—with authority demonstrating mercy and grace. The tyrannical authority (dictator, despot, etc.,) refuses to ever discuss things with the child, always insisting upon (demanding) his way—who more than likely goes counter to his own commands, rules, facts, and truth when they get in his way—refusing to forgive the child when he repents, showing him no mercy or grace.
While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be (or may have been) downright tyrants—like spoiled, rebellious children, using their office of authority for their own carnal, "self-ish" desires—the office of authority they serve in is perfect, having been created by God (who is perfect) to serve Him in, with parents instructing their children in the admonition of the Lord, that they might accept His Father as their Father. The Lord.Jesus Christ did not come to negate the father's authority system itself. He came to reveal His Heavenly Father's authority as being the authority which is above all that is in heaven and on the earth.
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:32
"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
"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
In order to be persuaded, i.e., in order to change his position on an issue (including the father himself), discussion requires the child (as well as the father) to suspend his "feelings," i.e., his "self interest," i.e., requires him to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to hear facts and truth that go counter to, judge, offend, condemn his "feelings." You are persuaded with facts and truth. You are seduced, deceived, and manipulated with "feelings." Dialogue, on the other hand, requires a person to suspend facts and truth (as on a cross) which get in the way of, judge, offend, condemn his and/or others "feelings," i.e., his and/or others "self interest," i.e., his and others carnal desires. "Listening skills" to the child is therefore based upon his "feelings." i.e., dialogue, i.e., "Hurt my 'feelings' and I won't listen to you." "Make me 'feel' good and I will listen to you." Conversely, listening skills to the father/Father is based upon facts and truth, i.e., discussion, i.e., "Refuse to set aside your 'feelings' in order to listen to facts and truth and I don't have time to listen to you," i.e., "you won't hear a word I am saying."
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10
Money (economics) comes into play here since money is simply stored up pleasure (dopamine emancipation). When the father in is control of it, the child can only find pleasure in doing the father's will, being rewarded for his or her capitulation—which includes being included in the father's/Father's Will for his or her obedience, i.e., for his or her recognition and support of the father's authority. By 'justifying' the child's desire for pleasure (dopamine emancipation) over and therefore against the father's authority, the father's money is now perceived by the child as being the child's money—which the father is keeping from him or her. Without the love of money, i.e., the love of stored up dopamine emancipation (the root of all evil; money is not the problem, it is the love of, i.e., "lusting" after it), i.e., "covetousness" (wanting, i.e., "lusting" after that which is not his or hers) the child can not be seduced, deceived, and manipulated into negating the father's/Father's authority—which is the agenda of the socialist, i.e., the "group psychotherapist," the facilitator of 'change,' the Transformational Marxist (the "new" vanguard party, merging Marx with Freud, and visa versa, i.e., society and the individual, making them one and the same in praxis, i.e., in thought and in action, showing no mercy to those who do not support their "self interest," i.e., their agenda to control all money, i.e., pleasure—"All cooperative schemes which provide equal remuneration to the skilled and industrious and the ignorant and idle must work their own downfall. For by this unjust plan they must of necessity eliminate the valuable members and retain only the improvident, unskilled, and vicious." (Robert Dale Owen, Robert Owen's son) "Capitalism rewards good work. Socialism bad."
"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5
By gaining access to your children's "self interest," i.e., what they covet, working to "help" them attain it—thereby gaining their trust—they are able to gain control over them, buying and selling them, i.e., their soul for their own pleasure and gain. It is more difficult to turn down what they want—when they know it is wrong—when someone they like or sympathize with (who can reject them or turn on them, i.e., hurt them emotionally and/or physically) wants to do it as well. Their desire for relationship, i.e., pier pressure makes their turning around difficult, especially when it can cost them the pleasures, i.e., benefits that comes with the relationship. This is why "group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change, Transformational Marxists, i.e., seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of men, women, and children, as pedophiles and pimps, work so hard to gain the children's trust (or the trust of someone they like), until they have control (power) over them, using them from then on as they will, i.e., for their own carnal pleasures and gain. They will deny it, but with their "self" in the way they can not see their "self" for what they are.
"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3
Globalists are able to manipulate you, i.e., "make merchandised of you," i.e., turn you (like natural resource) into "human resources" to be used by them for their own pleasure and gain—with your affirmation—by first seducing you (by identifying and approving your "self interest," i.e., what you "covet"), making it easy for them to deceive you, by using "feigned words," i.e., plastic words (double speak), making you think they have your "best interest" in mind, when it is their "best interest" they have in mind instead. "Building relationship on self interest" requires dialogue instead of discussion, which divides (based upon the duality of doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth).
The "dialectic [dialogue] method" is all about negating the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), in order to negate the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25), so that all, 'justifying' their "self," i.e., 'justifying' their carnal desires of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world (Genesis 3:1-6), can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.
"The dialectical [dialogue] method was overthrown—the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within themselves, one another, and the world]." (György Lukács, History Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law," is just his way of saying the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, that which is common to all mankind, must be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's laws and restraint if "worldly peace and socialist harmony" is to become 'reality.' (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)
"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other [through dialogue], they experience the common ground of their existence [they experience their common love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)
While discussion recognizes "feelings" (has compassion) it, being formal, is not controlled by "feelings" which go counter to or against doing right and not wrong. Discussion is subject to the feeling which comes from being or doing right (having a clear conscience) or the feeling which comes from being or doing wrong (having a guilty conscience)—making communication between people subject to facts and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong (objective), instead of subject to a person's opinion, i.e., his carnal desires, i.e., his impulses and urges ("feelings"), i.e., his "self interests" of the 'moment,' which are being stimulate (manipulate) by the current situation (subjective).
There is a third form of "authority" which (refusing to recognize and accept the benevolent authority) generalizes, i.e., merges the benevolent and tyrannical authorities together, making the benevolent authority and the tyrannical authority one and the same—so it can rule over the children without being held accountable to established commands, rules, facts, or truth. This is where dialogue comes into play. Dialogue is used by this "authority" in order to negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negate established commands, rules, facts, and truth (rule of law) in the thoughts and actions of the children, in the fathers themselves, and in society—fearing that the fathers might wake up, i.e., become aware of the globalists' agenda to negate the fathers' authority, resulting in the fathers turning to local and national government to rescue themselves, their families, their property, and their businesses from the Global Socialists (globalism), engendering National Socialism (Fascism) in the process.
A word of warning: "discussing personal-social issues", which the "third" authority system does, is in fact dialogue, i.e., "feelings" based, so do not be fooled. History is the study (discussion) of events of the past, based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth learned, in order to be able to deal with the problems of the present and the future. Social studies (socialist studies) is the study of events of the past and present in the "light" of ("enlightenment") the students' own personal experiences, i.e., their "feelings" of the past and present, making their "feelings," i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint (dialogue) the ground from which to evaluate the world from (aufheben).
"Authoritarian submission [the father's/Father's authority, i.e., Fascism according to the 'liberal', socialist (globalist), having merged the benevolent and tyrannical authorities, making them one and the same] 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." "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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
It is here, in this third form of "authority," that focus upon children, i.e., dialogue, i.e., "feelings," i.e., the children's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world (the current situation or setting), instead of upon the father's/Father's authority, i.e., discussion, i.e., preaching and obeying commands and rules as given, teaching and accepting facts and truth as is, by faith, which are of the "past," takes place. Anyone who, establishing "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" above authority, i.e., who comes between the children and their parents, getting the children to talk about, i.e., share, i.e., dialogue with each other their "feelings" (opinion) regarding authority (regarding their parent's authority), 'liberate' the children from authority (from their parent's authority).
"'[A]ny intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "Any non-family-based ["feelings" or "relationship" based, i.e., "How do/did you 'feel' when ...?" "What do/did you 'think' when ...?," based, i.e., psychology based (instead of doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established standards, i.e., recognizing, respecting, and honoring the father's/Father's authority based)] collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
"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)
"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)
"To identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
"The person at the peak experience is godlike . . . complete, loving, uncondemning, compassionate and accept[ing] of the world and of the person." (Abraham Maslow Toward a Psychology of Being)
"So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness. It's the easiest to take. Must encourage it. Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
"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)
"Public schools represent an orientation that sees the school as an instrument of the society to free the child from constraints [doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth] imposed by accident of birth." "Schools transcend the limitations of the parents' disparate [different, dissimilar, diverse] cultural backgrounds." (James Coleman, Public School-Private School) Dialectic (dialogue) based schools destroy (negate) the father's/Father's authority in the home by letting students dialogue and 'role play' (express) their "feelings" toward authority in the classroom, without fear of being reprimanded.
"The re-educative process has to fulfill a task which is essentially equivalent to a change in culture." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"Religion [the father's/Father's authority] and science [the child's carnal "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world] can be kept apart, indeed, one is able to do conscientious screening and not let one activity impede the other—in short, it is an exercise in 'role playing.'" (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive?") Role-playing is letting the student include his "feelings" of the 'moment' (his likes or dislikes), i.e., express his "self" toward someone or something else while imitating them or it— role playing promotes 'change' ("feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature) and impedes 'resistance' (established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority) at the same time.
"Change in organization [from "top-down," "right-wrong" to "equality," "feelings"] can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [incorporating the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' (opinion) in a "facts" based environment—incorporating dialogue (feelings) in a discussion, makes it no longer a facts based environment, i.e., a discussion]. To be governed by two strong goals [holding to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, receiving the father's/Father's approval and participating in the "feelings" of the 'moment,' receiving "the groups" affirmation] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [confusion: trying to merge (fuse) the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal "feelings" of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by "the group"—which can not be merged (fused)]. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system [learned habits] loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium [the child is destabilized]; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective [the child has to choose either the father's/Father's authority or "the groups" affirmation in order to overcome "cognitive dissonance," where he is caught between holding to his belief or going with his carnal desires of the 'moment'—the pressure of group affirmation, which is in harmony with his carnal nature being stronger than the father's/Father's approval, i.e., the father's/Father's authority which restraints it]." (Kurt Lewin in Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression) Kurt Lewin is known for his methods of 'changing' people: "unfreezing, moving, refreezing [how to seduce, deceive, and manipulate a person]," "group dynamics [the affect the group has upon a person]," and "force field analysis [how to identify paradigms (ways of thinking and acting) in "the group" in order to 'liberate' the children (heresiarch), i.e., "feelings" based students, while preventing the "authoritarian" (patriarch), i.e., right-wrong, commands, rules, facts, and truth based students from taking control of the meeting, i.e., effecting the outcome, preventing 'change']."
Switching from discussion (facts and truth, doing right and not wrong, holding to position, being "negative") to dialogue ("feelings," opinions, seeking common ground, being "positive") to resolve differences makes the father's/Father's authority the source of division (antithesis)—instead of the child's carnal nature. In this way of thinking, by starting with the child's nature, i.e., "feelings" as the foundation of "discussion," consensus aka synthesis can become a 'reality'—since the child's carnal nature (dialogue) is also present in the father. By negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "negative" (preaching, teaching, and discussion, at the father's discretion) in solving problems (in our communication with one another), the child's carnal nature, i.e., the "positive" (dialoguing opinions to a consensus) ends up establishing policy. This is the soviet system which negates, i.e., washes the father's/Father's authority from the brains of those establishing policy. There is no representation (of the constituents) in the consensus process, except for those of and for the dialectic (dialogue) process itself.
The three E's controlled by those who control the fourth E:
The three "E's" are the foundation of globalism. Economics (control of pleasure—overcoming doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth), Environment (control of resources—including "human resource," putting it to socialist works only), and Ethnicity (control of people—overcoming division caused by those insisting upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, labeling them as "racist's," fascist's" etc.,. since they "repress" and "alienate" those who are not of and for them, i.e., the disenfranchised). By 'discovering' "the people's self interests," i.e., what they covet in the 'moment'(which the world stimulates), those of the "new" world order are able to gain control of the three "E's." They are thereby able to control "the people" of the world. A fourth "E," Education is the globalists means to initiating and sustaining their desired outcome, i.e., power over the current and the next generation—by 'changing' how everyone communicates (from insisting upon everyone doing right and not wrong, according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth to insisting upon everyone "feeling good" about their "self," not hurting others "feelings"—unless they are of the "do right-not wrong" group).
This way of thinking and acting is in harmony with, i.e., is a product of Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's ideology.
"Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination. The foundation on which the man [the child] of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the child's desire to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, and his dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred toward restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]; the foundation has to be recovered." "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)
"Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory [Freud considered all children sexually active - 'driven' by the pleasure-principle, i.e., instinctually seeking relationship with anyone and anything in the world which engenders pleasure; "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions [tolerance of immorality] are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions [the father's/Father's authority] 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." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version the Humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.) (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
"[T]he Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie produces its own grave-diggers [the parent's, by insisting that their children obey them, i.e., accept and obey or apply their commands, rules, facts, and truth as given, which get in the way of the children's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates (thus engendering in the children hatred toward their parent's authority) results in the children, working together as one, under the leadership of the vanguard party, i.e., "group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change,' Transformational Marxists, removing the parent's authority from the face of the earth—so the vanguard party can gain access to and use what is the children's inheritance for their own "self interest" instead)].'" (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
"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.) (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12
"... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12
'Liberals,' socialists (National and Global) "abhor not evil."
While National Socialists negate discussion outright, Global Socialists replace (negate) it with dialogue. Yet both negate the father's/Father's authority, and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, in order to initiate and sustain control over "the people," i.e., in order to rule over "the people" without having an authority figure above (over) them—condemning them for their evil, wicked, "self-ish" thoughts and actions. Unlike the National Socialist, i.e., the Fascist, who negates the father's/Father's authority through negating discussion (facts and truth) outright, the Global Socialist, i.e., "group psychotherapist," facilitator of 'change,' Transformational Marxist (all being the same, i.e., merging Karl Marx, i.e., socialism, i.e., society and Sigmund Freud,, i.e., psychology, i.e., the individual—creating the "new" vanguard party), negates the father's/Father's authority through the use of dialogue, (replacing discussion, i.e., established facts and truth with dialogue, i.e., everyone's "feelings," i.e., their "self interest" of the 'moment'), i.e., getting the children (who honor the father's/Father's authority) into sharing their opinions (sharing with one another their love of pleasure and their hate of restraint) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," affirming each others love of pleasure and hate of restraint—what all children have in common—making the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint the basis of life, which is the 'drive' and 'purpose' of common-ism) is able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the children into 'liberating' their "self," i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint out from under the father's/Father's authority, i.e., out from having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, establishing "pleasure," instead of the doing the father's/Father' will, as the standard for "good," and "pain," including the pain which comes with missing out on pleasure (in order to do right and not wrong), as being "evil," so they, negating the father's/Father's author, and the guilty conscience which it engenders, can be of and for their carnal nature only, i.e., be "of and for their self" and the world only. Having no guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, as a result of establishing their "self," i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint (the one follows the other, i.e., hate of restraint automatically follows love of pleasure) over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong, they (of the Heresiarchal paradigm, intoxicated with, addicted to, possessed with their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e.., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint) can do wrong, disobey, sin (question, challenge, defy, disregard, hate, and attack the father and his authority, along with any who support him and it) with immunity. Through their use of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' establishing their "self," i.e., their "sense experience," i.e., "human nature," i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, 'liberals,' socialists (both National and Global, having both 'liberated' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority), "having no fear of God," "flattering themselves in their own eyes," "setting themselves in a way that is not good," "abhor not evil."
"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though 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
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4
"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
"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
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018, 2019