"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."  Proverb. 3: 5-6

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Introduction, Issues, Articles, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios (New), Radio, Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!

While children of 'change'  ("lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment' ) negate the Father's authority in their thoughts and actions, they bring upon themselves the Father's wrath in the end.

The ideology of George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud, i.e. the dialectic process directly affects your life.  The dialectic process is all about 'creating' unity and peace (human relationship), i.e. "worldly unity and socialist peace" ("humanist relationship"), i.e. a "new" world order of "equality" (common-ism) by 'liberating' the child's thoughts and action ("theory and practice") from the affect of the father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong""doing right and not wrong according to my standards"—authority structure (a way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating known as a Patriarchal Paradigm, where the father/Father 1-gives commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is, 2-blesses those children who obey, 3-chastens those children to who not obey, and 4-casts out those children who reject 1, 2, and 3, i.e. who question the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenge his/His authority).  With the child 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority structure, his "guilty conscience" (for disobeying) is negating, allowing him to participate in the social action (praxis) of negating the father's/Father's authority in the "the group," i.e. the  "community," i.e. "society" without a "guilty conscience."  All this is done to 'encourage' the children (the future society) to be themselves, i.e. as they were before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth and threat of punishment/condemnation for disobedience, i.e. carnal, i.e. subject to their feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' i.e. responding only to the current situation at hand, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain (known as a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change'), i.e. relating to the world Only

Instead of the child learning self-restraint (self-control, i.e. humbling and denying himself, i.e. his "self") at the father's/Father's hands, dialectic 'reasoning' engenders "self-esteem" in the child, 'liberating' the child's "self-interest" (thinking about his "self," i.e. what he can get out of the situation for his "self," depending upon the approval of "the group" to get it) from the father's/Father's authority (individualism under the father/Father, i.e. under God) so that he can find his identity within his "self," i.e. within his carnal nature and society, building "relationship" upon "human nature" and the common-ist "interest" of "the group" (the "community") Only. 

There is "I," "me," and "myself" and "you" and "yourself."  While you can talking to me, you can not directly talk to (dialogue with) my "self."  Only I can talk to (dialogue with) my "self" (about my desires of the 'moment' and my dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority which restrains me—encapsulate in the word "ought," as in "I 'ought' to be able to ...").  And while I can talk to you, I can not directly talk to (dialogue with) your "self."  Only you can talk to (dialogue with) your "self" (about your desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority which restrains you—encapsulate in the word "ought," as in "I 'ought' to be able to ...").  Only through the dialoguing of our opinions (sharing our 'ought's' with one another, i.e. you and I talking to, i.e. dialoguing with one another about what we are talking to, i.e. dialoguing with our "self" about) is it possible for me to know your "self" and you to know my "self."  What we have in common (in the dialoguing of our opinions, i.e. our talking to one another in what we are talking to our "self" about, i.e. how we are "feeling" and what we are "thinking" in the 'moment') is our desires (love) of the carnal 'moment' and our dissatisfaction toward (hate of) the father's/Father's authority which prevents us from enjoying its pleasures (self loves pleasure and hates anything or anyone who stands in the way of it, preventing it from from having its way).  This is the heart and soul of the so called "new" world order, 'liberating' the child's "self" from the father's/Father's authority so that all children can come to know them "self" as they are, i.e. carnal, i.e. of the world Only (loving the pleasures of the world, hating the father/Father when he prevents them from becoming at-one-with the pleasures of the 'moment').  The Objective of using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'liberate' the child's "self" from the father's/Father's authority is to "help" all children come to know themselves as "one," i.e. as "team players," working together in negating the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order based upon "human relationship" Only, i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, i.e. negating the father's/Father's authority which comes between the child and the pleasures (Eros) of the 'moment,' 'justifying' ("serving") unrighteousness and abomination in the process. "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    "..., If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."  1 John 2:15, 16  "No servant 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."  Luke 16:13

 A brief overview and chart might be helpful as you read the article Diaprax Exposed, explaining dialectic 'reasoning' and its use in "team building" (praxis) to 'create' a so called "'New' World Order" (using a method for 'change' as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6).  The dialectic process not only affects you, it affects those who you love as well, negating the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) in their thoughts and actions, i.e. negating faith in God, putting trust in man instead, i.e. using "human' reasoning'" (dialectic 'reasoning') to 'justify' "human nature," i.e. to 'justify' man's carnal desires, making him subject to the laws of the flesh over and against the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the law of God (Romans 7:14-25—which reveals man's need for salvation from condemnation and eternal death) engendering unrighteousness and abomination instead.  It is why we are witnessing such rapid 'change,' i.e. disregard for parental (the father's) authority and an advancement of unrighteousness and abomination in this nation and around the world today. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."  " Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is."  Jeremiah 17:5, 7  "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8

Diaprax Exposed explains how the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (dialectic 'reasoning') negates the Heavenly Father's authority, i.e. negates Godly restraint in the thoughts and actions of men (with men no longer willing to set aside their desires of the 'moment' in order to do the Father's will) by negating the earthly father's authority, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience," i.e. the voice of the father in the child, restraining the child's thoughts and actions (with the child no longer willing to set aside his desires of the 'moment' in order to do his father's will), paving the way for 'change,' i.e. where order is no longer based upon the father's/Father's "top-down" authority but in the child initiating and sustaining "equality" with other children, i.e. thinking and acting according to his/their carnal nature, i.e. basing 'reality' upon the deceitfulness and wickedness of their heart ("human nature") instead. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9  

It is the 'purpose' of Common Core, with its use of "Bloom's (Marzano's, Webb's*) Taxonomies" in the classroom, i.e. the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (the dialoguing of opinions, concerning "self-interest" and the father's/Father's authority which restrains it, i.e. 'liberating' "self interest" by negating the father's/Father's authority), to turn the classroom into a "Training Laboratory," 'changing' how the children feel about, what they think about, and how they act toward parental authority, i.e. turning their hearts away from the father's authority ('liberating' them, in their thoughts and actions, from the father's restraint), negating the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for doing wrong (for turning away from or against "tradition"), thereby, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' turning man's heart away from the Father's authority ('liberating' man, in his feelings, thoughts and actions, from Godly restraint), negating the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for sinning.  Dialectic 'reasoning' redefines "sin" as man creating and sustaining any condition which "represses" him, i.e. which turns him against his own nature, and "alienates" him from others, i.e. turning him against the world (and the world against him)—"sin" is therefore the father's/Father's authority, with his commands, rules, facts, and truth holding his children accountable to belief, "prejudicing" them against their own nature and the nature of the world, i.e. "repressing" them, "alienating" them from the other children of the "community." 

*Norman L. Webb's Depth Of Knowledge-DOK "Taxonomy," building upon Bloom's/Marzano's "Taxonomy," is based upon knowing how "deep" the child's "knowledge" (skill) is in seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others, i.e. as a "scientist," using Higher Order Thinking Skills-HOTS to 'change' their ethics from obedience to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. refusing to 'compromise' to "get along" with others, to the ethics of the 'changing' times, i.e. 'compromising' to "get along" with others, knowing how to get them to 'compromise' as well, transforming their way of thinking and acting so that they can be "adaptable to 'change'" in the present and the future 'changing' society.  The "Taxonomies" evaluate the child's, i.e. the "groups," i.e. society's 'change' from "fixity" to "adaptability" using Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis, i.e. Obama's "Power Analysis," evaluating the degree of 'change' (along a spectrum or continuum), the child, i.e. the "group," i.e. society has made and the type and amount of seduction, deception, and manipulation that is necessary to move him/them/it further down the pathway of 'change.'  "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 [from the the child honoring the father's/Father's authority, obeying his/His commands and rules] to changingness [to the child following after his own carnal urges and impulses, responding to the carnal situation], from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy "A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism [the children honoring the father's/Father's authority] to extreme liberalism [the children, united as one, negating the father's/Father's authority] and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  It is what the "group grade" in the classroom is all about, evaluating the child's emotional, mental, and physical ability to 'change,' i.e. his 'willingness' to 'compromise' for the sake of unity, i.e. for the sake of initiating and sustaining the "group," i.e. for the sake of initiating and sustaining "community," i.e. for the sake of initiating and sustaining society.

"If an individual wishes to maintain a position of arbitrary authority [if the father/Father wishes to maintain his/His position of authority], then it behooves him to inhibit the development of any rules permitting reciprocal process observation and commentary [the father/Father must prevent the child from having the "right" to openly evaluate, i.e. dialogue his opinion regarding the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and behavior with other children, i.e. questioning the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, resulting in challenging his/His authority in the end]."  (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  If the father dialogues his opinion with his children, i.e. to restore his children to his authority, he abdicates his authority to his children's opinions instead.  Maintaining authority entails discussion, i.e. not setting aside one's position while attempting to persuade others of its importance.  The dialectic method is man "rationally" dialoguing his opinion with his "self" and with other men,  'justifying' to his "self" and to others his disobedience against God (rejecting God's authority over his life), i.e. the child "rationally" dialoguing his opinion with his "self" and with other children,  'justifying' to his "self" and to others his disobedience against the father (rejecting the father's authority over his life), finding identity in his "self" and the children of like feelings, thoughts, and actions instead.  The famous Marxists (Transformational Marxist) György Lukács (founder of the "Institute of Social Research") defined the dialectic method by defining its nemesis: "The dialectical method was overthrown [by the children honoring the father's/Father's authority, i.e. obeying the father's/Father's commands and rules, accepting his facts and truth as given, by faith]the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within "the group," i.e. within the "community," i.e. within "society"]."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)  Karl Marx explained it this way: "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual [man made in the image of God (to evaluate himself, i.e. his "self" and the world from His standards) as the child is made in the image of the father (to evaluate himself, i.e. his "self" and the world from his standards)]."  "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations ['discovering' common-ism, i.e. "self interest" within the "community"]." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6)   "It is not individualism [the child being personally accountable to the father for his actions as a man is personally accountable to God for this thoughts and actions] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [man's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature" (that which all men have in common)] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx"Only within a social context [only within the ever 'changing,' i.e. diverse, i.e. deviant nature of "the group," with everyone 'compromising' ("tolerating deviancy") for the sake of initiating and sustaining "community," common-unity] individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being ['justifying' his "self" as he 'justifies' other's "self," 'liberating' his "self" and other's "self" from the father's/Father's authority in the process]." (Karl Marx,  Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)   "The more of himself man attributes to God [being made in the image of God, subject to righteousness], the less he has left in himself [being made in the image of carnal man, subject to sensuousness]." (Karl Marx, Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy"The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, i.e. by the child recognizing and honoring the father's/Father's authority, i.e. obeying the father/Father, i.e. doing his/His will instead of satisfying his own carnal desires of the 'moment,' he not only "represses" that which is of nature only, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' he "creates" the father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" authority structure (the "old" world order) which then] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)  In this way of thinking, instead of the child being a child of the father/Father, i.e. an individual, under God, he becomes a child of the world, i.e. a socialist, subject to "the group," i.e. to the "community," i.e. to society, subject to the facilitators of 'change,' i.e. to socialists-globalists-environmentalists (common-ists), i.e. to those who "helped" 'liberate' him from the father's/Father's authority so that he could become himself again (as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of punishment/condemnation for disobeying), i.e. so that he could become at-one-with the world, subject to the process of 'change' itself, i.e. subject to "human nature" (and those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate him through it) Only.

When man, as a child, uses dialectic 'reasoning' ('self-justification') to 'liberate' himself from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. thinking (perceiving) that he is in control of the world, he does not realize that it is the facilitator of 'change,' i.e. who seduces, deceives, and manipulates him with the world, who is in control of him instead.  Rejecting "right-wrong" thinking and acting, i.e. the father's/Father's authority as a way of thinking and acting, refusing to repent of his way of thinking and acting before the father/Father and turning back to him/Him, the child is only left with "human nature," i.e. "the approaching of pleasure and the attenuating of pain,"  i.e. his "lusting" after the gratifying things of the world and his hatred toward the father/Father and his/His authority when he/He prevents him from having his way, and "human 'reasoning," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' his thoughts and actions, i.e. 'justifying' the thoughts and actions of his "friends" to silence the "guilty conscience," i.e. the voice of the father/Father within him.  Rejecting the father's/Father's authority as the way of life, he (with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change') embraces "human 'reasoning'" 'justifying' "human nature" (dialectic 'reasoning') as the way of life instead, which leads love of self and the world (unrighteousness and abomination), hate of the father/Father and his/His authority, and destruction (unlike God, for man to 'create,' i.e. to innovate, i.e. to 'change,' he must destroy what is), murder (taking the life of the innocent, helpless, and 'resistors' of 'change,' when they get, or are perceived as getting in the way of "social progress," i.e. getting in the way of the carnal pleasures of the life of "the people") and death/eternal death.  "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   "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness [thinking and acting according to the Father's will], and going about to establish their own righteousness [thinking and acting according to their own carnal desires, i.e. "felt" needs, i.e. pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts"], have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  Romans 10:3  "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 16:25  

Dialectic 'reasoning' turns "My garden.  Not your garden.  Do what I say or else." (which engenders private property and private business, i.e. individualism, i.e. "My children. Not your children."  "My property.  Not your property."  "My business. Not your business." under God), into "We working for us." turning the hearts of the children from the Father (obedience and righteousness) to all that is of the world (to disobedience and sensuousness), i.e. to unrighteousness and abomination instead.  1 John 2:15-18   The 'change' process is subtle and complex, surviving in our 'compromises,' i.e. in our "ought's" of the 'moment, i.e. in our carnal "thoughts" over and against the father's/Father's "Not's," where we least notice its affect upon us, gaining control over our heart and actions. 

While earthly fathers are not perfect (righteous in and of themselves), some are downright tyrants, the office they serve in is perfect, under God.  According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' you must negate the earthly father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children (including the "benevolent" father) if you want to negate the Heavenly Father's authority (religion) in the thoughts and actions of men, i.e. if you want to 'create' a "new" world order where the children, or rather, where facilitators of 'change,' who seduce, deceive, and manipulate the children, rule instead of the father, i.e. where facilitators of 'change' (socialist "engineers") rule over God's creation instead of God.  Rousseau wrote (in defiance to God, hating the father's/Father's authority): "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 [where the citizens recognize and honor the father's authority (his right to rule) over his own children, business, and land, i.e. private property] ... the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody [instead of "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) with God giving man (individual man) "dominion" over it, under Him (Genesis 2:26)]." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality

When "the people" reject the father's/Father's authority (actually his/His "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting), when they 'justify' to themselves that sinning (disobeying/compromising/"setting aside" the father's/Father's commands and rules, when they go against or block the desires, i.e. the impulse and urges of the 'moment') is the "norm," i.e. that man is of "human nature" only, they make righteousness, i.e. doing the father's/Father's will a non-issue, i.e. "moot."  Norman Brown explained it this way, tying it to the "garden experience" (Genesis 3:1-6): "To experience Freud [psychology] is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit."   "But Brown [Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History] believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin—namely, that alienation [the children divided amongst themselves on the issue of right and wrong, i.e. "My father is right and your father is wrong"] would be overcome, and the return of the repressed [the children ('liberated' from the father's/Father's authority), united as one, i.e. upon "human nature" only] completed, rendering problems of sin [disobedience against the father's/Father's authority and having a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for sinning] permanently moot." (Mike Connor). Brown's contemporary, Herbart Marcuse, quoting Sigmund Freud, put it more succinctly: "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then 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." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  When "the people," as "children of disobedience," reject the father's/Father's authority, God lets them have their hearts desires, turning them over to their own demise: "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  It is where we find ourselves today.

While our framing father's rejected the father's authority over this nation (a king), as well as over the states, the counties, the townships, and the cities (dividing government into three branches, separated from one another, to prevent his reappearance), they, unlike the French Revolution, retained the father's authority in the home (recognizing his inalienable rights, establishing the bill of rights so that the father could protect his family, property, and business), thus guaranteeing a "guilty conscience" in the citizenry (engendered from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the children's fear of judgment and punishment from the father for doing wrong).  A representative, limited, majority vote (Constitutional Republic) form of government is based upon the father's/Father's authority.  The representative is figuratively a child who is sent to the store (in the place of the father) to "re-present" the father (the constituents) as he purchases the father's needs.  The limited is the authority of the father, i.e. the authority of the constitution's to remove the child (the representative) from representing him when the child misappropriates the father's money (no longer "re-presenting" the father and his interests), spending it on himself, i.e. on his own interests or his "friends" interests instead.  The majority vote, is so that the fathers (the citizens), who differ from (who disagree with) one another on positions, will safeguard the representative, limiting form of government, i.e. preventing those who they disagree with from forever ruling over their lives (enslaving them), i.e. encroaching upon and removing their right of private property and business.  With the negation of the father's authority in the home, representative, limited, majority vote government is being replaced with a Directorate (of the French Revolution) form of government (and the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc. revolutions which followed), i.e. government run by "consensus."  "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)

Through the use of the consensus process (bypassing/circumventing, i.e. usurping, i.e. negating the representative, limited, majority vote form of government), a government of children—"representatives" who no longer "re-present" the father's (singular/individual) interests but their own (plural/socialist) interests instead—is now in place, placing itself over and against (usurping) the father's authority, using the father's money (property, business, and family) as well as his credit card for their own personal pleasures instead, putting him into debt, saying they are doing it "for the 'good' of the people"—creating laws to remove the father (along with those who support his way of thinking and acting) if and when he (or they) get in the way.  This is why democracy (government run by children) always ends up in tyranny (despotism).  George Washington warned us: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one [through the use of the consensus process], 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."  (George Washington, Farewell Speech)

For more on the subject of 'change,' i.e. the dialectic process, i.e. the 'liberation' of children from parental authority, i.e. from the father's/Father's authority (the 'liberating' of mankind from Godly restraint), i.e. the "new" world order, i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy," read the article Higher Order Thinking Skills (still in draft form) and the issues The Key to 'Change' and The Dialectic Process.  See the issue It's all about your Father and His authority. Period! for the briefest overview of all. 

There is no father's/Father's authority and therefore no "guilty conscience" for being unrighteous and abominable in dialogue.  You can not say "That is wrong" in dialogue (that would be preaching), you can only say "I don't feel like" or "I don't think that that is right."  Through the dialoguing of opinions (how a person "feels" or what he is "thinking" in the 'moment,' i.e. subject to his "feelings" which are subject to the situation of the 'moment'), to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" with others on the same issue, not only is the father's/Father's authority negated, the "guilty conscience" (which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority) is negated as well.  Therefore all 'willing' participants can do unconscionable things while not only negating the father and his authority but also negating those who recognize and honour his authority as well, i.e. purging society of "resistors of 'change,'" i.e. of those who refuse to be "team players," i.e. of those who insist upon remaining individuals, under God, who instead of compromising (for the 'good' of the "community"), insist upon doing things right according to the father's/Father's will. Through the praxis (social action) of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, "right-wrong" thinking and acting is replaced with "human-ist 'rights,'" i.e. "rights" determined according to (and therefore protective of) the child's carnal "lusts," "enjoyments," i.e. pleasures, i.e. desires, i.e. "'felt' needs" of the 'moment.'  "I ought," i.e. dialoguing with oneself and/or with others one's opinion, negates "I must," i.e. preaching to oneself and/or to others the need to recognize the father's/Father's authority and obey him/Him.  Hegel wrote: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him."  (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)  Instead of the traditional response against the father's/Father's authority of "fight or flight," with fighting or fleeing keeping the father's/Father's authority in place as much as "submitting," dialectic 'reasoning' creates in the mind of the child the father's/Father's authority as being "irrational," resulting in the child treating it as being "irrelevant," with the child doing "his own thing" (civil disobedience) despite the father's/Father's response, 'changing' society in the process.

In this way crime can be used in the defense of (and advancement of) socialism, i.e. in the name of "community," i.e. initiation and sustaining 'change.'  Since the father has what the facilitator's of 'change' want, i.e. money, land, children, etc. i.e. that which can finance or satisfy their carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through "self-social 'justification" the father and his authority can be negated in the thoughts and actions of the children, with the facilitators of 'change' taking those things that they want (for their pleasures, i.e. to satisfy their "felt" needs of the 'moment'), in the name of the children, i.e. in the name of "community," with impunity (with no "guilty conscience").  The dialectic idea being: don't force children into doing what you want, seduce, deceive, and manipulate them into doing it, turning them against the father and his authority (for the pleasures of the 'moment') instead, thereby they will give their inheritance to the facilitators of 'change,' 'willingly' supporting and working for them (for the "good" of "the community"), neutralizing, marginalize, and removing those father's (and children) who resist.  If society, i.e. "community" becomes the measure of all things, then anyone who can not (or refuses to) contribute to its growth (is perceived of as being or possibly being detrimental, i.e. a 'liability' to it's "health"), including the unborn, the very young, the old, and anyone in between, is expendable for the "good" of all.

Teachers are being fired ("right-sized") for knowing and sharing this information.  Even "Christian" schools, colleges, and universities are censoring this website, labeling it as being "extremely offensive" material because they do not want the parents (as well as teachers) knowing how the methods being used in the classroom are 'changing' the children's feeling, thoughts, and actions toward parental authority.  One of "Bloom's Taxonomies" states: "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  While teachers are trained in how to use these "Taxonomies" (Book 1 Cognitive Domain and Book 2 Affective Domain), many do not like them, sensing something is wrong with them, but continue to use them (fearful of losing their job if they resist), ignorant of their intended "Educational Objective."  Teachers can not be "certified" and schools can not be "accredited" unless they use these "Taxonomies" (updated by Marzano) in the classroom.  Saying "There is more 'right' in them than 'wrong'" is like engraving upon the demolition experts tombstone, "He was more right than wrong."  The results are the same.  Boom! 

According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' negating the father's authority over the children accomplishes the negation of the Father's authority over society, thereby allowing unrighteousness and abomination ("human nature" 'liberated' from Godly restraint) freedom to reign.  Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)   Freud believed: "'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 [whether the biological father is present or not in the home does not matter, what matters is that the father's "top-down" authority, i.e. his "right-wrong" preaching and teaching way of thinking and acting no longer resides within the home, i.e. influencing the children's' feelings, thoughts, and actions (in this way the "parents" can be two or more women or men) ]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)   According to Hegel, it is the child's nature ("human nature" 'liberated' from the father's authority) that is the core of 'reality.' "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 'liberated' from the father's authority]."  According to Hegel, when children become "equal" with the parents (making all, i.e. the "husband, the wife, and the child" subject to "human nature" only), that which belongs to the parents becomes the property of all, especially of those who "helped" 'liberate' the children (and the "parents") from parental authority.  "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)  

The "Educational Objective" of "Bloom's (Marzano's, Webb's) Taxonomies" is not only to use the classroom (the "group grade") to change the child's behavior toward the father's authority but to use "social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child" as well.  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  In the second "taxonomy"—in the "affective domain" book (the child's feelings book)—we read: "The affective domain [the child's feelings 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. "human nature" 'liberated' from Godly restraint] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which, once opened, once 'liberated' from the father's authority, can not be closed].'"   "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found.  The affective domain [the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. to have the gratifying things of the world, i.e. the child's "lust" for pleasure, and his resentment (hate) toward the father's authority when it prevents him from attaining it] contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  'Change' the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions toward the father's authority and you 'change' the world.  It is what the 'change' process (dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. Common Core is all about.  Concerning this fact alone, that the "Taxonomies" are based upon the works of Erick Fromm, and Theodore Adorno, i.e. both who were members of "The Frankfurt School" (a band of Transformational Marxists who came to America in the early 30's—who merged Marxism with psychology, i.e. Marx with Freud, hiding Marxism in psychology, i.e. advancing the principles of Marxism through the praxis of psychotherapy, i.e. "group therapy," i.e. the "group grade"),  it is no wonder education establishes the child's carnal nature, i.e. the carnal nature of man ("human nature") over and against the father's/Father's authority (Godly restraint), 'changing' the way the citizens of this nation now feel, think, and act toward parental authority, marriage, the unborn, the elderly, private property and business, etc. and Godly restraint, advancing unrighteousness, immorality, and abomination instead.

Negating the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children (negating the "guilty conscience") 'changes' all facets of society, i.e. 'changes' the social order of things ('creating' a "new" world order) from the home to the workplace, the police, the military, the medical profession, the government, the media, entertainment, etc., even the "church."  Through the children (including those in adult bodies) dialoging their opinions to a consensus, over social-individual (public-private) issues, in a facilitated meeting, "equality," i.e. a totalitarian state (subject to the child's carnal "human nature" only) is created, 'justifying' its use of force (coming between the citizens and local control, i.e. coming between the children and parental authority) to "serve and protect" unrighteousness and abomination, anarchy and revolution, i.e. "civil disobedience," i.e. disrespect for and contempt toward parental authority (private property and business) for the "good" of "the people."  To produce children with a "guiltless conscience" (who feel, think, and act without Godly restraint, i.e. who feel, think, and act according to "human nature" only, i.e. with faith becoming subject to sight, i.e. with belief being treated as an opinion and facts and truth as a theory, etc.) the education system, the work place, the police force, the military, the medical profession, the government, the media, entertainment, and even the "church" must "tolerate deviance," i.e. "protect" unrighteousness and abomination from the father's/Father's authority, in the name of "community." 

"Having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears" (Karl Marx), disrespect for authority and the killing of the innocent and helpless (the unborn and elderly) for the "good" of society is going on all around us, coming from the heart of the fatherless/Fatherless children.  "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 in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."  Matthew 13:14-16

"... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1   After all the gospel message is not just about the obedient Son. "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."  John 5:30  "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49  It is about His Father as well, sending His only begotten Son to 'redeem' us from His wrath upon us for our disobedience, to 'reconcile' us to Himself instead.  It is about the Son, in essence saying "I want you to meet my Father."  "I want you to know my Father's love for you."  To reject the Father is to reject the Son.  "I and my Father are one." John 10:30   You can not have one without the other.  Deny the one you deny the other.  The One came that we might know and have fellowship with the Other: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."  Matthew 6:9-13 

A Fatherless Christ is a "Christ" made in the image of man (dialectic, i.e. Fatherless in his feelings, thoughts, and actions), 'redeeming' man from the Father, 'reconciling' him to the world ("human nature") instead. "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."  1 John 3:22   All facilitator's of 'change' must, as Satan (the master facilitator of 'change'), come between the Father and His children, 'liberating' the children from the Father's authority in the name of "community" and 'change.'

Christ came to bring all children and parents, individually under His Heavenly Father's authority.  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  "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  "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21  "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  "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."  Matthew 10:32, 33

"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."  1 Peter 1:17-23 

Any comments or questions can be emailed to me at deangotcher@gmail.comP.S. regarding malicious accusations made regarding me and this ministry.

© Institution for Authority Research  Dean Gotcher 1997-2014