'Liberal's' are, as Karl Marx, rebellious children, i.e., children of disobedience, challenging, questioning, disregarding, defying, attacking authority. Karl Marx resides in the heart of the child. He makes his "self" manifest as the child 'justifies' his "self," i.e., 'justifies his carnal nature, 'justifies' his love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates, thus 'justifying' his hate of restraint (and the restrainer). Karl Marx wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') He knew that by starting with pleasure, i.e., the child's natural desire for ("lusting after") the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, making the child's "sensuous need" and "sense perception" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) aka "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes" (1 John 2:16) the standard for life, hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority would naturally follow—'justifying' the negation of the father's/Father's authority in society. Marx simply built off of Georg Hegel's understanding of "human nature." Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father'/Father's authority to become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), carnal, i.e., "of and (through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue) for self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 The 'liberal' can not see his hate of restraint (and the restrainer) as being wicked with his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure standing in the way, 'justifying' his hate of restraint (and the restrainer).
"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
If the Karl Marx in the child's heart is not reproved, corrected, rebuked, i.e., chastened—where the child learns to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to do right and not wrong, obey, not sin, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will instead of 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' the Karl Marx in his "self"—he will end up destroying the home, negating the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. He will tear up the kitchen, i.e., the home, i.e., the nation if he does not get his way. This is why 'liberal's' praxis anarchy, rebellion, and revolution wherever they live or travel, claiming they are doing it for "the people," i.e., for the "disenfranchised," i.e., for "the children" when it actually they are doing it for their "self," i.e., for their ego—for the Karl Marx in their "self."
Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [where the children have to humble, deny, die to their "self" in order to do the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son humbled, denied, died to his "self" in order to the Father's will, calling all who follow him to do the same], the former [the traditional family system with its father's authority (engendering "prejudice," i.e., established commands and rules to be obeyed as given, facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning)] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically [in the "thoughts" of the child] and practically [in accordance to (in agreement with) the law of the flesh, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint (and the restrainer)—what all children have in common—which is the basis of common-ism]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)
"Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be or may have been down right tyrants—using their office of authority as a child, i.e., for their own "selfish" pleasure and gain—their office of authority is perfect, given to them by God to serve Him in, training their children up in the admonition of the Lord. Traditional education was structured upon sustaining the order ( the "old" world order) of the father's/Father's authority of 1) preaching commands and rules to be obeyed (as given), teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), and discussing (at their discretion) with their children (students) any question(s) the children might have on how best to do what they are being told to do (providing there is time, the children can understand, and the children are not challenging the parent's or teachers authority), 2) rewarding or blessing the child who obeys and does things right, 3) not rewarding or chastening the child who does wrong or disobeys, and 4) casting out or rejecting any child who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, or attacks their authority.
All of contemporary education—of all ages and in all vocations, even in the "church" (including the "youth group")—is based upon 'liberating' the child's carnal nature from the parent's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority. All contemporary "educators" (those of the so called "new" world order) are certified and schools accredited based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," where students—dialoguing their opinions to a consensus—negate the father's/Father's authority in their thoughts and actions ("theory and practice"). Students do not have to be told (by their "educators," i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists) to question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack their parent's authority when they get home, after participating in the "group grade," i.e., soviet, i.e., brainwashing, i.e., "safe zone/space/place," i.e., "positive," "snowflake" creating classroom they will do that automatically
In part "Bloom's Taxonomies" read: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "The affective domain [the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her love of pleasure and hate of restraint, which is to be 'liberated' in the classroom] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a "box" full of evils, which once opened, i.e., liberated from parental authority, i.e., from the father's authority can not be closed].'" "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [the child's "lust" for pleasure and hate of restraint] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [questioning, challenging, etc., his or her parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth] and getting them to discuss issues [share (dialogue) with one another their "feelings," i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, which they all have in common—which is the basis of common-ism—in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., group affirmation (fear of rejection), learning to question, challenging, defy, disregard, attack authority without having a guilty conscience in the process—which is the basis of enlightenment]." "By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed by the educative process . . . change in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions [change in their paradigm from 'loyalty' to their parents, through 'loyalty' to "self" to 'loyalty' to "the group" aka society]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) "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) "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) "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority so he can 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 [where he 'discovers' his commonality with society]." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child subject to the father's/Father's authority, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" in order to do 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 [to be "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6)
Sigmund Freud believed, as Karl Marx, "the individual is emancipated in the social group." "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." "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
In fact the first 'liberals' were the woman and Adam in the garden in Eden, who, after attending the first dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justifying,' facilitated class, blamed someone else when they got caught doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, with Adam "throwing the woman under the bus" and the woman "throwing the serpent under the bus," refusing to take blame themselves, repent, and ask for forgiveness, 'justifying' their "self," i.e., 'justifying' their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulated instead. 'Liberals,' i.e., socialists are 'created' by the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., praxis "abomination" with impunity (at least in their minds if not in their actions). "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
'Liberal's' can not accept the concept of their being "wrong." They would have to repent. Instead they see whatever they do wrong as having been done "badly." It is a crime to do things wrong. It is not a crime when you do things "badly." You just need to do things better. This is why 'liberal's always judge themselves as having done things "badly" when they do wrong, not holding themselves accountable (it is always someone else's fault for not "helping" them, i.e., supporting them or the situation), but judge those who have done things wrong, who they disagree with, as having done things wrong, thus holding them accountable for their actions. It is the ''liberal's' praxis of generalization, i.e., their praxis of ambiguity—'justified' deviancy—i.e., their praxis of double speak which they use in order to save their "self" from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, getting rid of, i.e., converting, silencing, or removing those who they disapprove of in the process. This praxis by 'liberal's' has major consequences, oppressing those who hold to the father's/Father's authority. "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)
This is the same terror the traditional minded student faces in the dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., contemporary, i.e., 'liberal' controlled, i.e., "group grade" classroom. Abraham Maslow wrote: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those who honor their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority] 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)
"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 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
What 'liberals' do not understand (can not know from their "self") is the father's/Father's love for them—with the father/Father, while loving the child, hating their doing wrong, having to chasten them for their actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. 'Liberal's,' refusing to admit when they are wrong, i.e., guilty for their carnal thoughts and actions, are unable to see the father's/Father's chastening of them as being his/His love for them—that they might learn to do right and not wrong. Instead they let their "self," i.e., their love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, get in the way—blind them to the father's/Father's love for them—resulting in their hate of restraint, i.e., their hate of the father's/Father's authority being 'justified' in their eyes.
Whether you call your "self" a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' or anything in between, unless your heart is changed by the Lord, doing the Father's will, you are on the dialectic pathway, 'justifying' your "self." Even 'justifying' your "self," i.e., your thoughts and actions in "the name of the Lord" is evil. One step on the pathway of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' makes you guilty, having stepped "in it," trying to 'justify' your "self."
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:16-19
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018