The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm (The Hegelian Dialectic)
1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others
2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights
3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis
Historical Evidence of Problem Reaction Solution
Nero Burnt Rome, Blamed It on the Christians and Then Savagely Butchered Them.
Nero Claudius Caesar (37-68 CE) – University of Texas History – In 64 C.E., a fire swept through Rome, burning for a week and destroying a large portion of the city… According to some sources, when he found that he did not have enough land to build his palace, he set fire to the city a second time. It is at this point that he is said to have “played his fiddle [lyre] while Rome burned.” To avert suspicion, he blamed the fires on the Christians and proceeded to kill them in horrendous ways.
Nero persecutes Christians in Rome – Rutgers University History – Neither human effort nor princely largesse nor divine appeasement was able to dispel the scandal that the fire (which burned much of Rome in 64 CE) was believed to have been commanded (by the emperor Nero). So, to do away with the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits those who were commonly called “Christians,” who were hated because of their absurdities. And he inflicted them with the most extraordinary punishments
Sinking of the USS Maine Resulting in the Spanish American War – US Navy Official Website – The Spanish-American War (21 April to 13 August 1898) was a turning point in the history of the United States, signaling the country’s emergence as a world power. The blowing up of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor on the evening of 15 February was a critical event on the road to that war… The U.S. Navy Department immediately formed a board of inquiry to determine the reason for Maine’s destruction… When the Navy’s verdict was announced, the American public reacted with predictable outrage…
The destruction of Maine did not cause the U.S. to declare war on Spain, but it served as a catalyst, accelerating the approach to a diplomatic impasse. In addition, the sinking and deaths of U.S. sailors rallied American opinion more strongly behind armed intervention…
Technical experts at the time of both investigations disagreed with the findings, believing that spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker adjacent to the reserve six-inch magazine was the most likely cause of the explosion on board the ship. In 1976, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover published his book, “How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed“. The admiral became interested in the disaster and wondered if the application of modern scientific knowledge could determine the cause. He called on two experts on explosions and their effects on ship hulls. Using documentation gathered from the two official inquiries, as well as information on the construction and ammunition of Maine, the experts concluded that the damage caused to the ship was inconsistent with the external explosion of a mine. The most likely cause, they speculated, was spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker next to the magazine.
As a result (of the Spanish American War) Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire — Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine islands, Guam, and other islands – Library of Congress – On April 25, 1898 the United States declared war on Spain following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. As a result Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire — Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine islands, Guam, and other islands.
Events moved swiftly after the explosion aboard the U.S.S. Maine on February 15. On March 9, Congress passed a law allocating fifty million dollars to build up military strength. On March 28, the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry finds that a mine blew up the Maine. On April 21 President McKinley orders a blockade of Cuba and four days later the U.S. declares war.
The Resinking of the Battleship Maine – Historical Museum of Southern Florida – There is no mystery about the second sinking of the United States battleship Maine. It occurred on March 16, 1912, four miles outside Havana harbor, and was witnessed by thousands. They raised it and sank it in deep waters
Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor (President) and then Burnt the Reichstag (German Parliament) Building. He Then Declared Himself Furor (Dictator) and Promised Utopia. Hitler Declared Martial Law and Suspended All Basic Human Rights.
Reichstag Fire – Encyclopedia Britannica – Reichstag fire, burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of Feb. 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers…his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is supposed to have devised the scheme… On Feb. 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler’s dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree “for the Protection of the People and the State,” which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights.
Hitler and the Reichstag Fire – The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 – In Jan., 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor without an absolute majority, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were set for Mar. 5; a violent election campaign ensued. On Feb. 27, 1933, a fire destroyed part of the Reichstag building. Hitler immediately accused the Communists of having set the fire. President von Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly.
Holocaust Timeline The Nazification of Germany – University of South Florida – On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames. Nazis immediately claimed that this was the beginning of a Communist revolution. This fact leads many historians to believe that Nazis actually set, or help set the fire. Others believe that a deranged Dutch Communist set the fire. The issue has never been resolved. This incident prompted Hitler to convince Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency. This laid the foundation for a police state.
In 1962, the government wanted to change public opinion to create a pretext for war with Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff created a plan that they named the “Northwoods Document”, to commit a series of terrorist acts against America and blame it on the Cuban government. One of the scenarios included blowing up a civilian airplane.
U.S. terror plan called Cuba invasion pretext – The Baltimore Sun – U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the National Security Agency.
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba – ABCNEWS.com – In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
The Actual Northwoods documents
Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962 – George Washington University – National Security Archive – This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods
Bombing of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
There are innumerable theories about the Oklahoma City Bombing and I do not want to engage in theories. If anyone believes that the Oklahoma City bombing was NOT a government job, I challenge you to watch a downloadable video 911: The Road to Tyranny. This movie, amongst many other things, shows numerous news clips from major media of bombs being removed from the Murrah Federal building after the bombing. I personally do not believe that Timothy McVeigh placed any bombs in the Murrah building. This movie is extremely powerful, very well documented and nothing short of life changing. It inspired me to build this section of the website.
Other Examples of Problem Reaction Solution – I will expand on these at a later date.
Stock Market Crash of 1929 – The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Evidence shows that it manipulated the market resulting in the greatest transfer of wealth to the ‘Rich” in the history of the world.
Our Educational System – 60% of inner-city 4th graders can’t read. Did they forget how to teach reading?
Future Examples of Problem Reaction Solution
FBI Suicide-Homicide Bombers in U.S. ‘Inevitable’ – NewsMax.com – The FBI is warning that suicide-homicide bombers like the ones in the Middle East are “inevitable” in the United States.
“I think we will see that in the future, I think it’s inevitable,” FBI Director Robert Mueller said Monday during a speech to the National Association of District Attorneys meeting in Alexandria, Va.
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Sunday called on U.S. citizens to be on the alert after an FBI warning that terrorists might rent apartments in high-rise apartment buildings and plant explosives in the apartments to destroy the buildings.
Solution – Unreasonable Search and Seizure – 4th Amendment Rights will be suspended
Small Pox Outbreak – The “Model State Emergency Healthcare Act” is being passed in many states. This allows the Governor of each state to declare Martial Law giving unprecedented authority such as forced vaccinations. Click here for a copy of The Model State Emergency Healthcare Act in PDF Format.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that, We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship…” 1984 – George Orwell.
Other Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm Resources
When reviewing this subject, keep in mind that The Hegelian Dialectic is the cornerstone of the Marxist interpretation of history and played a major role in the development of Marxist Communism. In every case when Communists seized control of a government, the Hegelian Dialectic principle was used.
Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic – by John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart (1896) – University of Idaho
The purpose of this newsletter is to bring to you an interview with Dean Gotcher, President, Institution for Authority Research.
In the last four years while covering the United Nations, I have come face to face, on a regular basis with communism, fascism, and socialism. I found, as a result of my own ignorance, that I could not identify them and therefore not identify the true meaning of what was being put forth in all of the documents I was reading. While I understood the goal of world government to be behind everything the United Nations was doing, I did not know how — what modus operandi — they would use to convert people from a capitalistic system where the individual is the master and molder of his own destiny undergirded by personal property rights reinforced his claim to that destiny, to one of complete control where man did what the State directed, when the State directed, and in the process gave up his freedoms and private property so the State could better direct its use. I then found that the “modus operandi” being used for this transition was called the “Hegelian Dialectic” which is comprised of three parts: the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
I immediately understood that the concepts being espoused at the UN were not concepts which I had grown up with or had been taught. I saw that everything at the UN was constantly changing. There were constant problems. It appeared that the UN could not fix for they were always “refixing.” Little did I know “the fixing” was part of the real agenda. I first heard the word “consensus” in Cairo when I attended my first UN Conference in September, 1994. When a journalist asked for a definition, he was provided with a ten minute answer which didn’t make sense but included the phrase, “everyone agreed on something in the document and therefore that was consensus.” Another word I heard at these meetings was “diversity.”
When I covered the United Nations Social Summit in Copenhagen in March, 1995, then Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali said that change had three steps, “Profound change, cosmetic change, and status quo” but he was offering an alternative, “Constant change.” He said, “you need continuous change…to act…you must maintain a mobilization between all three for continuous change.” It was at that conference that I first heard the phrase, “paradigm shift.”
According to Dean Gotcher, an expert in philosophies, the Hegelian Dialectic is used with diverse groups to “dialogue to consensus.” According to Dean, Hegel’s process, which was revolutionary in his day, has now become the basic tool for developing and supporting the universal worldview of the New World Order. All forms of socialism (fascism, communism, existentialism, positivism, pragmatism….globalism) are unthinkable without the aspects of Hegels formula. ”
In the book, Spiritual Politics by Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson, (Ballantine Books, New York, 1994) the Dalai Lama writes in the Forward, “Narrow-mindedness and self-centered thinking may have served us well in the past, but today will only lead to disaster. We can overcome such attitudes through a combination of education and training.” The authors write that spiritual politics is tied to “the Ageless Wisdom which is the “golden thread” that connects the esoteric or hidden teachings that underlie the ancient Chaldean, Egyptian, Hebrew, Hindu, Greek, Chinese, Buddhist, Christian and Islamic traditions. These truths were handed down through certain disciple or religious groups such as the Kabbalists, Druids, Essenes, Sufis, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians and Freemasons.” (p.15)
Furthermore, they cite the synthesis in the Hegelian Dialectic as being the process whereby “we have to go to a higher level and transcend the polarities. It was Hegel’s view that all things unfold in a continuing evolutionary process whereby each idea or quality (the thesis) inevitably brings forth its opposite (the antithesis). From that interaction, a third state emerges in which the opposites are integrated, overcome, and fulfilled in a richer and higher synthesis. This synthesis then becomes the basis for another dialectical process of opposition and synthesis. Hegel believed that the creative stress of opposing positions was essential for developing higher states of consciousness. In the moment of synthesis, the opposites are both preserved and transcended, negated and fulfilled.” (p.88)(emphasis added)
I believe that in order to counter-act the evil which is taking place around us, that we must understand the process– modus operandi–which is being used on us.
The following excerpt from The Worldly Philosophers by Robert L. Heilbroner, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953, 134-139, is provided for your further understanding of how the Hegelian Dialectic was used in Marxism and Communism. You will see that the dialectic is economic, political, spiritual, and social in scope.
“Marx found himself swept up in the great philosophical debate of the day. The philosopher Hegel had propounded a revolutionary scheme and the conservative German universities found themselves split wide over it. Change, according to Hegel, was the rule of life. Every idea irrepressibly bred its opposite and the two merged into a synthesis which in turn produced its own contradiction. And history, said Hegel, was nothing but the expression of this flux of conflicting and resolving ideas as they fired now this and then that nation. Change–dialectical change–was immanent in human affairs. The philosophy of Marx and Engels, “was to take the name of dialectical materialism: dialectical because it incorporated Hegel’s idea of inherent change, and materialism because it grounded itself not in the world of ideas, but on the terrain of social and physical environment. ‘The materialist conception of history,’ wrote Engels many years later “starts from the principle that production, and with production the exchange of its products, is the basis of every social order; that in every society which has appeared in history the distribution of the products, and with it the division of society into classes or estates, is determined by what is produced and how it is produced and how the product is exchanged. According to this conception, the ultimate causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in the minds of men, in their increasing insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought not in the philosophy but in the economic of the epoch concerned.”
“Materialism by itself would reduce ideas to mere passive accompaniments of economic activity. That was not Marx’s contention. For the new theory was dialectical as well as materialist: it envisaged change, constant and inherent change; and in that never-ending flux the ideas emanating from one period would help to shape another. “men make their own history,” wrote Marx. But the dialectical–the changing–aspect of this theory of history did not depend merely on the interplay of ideas and social structures. There was another and far more powerful agent at work. The economic world itself was changing; the ultimate reality on which the structure of ideas was built was itself constantly in flux.
For example, the isolated markets of the Middle Ages began to lock fingers under the impetus of exploration and political unification, and a new commercial world was born. The old hand mill was replaced by the steam mill under the impetus of invention, and a new form of social organization called the factory came into being. In both cases, the ultimate reality of economic life itself changed its form, and as it did, it forced a new social adaptation from the community in which it was imbedded. But the process of social change was not merely a matter of new inventions pressing on old institutions: it was a matter of new classes displacing old ones, for each society is organized into a class structure, into aggregates of men who stand in some common relationship–to the existing form of production. And social change threatens all of that. As the technical conditions of production change–the old classes find that their accustomed situation is changing too; those on top may find the ground cut from under them, while those who were on the bottom may be carried higher….Hence conflict develops. The classes whose position is jeopardized fight the classes whose position is enhanced: the feudal lord fights the rising merchant, and the guild master despises the young capitalist. And what did this theory augur for the present? It pointed to revolution–inevitable revolution. For capitalism, according to this analysis, must also consist of a technical base of economic reality and a superstructure of ideas. And if its technical base was evolving then necessarily, its superstructure must be just to increasing strain. And that is exactly what Marx and Engels saw in 1848. The technical base of capitalism–and its anchor in reality–was industrial production. Its superstructure was the system of private property. The conflict lay in the fact that the two were incompatible. Why? Because industrial production–the actual making of goods–was a highly organized, integrated, interdependent process, whereas private property was the most highly individualist of concepts. Hence the superstructure and the base clashed: factories demanded social planning and private property abhorred it; capitalism had become so complex that it needed direction… The result was that capitalism must destroy itself. Secondly, capitalism would unknowingly breed its own successor. Within its great factories it would not only create the technical base for socialism–mass production–but it would create as well a trained and disciplined class who would be the agents of socialism–the embittered proletariat. By its own inner dynamic, capitalism would produce its own downfall, and in the process, it would nourish its own enemy…For Marx and Engles, the dialectic led to the future and that future, as revealed by the Communist Manifesto, pointed to an inevitable communist revolution which this same dialect would produce….”
The conflict between the needs of the individual and the philosophy of the community over the individual (socialism) is seen in the statement by former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali at the UN Conference on Human Rights in 1993 in Vienna. Referring to human rights, he said, “[it] brings us face to face with the most challenging dialectical conflict ever, between ‘identity’ and otherness, between the ‘myself’ and ‘others.’ Thus the human rights that we proclaim…can be brought about only if we transcend ourselves….to find our common essence beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary differences, our ideological and cultural barriers.” It is the dialectic process which leads to the philosophical changes we are seeing in society and which are evident by the following.
The Hegelian Dialectic is being used and is part of Goals 2000 and Outcome Based Education. It is being used by corporations, churches, seminaries, Christian groups, our government, environmental and pro-abortion non- governmental organizations, the military, and the media. Where does it come from? It originated in the Garden of Eden. The following is taken from an interview with Dean Gotcher. Note: I have freely highlighted the following text.
Joan Veon: Dean, you have been going around the country talking about a process which all Americans need to understand. Could you first tell me a little bit about your background and how you stumbled into what you’re doing now?
Dean Gotcher: Well, I went to college at Christian College to earn a teacher’s degree, not knowing that I was going to be trained in the dialectic process. I was thought I was going to have a traditional education, but in the late 60s there was big movement with Maslow and Rogers and others to move education to the Transformational Dialectic Structure. So, by my senior year I realized that I had to either return to my faith, or go with the process. (Abraham Maslow is the creator of “Maslow’s Hierarchy” which I remember from Psychology 101. Maslow was pro-UN, a World Federalist, a one worlder as he believed the world would not be at peace until nations give up their sovereignty.)
I made that decision to go with the Word of God which meant I not only had to repent of my sin and my rebellion, which is a process I thought had justified for me, but I also had to repent on my teacher training. I then realized I couldn’t teach, I was damaged goods and so I went off to seminary thinking that I would get my head straightened out and my relationship with the Lord was restored. I enjoyed the Greek New Testament. but then we got into higher thinking skills. I studied men like Roff (?) and Wellhousen–intelligent men who decided the Word of God was the result of the dialectic process. Wellhousen’s dying words were “I’ve lost my faith.” So, I realized that ministry was going the way of the Dialectic and I didn’t want to be a part of it. I left, went into construction, and raised my family for several years. I ended up going back to the University where I focused on European history and philosophy. I had one professor who earned his doctorate on how the youth in Germany were restructured for Hitler’s purposes. From him I took every Russian, German, European history class I could. Then I took several classes from a professor that had earned his doctor’s degree on the French Revolution. Did you know contemporary education is built on the dialectic, [which is] the foundation of the French Revolution. Then I took a law class when at Oral Roberts University where John Whitehead taught a constitutional class. We went through 1600 pages of Supreme Court decisions which helped me to understand the foundation our nation was built on. Another class was from a professor who had earned his doctor’s degree from Harvard. We studied the Politburo System in Communist Yugoslavia.
It was not until educational reform came to Oklahoma ten years ago that I realized these classes were not in vain. I saw everything that I was trained in happening before my eyes!
I went back to the university and have read over 600 social psychology books in five years trying to find out for myself what kind of procedure was being used to change our kids and how it was being applied. I reintroduce myself to the dialectic process and its application. Since then I’ve been crossing the country, explaining the procedure of behavior change, how it’s done in the classroom, the workplace, and the political realm including transformational outcome based education, total quality management, and school to work.
Veon: Dean, help me understand what the process is and where you are seeing it in society today?
Gotcher: Well, the process is built on three stages which are more complex than this. There is thesis, which is simple, that’s you and your position and facts based on what you believe. Antithesis is somebody who’s different than you. The moment the two of you who are different are in the same room, there’s a potential relationship there. However, the only way you can get to it is synthesis [agreement in the relationship]. You and the other person have to put aside your differences for the sake of a relationship and try to find facts or elements of your belief systems that are in harmony. That’s socialism. Eventually if that becomes your agenda– the dialectic way of thinking–you have a socialist cosmic mind which puts aside anything that gets in the way of the relationship. That, by the way, means any information that’s introduced that breaks up human relationship is impractical and is irrational. This then is John Dewey’s instrumentalism approach to this process.
[When we look at] the organizations across this nation — it’s more like who’s not involved. It’s so pervasive. [It was] John Dewey who introduced this to our nation to deliver it from its traditional way of thinking back in the 20s and 30s.
Veon: Traditional way of being . . .
Gotcher: Right. Accountability to a higher authority. The patriarchal way means children are to obey their parents. That’s being rejected –its an old fashioned way of thinking. Now it’s partnership and dialoging to consensus. Finding common ground through the use of consensus– that’s synthesis By the way, in a meeting we find that we are to focus in on what we can accept for sake of a relationship. The church is really more troubling to me as far as its involvement in it. The state and the government has been in this process for some time, but the religious community is being pulled into it. I really don’t know if there’s going to be a turn around without God’s direct intervention.
Veon: Give me an example of how the church is being pulled in. What is the church doing that reflects this new type of thinking, the dialectic?
Gotcher: Well, this whole process is built on relationships and the building of relationships. Scripture talks about unity and loving one another. But you need to realize that the Gospel is the Good News. It is not unity, it is not hope, it’s Jesus Christ. And so, the hope of the Gospel is found in Christ. The unity of the Gospel is found in Christ. So, we must look to Christ as the source of our relationship. And so relationship is based upon Him.
Well, what’s happened is that if unity is the objective, with all the different interpretations of who Christ is, you then have to go into the Word of God and find what Scripture has in common with Buddhism, Moslem, and all the other religions of the world. Once you find what you have in common, you then redefine Christ for the sake of a relationship. And so, we’ve turned it around. We have learned to redefine the Gospel for the sale of unity, for the sake of hope, for the sake of peace. God’s not going there. God knows who He is, where He came from, and where He’s going. He’s clearly explained that to us in His Word, the Bible. Let it change us, we can’t go in and change it. And so, that’s what the religious organizations have been pulled into. People go to seminary not knowing that when they go there and take counseling strategies that its not “Adam’s Counseling,” which is Biblical but psychology, sociology, and anthropology. They are learning how to read the Word in order to define God’s Word in changing times. Redefining it for the sake of meeting the felt needs within the community and drawing people in [God does not change].
Well, if you use felt needs, which is our fallen human nature, as your agenda, you have changed your belief system. If your agenda is to bring people to the Lord Jesus Christ, you’re going to proclaim the Law which brings them to realization that they are a sinner. The only way they can have their sins covered is through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ the Messiah. You don’t come to God through feelings, you come to God through facts, through the truth of his Word, the thesis. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” He didn’t say, “I am the feeling.” And so, what ministry and seminaries have done is to teach ministers how to learn the dialectic process for the sake of relationship within the church who then bring it to the church. In their ignorance, the ministers are processing the church using the Hegelian Dialectic.
Veon: Give me an example of what falls under thesis and synthesis and antithesis and how it’s being used in society.
Gotcher: Well, the thesis is the traditional “Thou shalt not” structure. You tell your child, this is right, that’s wrong. And if they do what’s wrong, they’re punished. If they do what’s right, there’s reward. You have taught the difference between evil and good. This is dualism. In other words, if a person behaves incorrectly, they are wrong and if they behave correctly, then they are good. Now, the behavior is based upon God’s standards, His Laws.
Human standards is what psychology and sociology have done in the ministry. It’s not built upon God’s standards. We all fall short of the Glory of God. We’ve all broken those laws. They are not changeable. We can’t justify the changing of them to make them user friendly for the continuation of relationship with mankind and God. We realize the hopelessness of saving ourselves and so we realize that it’s in Christ that we receive our salvation. That’s contrition and that is what is being left out today. Now it’s social sin. It’s bad behavior based upon how we relate with one another. You’re not loving, you’re not tolerant. The primary agenda of Christianity is that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ means you might stand alone. The fact that you and the other person disagree has to be determined by your relationship with Jesus and the Word of God. That is the ground you stand on. You don’t change His law to save a relationship with anyone. That’s compromise, the dialectic process.
The youth ministries are into this. In seminary I took the equivalent of a total quality management course where I learned how to survey the congregation–“what do you think and how do you feel?” The problem is truth is “What do you know. The Word of God IS. We’re accountable to IT, AS IS, NOT HOW DO WE FEEL OR THINK ABOUT IT. And the moment you go into the dialogue [the dialectic process], which now is in Sunday School materials as well–about what do you think and how do you feel–over what is, you are now allowing the child to be a scientist on God–to question the authority of God’s Word, instead of looking at it as is, and saying, “Okay, I don’t understand it, Lord reveal it to me.” This has to be what we do instead of gaging how we think and feel.
But, instead we want to impress others, and so we say, “Well I feel and I think,” using this to fill up our void of not understanding. We think and therefore we produce our own doctrine and our belief. The problem is that our beliefs are then based on our feelings and not the Word of God or a faith that the Lord knows the answer. And so, there’s somebody else who has a different “I think and I feel” and so we have all these diversities. The only way we can really resolve this bickering and complaining is that we go back to the Word of God and study it [in light of] our disagreements with “I feel and I think” which means, both of us, if you and I disagree, have to go back to the Word of God. We are going to have to admit that and that we really don’t know what it means, but it’s there and we are accountable to it. And, that’s where faith is involved. Otherwise, we make faith a tool to be changed to our human understanding, then using the dialectic, to change it to meet our felt needs for the sake of a relationship. The agenda that the Berean church revealed to Paul, was that they weren’t hung up on Paul. They weren’t hung up on a relationship. They were hung up on truth. So when the Apostle Paul shared the Gospel, they went to the Word of God and checked him out. Try that with ministers today and they’ll get bent out of shape because you’re not knowledgeable to question their “I think and I feel.” Pastors need to be questioned on what they know, not what they feel or think.
Theology students drive me nuts because they say “Jesus is a team builder.” I say, “Wait a minute. No, He wasn’t a team builder. Everyone of those disciples could stand on their own. They didn’t need the group to make a decision. They died alone as martyrs. They realized there wasn’t a group grade on the day of judgement. They didn’t say, “I think and I feel.” You don’t find that in their ministry. They saw the truth and proclaimed it. They encouraged us through their work to continue to proclaim the truth.” Jesus’ ministry was not built on “I think and I feel.” It was built on “I know.”
Veon: Dean, we are seeing a change in America. Many people cannot define what the change is. Can you bring this change down to what has really happened and the kind of process that has occurred in America to bring about the change that we feel but don’t know how to identify or even to counteract.
Gotcher: Well, there’s several avenues that change took place in. It started, certainly, before the social psychologists hit in the 60s. [There was] Robert Havighurst. He was concerned about the church becoming user friendly –by bringing it over to the dialectic process to find social harmony with the world, [the church] wouldn’t become an instrument of division, but an instrument of harmony. [Then came] Paul Tillick who taught ministers that the dialectic is foundational to ministry for the sake of relationship because the dialectic is concerned with cosmic one world unity. Unfortunately, that’s the direction the church is going which is to find harmony with the religions of the world. To do that, they have to redefine the world of God to make the dialectic work.
A lot of religious organizations are now involved: Willowcreek in Chicago and Saddleback in California. I’ve talked to people who go to Saddleback and they think it’s wonderful. But, they don’t understand the procedure because they’re into “feelings” and “I think” instead of “I know.” Yes, they use Scripture, but they’re using the process. You can’t use this process because it’s not a Godly process. God is Thesis. He doesn’t question Himself. He doesn’t see Himself as obverse and He doesn’t come to consensus with obverse.
Unfortunately the seminaries and colleges have been involved in this process for a long time. I ran into it in the early 70s in seminary. 100 years prior to that, Grof and Wellhousen, two very intelligent men decided the Word of God evolved. They called it the JDPE Hypothesis. Looking at the different sources that developed the Word of God, instead of looking at it as is. Today the Church Growth Ministry is fully involved in partnership, in relationship building, in ice breaker exercises which produces the unfreezing which Kurt Lewin talked about. The synthesis–getting you to share with somebody else who’s different than you. Getting into “I think and I feel” mode of conversation. And then there’s the moving–of the changing of the person which is the dialoguing. You do not dialogue the Word of God, you preach and teach it. You dialogue what you’re not sure about. And then you refreeze, because decisions are made upon the consensus of the relationship of the group, rather than a decision based upon what the word of God says, is. We need to get the Greek New Testament out if we really want to do some digging and exercise our minds on exactly what the Word of God says rather than using the vague language of “I think and I feel.”
The evangelism, church growth and counseling training manuals are all based on the feelings mode, the effective domain, not the cognitive, not the fact. We have a lot of separation and divorce in our society. It’s actually been the result of the breakdown of our society that the moral character that it used to have, because it was built on the integrity and the Authority of God’s Word. We have gone to the vagueness, the ambiguity, the tolerance of human, fallen human nature within the church. So now ministers don’t call adultery sin, they call it “bad behavior.” I just wonder how many women a man’s going to go through in an adulteress relationship before he finally overcomes this “bad behavior.”
Veon: What you’re really saying is that they have taken the Word of God, which is the thesis and which is correct behavior according to the Word of God, and have completely changed it to make it the antithesis so that it’s whatever feels good, and that’s where you rationalize, What you have done is you have freed yourself from the thesis.
Gotcher: Yes. Well, actually the thesis, the Word of God is. That’s what thesis is, the “I know.” The antithesis is relationship. So, if you’re into the Word of God, spouting the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not), you’re going to be called judgmental because you’re going to break up a relationship with somebody else [because they believe different from the Word of God]. And, so the only way you can have a relationship with this other person is to not explain the part of the Word where you disagree. We are learning to pick and choose what Scripture to use and extrapolate so that we can continue this relationship. Extrapolation is what has happened in the church. Scripture being left out and it’s being redefined.
Now, people in the church sense something’s wrong. Their Spirit is picking up that something’s wrong but they don’t know what it is. It is what is being removed from the Scriptures which can cause division within the family. Look at Focus on the Family. What is it doing? It is looking at one issue and saying, “Let’s put aside all the other issues and focus on one issue.” This means that when diversity shows up, you put aside the “cannots” that offend one another. Focus on one issue and you’re into the synthesis of the dialectic process! This is what’s happened with the Billy Graham Association. By focusing on one issue, ministers come together from diverse backgrounds, thesis/antithesis. Put aside the differences of folks on one issue, and what do you have? You have just taken all the ministers into the dialectic synthesis process.
Veon: All right, so where does the dialectic come from, and what large organization do we see it being used in today?
Gotcher: Well, it has a history. George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is noted for 1820s for what is now known as the “Hegelian Dialectic.” Hegel picked it up from (name of expert) who picked it up from the Jesuit school he was involved in it.
It goes back to Gnosticism and Gnosticism comes from Cabalism. Cabalism goes all the way back to Babylonia, and eventually back to the Garden where Eve participated in the process. Satan used a neurolinguistic phrase on her, “Yea, has God not said”– experts don’t know whether the sentence ended with a period or question mark. That kind of a phrase always produces or exposes dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is always present when you have a “cannot.” When somebody tells you cannot do something, it might not bother you at the time, but later on when you run up to that cannot and you want to do it, you are dissatisfied. So, that’s free will. God had to do that in order for Adam and Eve and all of us to have free will.
Well, now she’s given this neurolinguistic phrase and responds with her dissatisfaction. She could not touch the tree. Sure, she responded with facts, but she added feelings to dissatisfaction. Then Satan says, as a master facilitator, “You can put aside God’s ‘cannot.’ You won’t be held accountable. You won’t die.” That’s a lie and she believed it. Then she looked at the tree–it’s good for food. That’s thesis. That’s for you individually. It’s pleasing to the eyes. That’s relationship–the antithesis. And it will make one wise, that’s synthesis. That’s your ability of justifying why you should be able to do what you feel like doing instead of doing what somebody else has told you to do. And so Eve did the dialectic process right there at the tree. If you want to know how new the New Age is, that’s how new the New Age is. That’s New Age. It’s been put in intellectual form — Bloom’s Taxonomies (Benjamin S. Bloom, David R. Krathwohl, & Bertram B. Masia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational goals. Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman, 1956) are structured on the dialectic for global consumption.
Veon: What you are really saying is that the Garden of Eden and the whole process that Satan used in the Garden of Eden is really being used world wide–its the dialectic process. Specifically in America, and then of course, globally. You haven’t said it yet, but it’s being used at the United Nations, is it not?
Gotcher: Right. Physically we are outside the Garden, but today we’re still recycling this very same process. It’s the fallen human nature. What social psychologists found out is that our fallen human nature is common to all mankind around the world. So, if you want to have consensus on a world basis, one world unity, then you build on what we all have in common. This is what the dialectic is and so therefore the UN. Bloom’s cognitive domains are foundational to the development of life long learning which came out of the UN. Periken and others worked in the 60s. UNESCO and the desire for global unity — they knew that sovereignty had to cease and they had to convince people that the borders prevented us from developing relationships on a global scale. I call this “border language.” If a person lives in the middle of a country they are patriarchal to the most part. It’s the people who live on the border — they develop relationships with people across the border, and yet they know that if their country goes to war with this other country, they’re on the border and their friends are going to face the wrath of the other country. And so, they develop this “border language” which is a “synthesis” language. Well, that’s what these folks want to do — produce a global “synthesis border language” where if you live on the borders, then there’s no sovereignty anymore. It’s relationship with those who are different than you that becomes so important that you will be willing to compromise your sovereignty, your principles of your nation for the sake of continuing relationship with those people who are different than you.
And so, the dialectic comes in and it teaches the children, and transformational outcome-based education, total quality management in the workplace. It teaches the worker how to not be concerned with sovereignty and borders, but relationships across those borders. That’s why NAFTA and GATT and all these things were developed for our nation. To destroy our sovereignty and to weaken our borders so that relationship could be developed across these borders. So that eventually the method of solving work problems would be the same in Canada and in Mexico.
The same with the military. I have a questionnaire from the military which Marines and F16 pilots were asking me about. They said, “We have to fill out this questionnaire. And it asks in question 45 if the U.S. government were to pass a law whereby all citizens had to hand in their guns, and only keep sporting guns, would I be willing, as a soldier, to go in and shoot an American if they refuse to turn in their guns?”
Well, then as I read this survey, I found the first ten or twelve questions dealt with U.S. extra-curricular activity–troops being used for drug prevention, disaster relief, those kinds of things. And then, all of a sudden, the questions switch over to the UN. The troops used to do the same thing with UN. Finally question 39 asks, “Would you agree, disagree, mostly disagree, or have no opinion that the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has the right to turn his authority over to the Secretary General of the UN?” This question is being asked of our military today, with our Commander in Chief sitting in the White House. A treasonist statement.
And then by the time you get to question 44, it’s all UN. Question 44 is, “Would you be willing to swear your allegiance to the United Nations?” And then after that has been determined, the next question is, “Would you be willing to go into an American home knowing that you might kill an American?” To know that this is the structure our UN is directly in control of our military through our Commander in Chief sitting in the White House. The important thing with all of this is that this is the dialectic process. It delivers a person from accountability, or higher authority. It delivers you from sovereignty, from nationalism, from patriotism.
The dialectic process destroys all sovereignty. The UN has worked very hard to go into all the nations of the world, coming to help them with their food needs, the children, the medical, that has simply been a front, a tool that they could use to go in and restructure, destroy the patriarchal home structure to move it to a matriarch structural relationship based structure. The UN has had 600 wars. They have not won one. And yet they have. Every nation that has been under the UN influence in war situation, when the UN eventually pulls back, their matriarch in structure, that patriarchal structure has been destroyed.
Veon: I interviewed the President of Ghana, Jerry Rawlings. He has voiced on several occasions, even before the United Nations General Assembly, the problem with what happens when the United Nations pays soldiers–like they do in Ghana and these third world countries where they are all starving — so if they can’t get a job cutting the bush down, if they can be a mercenary, then they can earn money as a UN soldier. But the problem is that so many have been killed, that the kids are fatherless, and the country is now in worse shape than it was. And Jerry Rawlings has asked the UN over and over again for money, for some of the peacekeeping money to feed the starving children of Africa, and they refuse. And you’re right, they’ve taken the father out through death, and mama now is in charge and it becomes that matriarchal society.
Gotcher: Right. The ultimate agenda is to destroy a patriarch mind. That is the mind that actually will go to war for a principle. For example in 1967 divorce was made easy. I’ve read social psychology books that talk about how that was a good thing since the son is now raised under the mother and will not be introduced to the authority structure of the father. The son, then, is a softened matriarch interpretation of the next father. He really doesn’t know how to function as a Godly authority structure with love in his home. That way, according to these folks, that means we’re not going to have war any more.
The UN is involved in this. It comes down to the community through the local Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber gets its direction from the International Chamber of Commerce which has special recognition at the UN. Unfortunately, the Chamber presidents don’t know this. Most of them are good local folks who want to help their community. The dialectical school-to-work and educational reform have come in through the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, and a lot of other organizations. At these organizations the businessmen meet without realizing they are fully involved in the dialoging to consensus process. For example in a home I was visiting, while I was speaking to the hostess, her husband was have a discussion with the school-to-work coordinator who was helping to explain to the local business men how they were going to be socialized in the new global economy.
How all of this socialization has worked in the United States is through the training labs which were started in the 40s. The social change agents realized that they had to go into the communities to get control of the administrators. Send them for training and bring them back so they would know how to process the teachers and parents in the community. One of the major books on this is Human Relations in Curriculum Change. Once you had the schools, you then went to the parents and the community. School-to-work is the political end of this whole thing because the school developed the dialectic mind in the transformational outcome-based education classroom and in the work place total quality management, or ISO’s International Standards Organization.
Well, in the United States the school-to-work program worked out by Ralph Tyler, a favorite of the socialists. He laid out the “Soviet Structure.” According to George Lucas(?), Soviet is when the public and the private sector are in a facilitated meeting. Mikhail Gorbachev’s philosophical foundation is that of a Transformational Marxist. The private sector is when you tell your workers they had better do the job your way or they won’t get a paycheck. When you go into a public sector, you get into the partnership [arrangement] which means you have just given up the private sector structure. What you have really done is you have gone into the Politburo–the Soviet Structure which is dialoguing to consensus with a diverse group of people. That means you find what the group has in common through disisfaction over social issues.
The following are built on the Soviet Structure: outcome- based education in the classroom, total quality management in the workplace, total quality leadership in the military, the DARE program for the police, HMOs for the medical profession, holistic nursing, psychodynamic nursing, ministries and ministers alliance. Now, when you have your laws being developed, promoted, implemented and enforced by the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare and Labor, which have instituted the same Soviet Structure–a diverse group dialoguing to consensus, which is the “Politburo Structure.” That’s what I saw nine years ago when educational reform came to Oklahoma!
Veon: You talk about the “Soviet Process.” What you are saying, in effect, is that the whole thinking and the whole mind set of communism is based on the dialectic process and that is what has been introduced into America to the extent that it is being used on every wave length possible. Our whole social being has been Sovietized. We have basically come over from a Republic to Communism and we haven’t woken up to the fact that we are now a communist state!
Gotcher: RIGHT. The media had to be controlled first. Paul Lazarsfeld from Columbia University worked on radio communications. He made sure that no radio or TV station would produce one ideal. While you could find a position which supported the patriarchal way of thinking, it was along with diversity. The patriarch was the thesis, the diversity was the antithesis which would then force you to dialogue–to try to find consensus in the relationship of diversity. This is the Hegelian Dialectic. So I really contend if God has degrees in Hell, some hotter than the other, the hottest place should be reserved for the news media. From journalism you learn the dialectic process. The news does not come on without a diverse group of people–the journalists–getting together, dialoguing to consensus over social issues in a facilitated meeting. On Saturday’s you can turn on T.V. and watch “The McLaughlin Group” or “Inside Washington.” What the social psychologists knew when they came here, was they had to produce hegemony. Now, we use to have patriarchal hegemony. In other words, if your child went and played with the neighbors kids and they misbehaved, those parents would come out and say “Well I know how your parents would want you to behave” and then they would do some disciplining. Because there was this common patriarchal relationship within the community. Well, now we’ve gone to hegemony in a dialectic world which means your child, who you believe should behave a particular way can misbehave with another child whose parents are in the dialectic process. Their response is that the misbehaved behavior is normal because in a transformational way, deviancy is the norm.
Well, hegemony means that this is going on everywhere. Well, if the news media is doing it, the police are doing it, because that’s a DARE program, the military’s doing it, the medical profession’s doing it, day care centers are doing it, nursing homes are doing it, and everything in between.
I called a professor friend of mine as a result of all the research I was doing to ask him if I was paranoid and if I was pushing this so hard that I was actually creating it. He gave me some wise counsel. He said, “Dean, you’re not paranoid if there really is somebody behind every tree. If you see the dialectic everywhere, it is everywhere.”
Veon: So, what we have here is that when Americans think that the Communist Revolution only happened in Russia in 1918, it was really just birthed in 1918. It has come around the world, and we as Americans, have been caught up in this process. Our church has been watered down, our kids are being programmed and our government now looks at people who support the American flag, and those people who are patriots as the criminal.
Gotcher: Right. They are the extremists. They are over reacting. They are not tolerant for the sake of social harmony. Now, there’s a difference between Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism. If you talk to Marxists, they will tell you, “We don’t study history, we make history.” Well, the dialectic is historical. They want it to continue flowing, because it is always making history.
The historical materialistic and the dialectic materialist are at odds with one another. The Tiennamen Square issue which we thought was a struggle between democracy versus communism, was a struggle between Traditional Marxism versus Transformational Marxism. The fighting in the Soviet Union is not a struggle between democracy versus communism. It was a struggle to make the world safe for Transformational Marxism which is a “Diverse group of people dialoguing to consensus over social issues in a facilitated meeting” versus Traditional Marxism which says, “You do it my way, or bang you’re dead.”
Veon: So, what we have is Gorbachev as the Transformational Marxist and perhaps, Primakov, Yeltsin’s replacement, the hardliner, as the Traditional Marxist.
Gotcher: Right. Now I haven’t followed those in detail, but they consider Transformational Marxists as anybody who would lead a nation with “This is the way to do it. I know this is the way to do it.” Their agenda is to take Marxism around the world, never allowing it to become rigid– tied to any one nation or any one organization. All nations are to be interconnected. And what interconnects us is what we could find in common. The human agenda is the purpose for our interconnectedness. When it came to organizations, they said they could help with the human relationships in your organization. We bought into it not knowing–we just heard the big print up front, without reading the small print which included communism with it. As traditional Americans, we really weren’t prepared for this. [JV: This is why it doesn’t make any difference when the UN has a meeting between the Chinese, Russians, French, Columbian, Israeli, or South African communists/Marxists. They are all interconnected through Transformational Marxism!]
Veon: President Roosevelt was not the American that many people think he was, was he?
Gotcher: Well, no. He met with J. L. Moreno, a Marxist, in the early twenties. The Tennessee Valley Authority was actually the development of the Soviets in a primitive form getting the workers to get in a diverse group and have them to dialogue. It didn’t work very well, but they had to start some where. [Today, the] Army Corps of Engineers [is] directly involved now in the environmental issue with water rights. And so, when you get into water rights you get into Maritime Law. By the way, that means you are guilty until proven innocent. Lots of things are changing. The way problems are identified and solved is no longer from a “traditional, unalienable rights” position based on our Constitution. You don’t need a counselor, social psychologist, or a Marxist to help you to clarify what’s really going on. Change means that civil rights and human rights have to be redefined as the times change. Eventually there is going to be a global tax on the environment which will deliberately destroy private property. You will not have right to your property. You have a title– that’s what you’re paying for today. The agenda is take the property away by consensus. You see, I don’t have to take your children away. I don’t have to take your money away. All I do is get you into consensus and I now have your children, your money, your property, your parks. When you have government come in to protect your children, to protect your property, to protect your parks, to protect your money, eventually it will protect your children, and your parks and your land and your money from you.
Veon: People are being manipulated all over the place. Here in Maryland they passed two bills in 1997 called “Smart Growth” and “Rural Legacy” which basically is the United Nations biodiversity agenda where people will be told where they can live and where they can’t live. But in getting people to accept this agenda, or to use a similar example, my hometown Racine Wisconsin was recently named a “Sustainable City.” And, as such, in order to get the people to participate, the powers that orchestrated this movement set up “visioning meetings” in which they got a diverse group of people together from all walks of life– community leaders, school teachers, factor workers, businessmen–to talk about what they didn’t like and what they want to change. You now tell me this is the Dialectic Process, i.e. the Soviet Process which is to get them to come to a point where they’ve given up their individuality and their rights.
Gotcher: Right. They look for the hot button–what kind of dissatisfaction everybody has in common on an issue–say the environment. Once they find that common dissatisfaction, they can then guarantee consensus. That’s the experience then of the dialectic. They want people to feel good about dialectic process. They solved a crisis, common dissatisfaction. [JV: This is what the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum does. They hold these kind of meetings all over the world. Please refer to my book, Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince, available for a gift of $14.00 from The Women’s Group, Inc.] The environment is the greatest of issue because these people really believe we should be in harmony with the cosmos, a cosmic oneness. [JV: Gaia.]
There’s a paranoia with this. You see, if you study Demming, the last stage is his “Transformation Stage.” Well, they have a butterfly coming out the cocoon. Well, no you can’t have a butterfly, we don’t know what it is because we’re in a state of transformation. If you know what it is then you can engineer it. We’re discovering. We don’t know what it is. So you’re in this cocoon. Now, a caterpillar, before he goes into a cocoon, he’s got an ability of generating energy. He’s got resources out there he can feed off of. Well, the butterfly usually can too, after it comes out of the cocoon. But when you’re in a cocoon you’re limited in your resources.
So, these are paranoid people. They’re in the cocoon, they’re in a state of transformation. They’re desperate to get out of the cocoon. Because, if they can’t get everybody transformed and they’re in a cocoon, they’re going to run out of resources, which adds to the paranoia. Sadly, they don’t understand the paranoia that is within them. With regard to the resources, that is why their emphasis is on controlling the resources, to prevent people from consuming them. Look at the oil crisis we had in the 60s, or I think maybe early 70s. Artificially produced. It was an illusion. We have followed an illusion and we have had crisis after crisis (the antithesis–creating the problem) from the ozone and fluorocarbon illusion. All this is coming from the UN. The UN has been responsible for more deaths around the world, even though they say they’re out for world health, they’re not. They are responsible for the destruction of the moral character of society so that there is more bloodshed in their trail than before they arrived. In fact there was a book published a few years ago dealing with the murders, that nation’s leaders have done to their own people. There’s an estimation of some 250 million people have died alone at the hands of the leaders in the dialectic process in this century alone. This has been a bloody century and it has been a result of the dialectic process. 1848 was the catalyst. That’s where Marx went down to Frankfurt, Germany. World War I and World War II were triggered by the dialectic process. This fallen human nature is the rejection of Godly restraint and accountability to higher authority. These people are always blaming somebody else for all the atrocities that they are accountable for so they can perpetuate this dialectic process. These folks are intoxicated. They are drunk in this process and they want the world to become drunk in it. That justifies their behavior. And, the Scriptures actually give us a response to all of this, Romans 12:3.
A friend of mine asked me, “What is the opposite word for ‘dialectic’?” I didn’t know. He called me a couple weeks later and said, “Well, I found it in the Word of God. The Scripture says, ‘Be sober.’ –don’t think more highly of yourself than you ought.” That’s the dialectic. The justification is ‘I’m important, so I can justify what I’m doing.’ Then sobriety. God gives us sobriety. A sober person is one who can see the whole situation. See, it’s God’s point of view. It’s not our point of view. The Word of God is God’s point of view. He gives us sobriety. He’s the only One who can give us a true perspective on the world situation. If you go dialectic, you’re drunk. You’re intoxicated in the world system and you are going to follow an illusion. The fear of this life is going to drive you. The world today is being driven by fear. The Bible says, “God has not giving us that spirit of fear, but of power, love and a sound mind.” The Word of God has given us warning over and over in regards to the dialectic process. David wrote, “Thy word, (a fact) have I hid my heart that I might not sin against thee. ” Because the dialectic process deals with the lust of the flesh–that’s individual lust of the eyes; and relationship, the pride of life–that’s the justifying ability we all have within us.
I don’t have to tell the next generation not to believe in God. All I have to do is teach the next generation how to think dialectic and they won’t believe in God because they are always going to question who God is. I see a generation coming down the road running on the same course as the New World Order that will worship man the creation, and not the Creator.
Veon: Dean, what we’ve really been talking about in all of this is spiritual warfare. You said at the beginning that it really started in the Garden of Eden. What we’re really discussing is how the spiritual warfare is being manifested all around us in society, philosophically, emotionally, physically, the pride of life, the lust of the eye. This is really what we’re talking about and where it leads us is to complete bondage to a global feudalistic system.
Gotcher: If you think about it, what is an animal? It’s a beast. The dialectic turns a man who fears God into an animal which fears man. If animals are supposed to fear man, and that’s what God did after the flood, they put the fear of man in the animals. And if you fear man, you’re no different than an animal. Then B.F. Skinner can work on you like he did his rats and Pavlov can work on you like he did his dogs and Thorndike can work on you like he did his chickens. That’s the dialectic. It treats you as a human resource, something within the creation. God has not created us that way. Sure, we’re cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor, but we are also spiritual and we are accountable to His laws. Outside of the creation, Jesus said this world is not His kingdom. He is going to return and judge this world for its dialectic process and deliver those who refuse to participate in this process and hold him as the way, the truth and the life. And that’s really what I’m doing across the country is encouraging everybody to put on the whole armor of God. Those who know the Lord to serve and to obey Him. Those who don’t know Him to come to know him. Because, He is not dialectic. He delivers us from dialectic. That’s what repentance is. We won’t do this justifying anymore. And, what I see is the beast. Why will the world follow the beast? Because they will be thinking like an animal. They will be thinking like the beast and so they will have everything in common with the beast. They will have sold their soul. You can buy and sell souls with this process because your job and your children and everything else, your self respect and esteem is now more important than obedience to God. If you don’t deny yourself before the Lord and walk personally, have a personal relationship with Him, you’re subject to this process. We’re born into it and it is God and His word and the personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ that can only get us out. There is no other name under Heaven whereby we must be saved. God knows what He is talking about. He has given us the answers and we need to turn back to Him on an individual basis and find the truth that will deliver us from this dialectic process.
Veon: Please explain the Hindu, Zen Buddhism and Eastern line of thinking versus the Judeo Christian form of thinking.
Gotcher: Well, it’s prevalent within the total quality management and transformational outcome-based education. William Glasser, in Glasser schools all over the country, he talks about it in his stations of the mind, he said the tenth station is like Zen. Except, in Zen you focus on one thing. What we’re going to do is focus on nothing and simply listen to the motor run. This is the kind of insanity that is developing the next mind within our education system.
The Hindu structure — if you go into total quality management and you look at the training manuals, the guru language, the occult language is all within the inner circle of the team building process. So, the language is out there. That’s why the occult is coming in behind it. It’s the occult structure.
Veon: The process is the occult’s structure?
Gotcher: Richard Bandler in Changing with Families, he had a book prior to that called The Structure of Magic. He has a poem in the middle of that by a sorcerer. He says the sorcerer must “silence the voice,” [those who don’t agree with the agenda] must silence the dialogue. Now, the dialogue is when you show up in a meeting with your principles. How does the facilitator get you to put your principles aside to work with the group? He has to silence the voice, the dialogue. Because you’re sitting there thinking, “No–I don’t agree, this is not what I believe to be right.” So, you’re dialoguing with yourself of what you can or cannot do based upon those standards you walked in the room with. And so, the sorcerer, once he silences the dialogue you have with your conscience, he can then move you into the process. Remember Eve.
Whenever I share across the country, and there are people within the deliverance ministry, they come up and say, well you just explained what we are dealing with. Well, it’s dialectic. I call Bloom’s Taxonomies since it is the very same structure that Satan did to Eve in the Garden, pure dialectic in their structure. I call them secularized Satanism, intellectualized witchcraft. And they are. And that’s troubling, not that the world’s using it, but because Christian institutions, teachers, Christian teachers are being grounded on it. Counseling is being grounded on it and so what’s happening is that they are picking and choosing the Scriptures that will cover the agenda, thus seducing, deceiving and manipulating souls into participation and this awful process which guarantees that those souls will be damned forever. End of Interview
The above was provided so that you may have an answer for every situation you find yourself in. I leave you with the following Scripture and song:
“We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted but not forsaken; down cast, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. (II Cor. 4:8-10)
“Am I a solider of the Cross,”
“Am I a solider of the cross, A follower of the Lamb? And shall I fear to own his cause, Or blush to speak his name?
Must I be carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease, While others fought to win the prize, And sailed through bloody seas?
Are there no foes for me to face? Must I not stem the flood? Is this vile world a friend to grace, To help me on to God?
Sure I must fight if I would reign; Increase my courage, Lord! I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain, Supported by thy Word.”
THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC IS A “PARADIGM SHIFT” IN SOCIETY AND CULTURE
(Christian world view)
I OUGHT TO”
|EXTERNALA Higher Authority||INTERNALSelf-Relationships|| REASONING
|Position of strengthbased on Truth (Thesis).|| “Pain Zone”
Do you hold to your principles OR
Do you go with the crowd?
|A “Fallen State” Changed Values as a result of
|Transformational Marxism Seduce Deceive Manipulate
Don’t Tell Create
Where Crisis to
They Are Get to Going CHANGE
The above chart is from Institution for Authority Research and
has been modified with notes from Dean’s lectures by Joan Veon.