|
|
|
| Whatever
got you here, please take some time to read this information or, bookmark
it for later.
U. N. WATCH
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC
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.
INTERVIEW
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
The above chart is from Institution for Authority Research and has been modified with notes from Dean's lectures by Joan Veon. |