Memahami Bagaimana Dialektika Hegel Mentransformasikan Dunia Kedalam Tata Dunia Baru

(UNDERSTANDING HOW THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC IS TRANSFORMING THE WORLD TO BRING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER)
Bagian Kesatu
U. N. WATCH
THE WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL MEDIA GROUP, INC.
"Helping you to connect the Global to the Local"
301/570-7525 P. O. Box 630 Olney, MD 20830 301/774-3339

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.

Lanjut: The dialectic process destroys all sovereignty

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Comments (0) add comment