It comes in all colors, shapes, and styles, but it is all the same. It is the love of money and pleasure, i.e. the love of this world.
Patrick Henry at the debates of the Virginia Convention of 1788 stated: "The expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America." is ". . . extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous." "Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain." "... our rights and privileges are endangered." "We the States, in order to prevent war between one another, do hereby ..." is a didactic reason to have a constitution, clearly revealing the sovereignty of the States (maintaining a "top-down" semblance of order, under God). "We the People, in order to establish a more perfect union, do hereby ..." is dialectic, in language, circumventing the sovereignty of the States (initiating an "equality" semblance of order, of "human nature").
The civil war was all about 'change.' Changing a verb from a plural "We the states," to a singular "We the people." From the verb "are," as in "The United States are a great place to live." As was used before the war. To the verb "is," as in "The United State is a great place to live." As we now use today.
Abraham Lincoln, in his first Inaugural address, Monday, March 4, 1861, said: "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.... Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.' It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
Inalienable rights, of a "top-down" order, under God, protects the individual and his sovereignty, "freedom of the conscience" being the most sacred right or property protecting the right of life (government only limiting the individual from usurping the inalienable rights, i.e. the sovereignty of others). "Human rights," of "equality," protects the "rights" of society (of "the collective," of "the people") over and against the individual (the individual having no value or worth outside of social cause, thereby guaranteeing the perpetrating of ever greater unity). Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, in that order (life being the most sacred right of all, guaranteeing you life even when you get old, have not liberty of movement or thought to pursue happiness), are negated when the pursuit of happiness ("Eros," socialist harmony and worldly peace, i.e. when your life has no value or worth when you can no longer contribute to the "socialist cause") comes first, with "liberty" setting the pursuit of happiness over and against life itself (as we now have today). Herbart Marcuse in his book, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud, wrote: "According to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself." Karl Marx preached and taught unity over and against individual sovereignty, i.e. the right to suspend habeas corpus, throwing men into jail without trial for questioning the 'quest' for ever greater unity, as Lincoln did. Marx wrote: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." Marx wrote: "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) Norman Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, wrote: "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 [the "guilty conscience" of the individual be seared, i.e. the religious belief of the individual, under God, not in agreement with socialist harmony, be negated, i.e. the cause of the many, "the collective," outweigh the right of the few or the one to stand along in God, preaching and teaching their way of thinking and acting]." Brown wrote: "The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive)." "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Brown) According to dialectic 'reasoning, it is in the negation of the "guilty conscience" (in the augmentation of Genesis 3:1-6 and the negation of the conditions of Hebrews 12:5-11 and Romans 7:14-25), that 'change' takes place.
In the North, the control of the South's cotton, couched as the quest for "more perfect union," was the reason for the war, not the stopping of slavery. In the South, the quest for States' rights, to maintain it. On both sides, money was the reason for war. "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-4
Presidents Adams and Jefferson both saw a civil war coming, even in their day. Jefferson having slaves of his own (as well as children from them), said, regarding slavery and the need to and yet the consequence of stopping it. "We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is on one scale, and self-preservation on the other." Countries have gone through great brutality and destruction as the result of slavery, during and especially after, after being at the hands of those once enslaved, people liberated from their slavery (still being slaves to hate), releasing their hate upon their former "masters," getting their "just dues."
It was the love of money (the love of dopamine 'emancipation'), with slavery as a byproduct (people don't enslave people just because they want to, they do it to keep or make money, to initiate and sustain pleasure), which led to the war. It was the Northern Senators controlling the South's cotton profits, preventing them from directly shipping their cotton to France, having instead to go through the Northern mills, at a lose of profit or no profit at all, that was the catalyst for war (which sustained slavery). Of note, prior to the war an event took place which augmented the potential for war. Slavery in the "old south" was becoming "a burden," the land becoming depleted, making it no longer as profitable. Some slaves were being released from their captivity, some even with a small tract of land. It was when the deep south was opened up by Jackson that slavery became huge again, i.e. profitable, $$$$.
Slavery, being evil, although Nome Chomsky evidently does not agree, believing that slavery treated a person better than a person being hired out, going it on his own, being broken and poor and rejected, with no one to tend to him, to suffer and die on his own in the end. Slavery comes in many shapes and colors. It is not just a matter of race, slavery not being related to any particular color, nationality, or creed. Having studied European and Asian history and the brutalities of slavery carried on around the world in the past, which continues today, slavery is all about man's love of money, his carnal desire to "control" of the world for his "good pleasure." Parents can become slaves to their children (or "the People," i.e. government), fearful of how they will be treated at their children's hands (or abandoned by them) when their children become addicted to their money (the child's means to pleasure being their parents' money which the parents need for survival) and have the means to accessing "it at any cost," even by law. Dialectic 'reasoning' ("common"-ism) turns that around making the parents the oppressors of the children (private business the oppressor of "the People," the socialists), addicted to the children's money (addicted to "the Peoples" money), preventing the children from having pleasure, keeping it, control of the money that is, to and for themselves. Get your children ("the People") hooked on (slaves to) pleasure and they just might steal you blind as you get old.
When "health care" becomes the law of the land, we will all know the meaning of slavery, if we don't already, experiencing it first hand. Or maybe not, being of not value to the social cause, cast out to fend for and die on our own. For the cause of the so called "many," the "one," you, the individual, if you are not working for the "US" or rather for the "UN," the collective, "the People" (the are united as one, with the world as the is), you are of no value in the end.
As Abraham Maslow stated it: "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." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) What Maslow is saying, regarding all the issues of life, regarding not only your physical, live but your mental and social life as well, if you are not contributing to the socialist's cause then you are of no worth or value. Maslow, having as much to do with the 'changing' of this nation and the world as any one (Maslow's Hierarch of "felt" needs, "sensuous needs"), established the measurement of your worth this way: "Self-actualizing people [people 'liberated' from their Father's or God's "top-down" way of thinking and acting, working to accomplish the same in others] 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." (A. H. Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature) He wrote, in his journals: "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 [who had sex with anything that moved and didn't move]." "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness [get rid of righteousness, Godly restraint, in the thoughts and actions of men and immorality won't be perceived as being immoral, it will be the "new" norm]. I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." His ideology was dialectic, as your child's will be, having to participate in his education system, from the time of pre-natal to the nursing home under the umbrella of "Education Nation." "I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN . . . One World. A world government with world-shared values . . . Until sovereignty is given up little by little by "nations." This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version and the Humanistic." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." (The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud (united as one in social-psychology) became one on the united "is," as in Clinton's statement, "It is all in how you define 'is.'" "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism as quoted in Marcuse) You are of eternal worth as an individual, under God, but of no worth as an individual in the collective "We," your need to be as one in the "species." "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx)
When government leaders are of dialectic 'reasoning,' what you have to look forward to is slavery―being sold to you as 'liberty,' as living the "good life" with "the people" (the "We" working for "Us") taking care of you. "We, the people" will certainly "take care of you" when "We, the people" run out of your money (or you become a burden to the "We"). Because that is the dialectic way, i.e. make way for the needy, i.e. the "We."
The scriptures speak of slavery, on the social level, that it is common to all cultures, but that, on the spiritual level, we can only escape our slavery to our carnal nature, i.e. our "lusts" of the flesh and eyes and our pride of life (escape controlling the world for our carnal "good pleasure," escape making others slaves to the satisfying of our carnal needs) through Christ. But of note is how Jesus himself saw it, regarding those in him. When we live as "slaves" or rather "servants" to (with) him (in his righteousness) he makes us as one in His Father's "family," calling us friends. (His resurrection changed everything, which seems to be why those of dialectic 'reasoning' reject it, or if they have to, just "tolerate" it to keep you coming their way, the resurrection destroying their message of and agenda for 'change'―to them 'change' being your social nature to "God," desiring "the approval of 'God,' i.e. of man in the collective sense," a feeling of "oneness" between men here on earth, instead of the changing of your heart, as an individual before God, desiring "the approval of to the one and true God" who is above.) "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 "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." John 15:15
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God." 1 Peter 4:1,2
Although those of the fleshy mind, those of dialectic 'reasoning (even those in the "ministry"), won't agree, it is when we are alive in Christ, and Christ alone, and dead to ourselves, to our fleshy nature (even for socialist cause), that slavery ends. There are those in ministry who say that God has done nothing without a man. "God and His angels need our permission to work on earth. Even God Himself is illegal on earth. Why? Because, He is a spirit and the law He set up by His own mouth was that only spirits with bodies can function on earth legally. God has done nothing on earth without a human co-operating with Him. Prayer is man giving God permission or license to interfere in earth's affairs. In other words, prayer is earthly license for heavenly interference. God could do nothing on earth, nothing has God ever done on earth without a human giving Him access." (Myles Munroe) This is blasphemy. That statement of heresy and arrogance disregards the truth that all of creation was made before man was created. Every breath you have ever taken came from Him, your next breath coming from Him. You can do as you will with every breath until your last, then you are His to do with you as He wills, send you to Hell for rejecting Him, for worshiping yourself and the creation, or gather you into Heaven to be with Him, for believing in and worshiping Him (losing this life of carnal pleasure for eternal life in His glory). When you can stand alone in Christ, amongst those who threaten to take your land, your business, your property, your family, and even your very own life, and keep standing (not being ashamed of the gospel, i.e. being fearful of God instead of man), than, and only then, are you free, do you have 'liberty.' And he [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Luke 9:23-26 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28) This is how we arrived at the liberty which we once had in this nation. Now, slaves to the pleasure of this life (including the conservatives of this nation along with the contemporary church), we have sold our souls (and the souls of our children) to dialectic leaders (both "conservative" and "liberal") who promise "We, the people" (and our children) the "good life," if we will but vote for them to lead the way.
The people in the soviet union had a variety of men to vote amongst, as we do today, but all were dialectic in their 'reasoning,' ambassadors for the slavery of 'change' ("the people" controlled by "the fear of men"). Like the old saying goes: "Choose your poison." I refuse to―rejecting the promises of men, choosing Christ instead, willing to loose it all, for 'liberty,' putting my trust in Him. How then must we vote? you might ask. Vote your conscience. (You might not be able to vote, since you decided the lesser of "evils," the "winnable candidate," was the one to chose from in the beginning.) Just be forewarned, though a man might claim that he believes in God. Which God is the question? "Falling to your knees" in a crisis, applies to all. Making the heresies of a man greater than the Word of God, applies to another. They are both dialectic in nature, one secular, one religious.
This nation is supposed to have a majority of "Christians," yet from what I see they, like some of my former "friends," are ashamed of the gospel when it comes to politics, the only source we have for true liberty. It is not that we should try to make the nation "Christian," there is no such thing as a "Christian Nation," but that to allow freedom of religion we limit the power of Government, to prevent those in government from make decisions which prevent the message of righteousness (obeying our Heavenly Father according to His will) from being preached and taught and put into practice in private as well as in public. Nowhere in the gospel is a believer to kill another man, or take that which he has from him, or worship the things of the creation, or conquer the world, or occupy a piece of land, for the faith, as is proclaimed and practiced in other religions (who use government, i.e. the power of the state, to remove religious freedom, the voice of the individual believer, speaking His Heavenly Father's Words, i.e. His commands to repent and walk right before Him or he will be condemned in the life to come, whether at home to his children, in the workplace to his employees, in the classroom to his students, or in government to the public, or as is now done, even in the "Church" to the "attendees"). Secular Humanism, a religion, when it takes office tells everyone to be "tolerant of diversity," to not bring up God (or to at least make him generic), and thus (to be nice, i.e. to get along) no one does, thus all become Godless, secular humanists (choosing "human relationship" over and against their faith in God and His Word). To participate in a meeting where silent prayer is used to allow all Gods "equality," is to participate in Godlessness. You have made God, by your action, "equal" with all the Gods of the world. But you stayed or were silent and participated because you had something to gain from the world (more than likely "the approval of men").
Some might say, since government is a "necessary" evil, i.e. men with their deceitful and wicked hearts being in office, then the lesser of "evils" might be your only choice. But then there comes a time in life when you can't vote for "evil." Evil being those who use the office they gain for their own gain (and those who support them―both "conservatives" and "liberals" alike) while telling you, it is for "We, the people," to get your vote. The scriptures call it "lying in hypocrisy," the only means by which a man can lead men on the pathway to slavery.
In the end it is not about voting, although, thank God, that is a right we still have (for what its worth today). It is about serving. Not the nation, nor the family, but God. In Him, the rest falls into place. The "new" world order, takes us another way, the way of "We, the people," with our flesh directing our steps, into a world of "convenience," pleasure, and togetherness, i.e. into slavery to our flesh. "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
If you don't limit the power of government, it will limit your power, taking your individual rights (inalienable rights) away, making you a slave to the "social cause," to the flesh of man, under its banner "'Human Rights,' making the world world for Democracy."
As Maslow wrote in his journal, so we have become as a nation today. "Only a world government with world-shared values [socialism, i.e. humanism and abomination] 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.'" As Obama put it: "The walls between Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand. These hallowed walls we must tear down." (Obama in Berlin, July 2008; a one minute audio excerpt)
Without God, we are but as the Children of Israel in the Land of Egypt (slaves). But then again, once alone with God in the desert (having to depend upon Him), that is where they kept wanting to return (to the pleasures of Egypt and slavery) . Nothing has changed (though all you hear of today is 'change'). Yet you can, as Joshua and Caleb―passing through the desert, walking in faith―enter the promised land and be free. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 Thus you can not put your trust in the messages of the Pharaoh and His slave masters, "Trust us we care about you," (with "We working for Us, you and your children can have all the leaks and melons, garlic and cucumbers you want"), but in the Word of God, putting your trust in the Lord. "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:5 We are to live by faith, in God's righteousness, and be free, not slaves to our sensuousness, living by sight ("lusting" after the things of this world, "selling our soul to the company store"). "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17
"For the wages of sin ["'Doing your own thing' to the pleasures of the flesh"] is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 1:26 "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:34-36
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015