How An Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (church) Silences a Dissenting Movement Using Hegelian Dialectic Thinking

Pacing the Opposition

When an ecclesiastical hierarchy wants to silence a dissenting movement, dialectical praxis is often the weapon of choice. For one thing, many dissenters are simple-minded, honest-hearted people, who, when they run up against the dialectic, they are dumbfounded. For one thing, when the hierarchy starts to lay out its case, it will present the thesis, which is what the dissenter believes in heart and soul. The reaction of the dissenters is, “Wonderful!”

The Catatonic Paralysis Shock of Antithesis

Then the hierarchy’s argument shifts to the antithesis, the opposite position from the thesis, and the simple-minded, straight-thinking dissenter, whose mind is not trained in this kind of subtlety, throws up his hands and goes into a catatonic state: “I thought they were on our side, now look at this!” he says in disbelief and moral paralysis.

The Relief Offer of the Compromise Resolution of Synthesis

Then a synthesis of the thesis and antithesis is presented, and the poor, honest-hearted dissenter, seeing ultimate disaster if the antithesis is accepted, seeing utter rejection and scorn ahead if he resists, thankfully accepts the synthesis, a compromise, for he sees elements of what he had hoped for, though it has just as much of what he abhors.

The Switch That Numbs the Mind

The Inducement of the Catatonic State of Moral Paralysis

Dr. Gotcher, commenting on this phenomenon of catatonic paralysis writes: “Hegel’s dialectic was the cause fro two world wars and many wars between and since. One historian recently stated that, during this [20^th] century, all governments that used this process combined have been responsible for the killing of more than 250,000,000 of their own citizens…

The Switch That Freezes Responses

“Somewhere within the process there lies a switch that confuses men’s minds, numbs their feelings, and freezes their responses. Aware that something is gaining control over them and not able to explain or define what it is, they are unable to develop any response that will stop the process. This trigger shuts off man’s awareness of impending danger (past history or depth history; depth perception [note: look at the denial of the Jews during the Holocaust]) and freezes his ability to resist the process (indecision). The numbness one experiences comes from the fear of potential alienation and loss of respect because of the inability to explain the differences between what one says he believes (black and white) and what he does or desires to do (gray zone). This produces feelings that are not based on God’s Word, but that are instead based upon the fear of losing respect in the eyes of others. This kind of fear prevents one from making an immediate or effective response. [Note: This is the catatonic state induced by the dialectic.]  This fear is not from God, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” 2 Timothy 1:7.

“No one who has boarded this train has found brakes on it. History has shown us that once this train gets rolling, there is no stopping to get off. Rescue can only come from someone outside, at much cost to all. We had to rescue Europe from this train twice, by wrecking it. If we get on board, who can rescue us? And at what cost?” –Dr Dean Gotcher, The Dialectic & Praxis: Diaprax and the End of the Ages. Tulsa: LAR, 1996, p. 10.

Each Dialectical Stage Builds on the Previous One

Then another meeting is scheduled for later, in which the same process occurs, the hopes are raised with the thesis, which is in reality the new synthesis, then dashed with the antithesis, the person goes into a catatonic state again, and while spiritually paralyzed, a solution is offered-namely the new synthesis. Thus each time these Fabian tactics wear down the dissenter a little bit more, until he finally gives up and goes along without resisting.

From Discipleship to Pantheism

Dialectical praxis is designed to take a person who believes in obeying God by faith, and, moving him through various psychological stages, re-educate his conscience, until he ends up as a practical pantheist, accepting every form of perversion there is, in the name of unity with the group.

If you could save your souls, your families, your home churches, you must understand the nature of what you are facing with dialectical praxis, for it is a blast right out of the bottomless pit (Revelation 11), a mind-bending technique that has crumpled nations, churches, and all before it—and you must become a skilled warrior in the Lord to resist it if you would win eternal life.

You Are Not Amenable to Any Man. You are Amenable to God.

Beware of putting church “unity” above a conscience bound to the Word, for this is a fruitful field for those utilizing dialectical praxis. Dialectical praxis subjugates conscience to the authority of the “group” instead of a conscience subject to God alone. “You are not amenable to any man. You are amenable to God.” GCW, GCB, 4-5-01. Never, never, never, allow your conscience to be stifled, mocked, or snuffed out by peer pressure, by pressure for “unity,” or by being attacked for being “unloving” because you hold to moral absolutes on conviction.

The Process of Dialectical Praxis

Here is Diaprax in a nutshell, revealed by Dr. Dean Gotcher, who read over 600 socio-psychology books, written by more than 250 authors, developed from the perspective of those who are trained in it. Night after night, the Lord woke him up with insight after insight at two or three o’clock in the morning. “The answers came from God’s Word,” Gotcher writes, “in fact, this work is nothing more than a confirmation of that Word. His Word clearly reveals the process being used today to remove our desire to trust and obey Him and His Word.” –Dean Gotcher, The Dialectic & Praxis: Diaprax and the End of the Ages, Acknowledgements. After this, we will examine critical elements of this diabolical process.

Diaprax in a Nutshell

(A look at the strategy of the other side to destroy conscience)

(Based on Dr. Dean Gotcher, “Diaprax”)

Thesis Interrogation: “Unfreezing” the person from the Thesis [faith in the authority of God]

Position: Identify person’s source for needs satisfaction. [Note: Pastors in training are taught to identify people’s “felt needs.”]

“What do you think about…? “How do you feel about…?”

Definition: Discover the source of one’s dissatisfaction-Higher Authority. [Note: This is tantamount to Satan’s words, “Yea, hath God said?…]

“Could you explain that further?” “What do you mean by…?”

Choice-Defend your position based on higher authority’s definitions and cause social disharmony (alienation-negative) or redefine your position to build social harmony (belongingness-positive.)

Realization: Maladjustment is when one defends their position with pre-set definitions which cause social disharmony. “How do you think you arrived at that view?” “Why do you think you feel that way?” “Have you considered the alternatives?” In other words, ‘Can’t you think for yourself?’

Antithesis Dialogue: ‘Moving’: (Environment-Group Dynamics)

Negation of Negation: Putting aside pre-set standards (‘Thou shalt not’) in a diverse group produces an environment of equality of opportunity where everyone can discover their full ‘group think,’ socialist potential.

“How might this be approached in another way?” “What are the alternatives to your position?” (What would happen if you refused to participate?)

Chaos: Learning to accept the Gray Zone of the super-ego for the sake of belonging. ‘Most agree…..Most disagree.’ Learning how to redefine your position in changing times for the sake of group acceptance and social harmony.

“What might be the result if…?” “What effect might that have on…?” “What are the consequences?”

Mediation: Evaluation is non-scientific in that it is controlled by the fear of the loss of group approval. One cannot evaluate through compromise based upon fear of social rejection. ‘Is’ has become clouded with ‘should.’ “Which is best? Right? Most desirable? Most functional? Most practical?” “Why”

Synthesis Decision: ‘Refreezing’ (Life-long learning-Reinventing truth)

Determination: The individual is now a change agent, determined to help others into the process so he can justify his compromise while developing relationships with them. All who practice the dialectic are out to convert everyone they meet, neutralizing those who resist, and work to remove those who have any type of authority who threaten or attack the process.

Necessity: The group members no longer see themselves subject to any higher authority who attempts to resolve social issues with an ‘I know’ attitude. In fact the social crisis no longer is the issue to be solved but is instead to be used to bring the traditional thinking person into the group think process. Traditional thinking is now the social crisis which needs to be solved for it is not readily adaptable to social change and produces social maladjustment.

Causation: No longer is ‘First Cause’ a higher authority, such as God, parents, the Laws of Nature (true science), the Laws of the Land, but now society is the first cause. Therefore, one’s concern is ‘What will the group (society) think?’ When you meet a ‘Group Think’ individual and present him with Truth and facts, if he does not have the group there to put pressure on you (group dynamics) he will ‘glass over’ to protect himself from you, the truth, and the need to repent of his use of this process.

Dr. Dean Gotcher, Diaprax. Institute for Authority Research.

Dialectical Praxis at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

Thesis: “Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it…lest ye die.” Genesis 3:3

Thesis Interrogation: “Yea hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Genesis 3:1.

Antithesis: “Ye shall not surely die.” Genesis 3:4. [Opposite of the Thesis]

Synthesis: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Genesis [Supposed Higher Order Thinking Skills-Hots]

Negation of the Negation (Putting aside pre-set standards): “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise [Chaos], she took of the fruit [Moving] thereof, and did eat [Refreezing], and gave also unto her husband with her [Determination: She becomes “converted” change agent seeking to “evangelize” or “convert” others to her new position]: and he did eat [Necessity]…And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God [Causation].

The Science of How Diaprax Works

Thesis Interrogation: “Unfreezing” From the Thesis of “Pre-set” Convictions

The very first work of dialectical praxis is the effort to “unfreeze” you from your “pre-set” principles of conviction. To shake you up is the goal. To prepare the groundwork for this process the person must be “interrogated” regarding their inner thoughts, in order to help the “facilitator” in selecting questions that will most efficiently break down your confidence in your convictions.

An Example: Journaling and “Women’s” Groups

This is why, for instance, the Bible teachers in Structure academies are having their students do journaling. Journaling, promoted by the Jesuits, is a written confessional, giving the teacher tools to undermine conviction by discovering where the student’s gray areas are of doubt. This is why you see “women’s” or “men’s” church groups. The women or men get together and discuss their family and marital difficulties, thus giving church leaders the knowledge of their weak areas, or gray zones, and how to defeat them and “take them out” when a power struggle erupts in the church over new innovations. This happens in marriage counseling and any “conflict resolution” process.

“Unfreezing” By Destroying Confidence in Your Convictions

Those who hold to their “pre-set” convictions are declared to be “unloving,” “maladjusted.” They are denounced as being under a curse because of their “unloving” spirit. Your ideas (which have been formed by the Spirit of God in submission to the Word) are getting in the way of church unity. You are holding the church back from its mission of evangelization. You are standing up against church authority. You are going against the authority of God vested in the church. In the military it would be: “Your convictions regarding the Sabbath would break down all military discipline, and destroy the army.” They tried [unsuccessfully] to use that on many Sabbath keepers in World War II.

Choice

You are presented with the need to decide: Where did you get those ideas from? Will you hold on to convictions that are declared to be outdated, to a concept of the Church that you no longer see anywhere, to ideas that seem not to fit the new environment? Are you going to be the only person who does not go along with the new ideas on the church board, or in the social group, or in basic training? Are you really going to stand up against all the elders and pastors? Are you going to really oppose the entire Christian world, going against governments and church authority (Martin Luther)? Are you really going to resist the Mark of the Beast? Will you make a fool of yourself? Are you going to really stand things on end? What makes you so different?

Thus is the soul assaulted with dialectical praxis.

Antithesis Dialogue: The Negation of the Negation: Negating the “Thou Shalt Nots”

Then the process proceeds to the negation of the negation, getting you to negate “Thou shalt nots,” in an effort to resolve your distress at being different, and to get you to accept a new standard-acceptance by the group instead of conviction based on the Word which puts you at variance with the “group.” Group dynamics are carefully arranged to overwhelm you with an authority and power of your opposition, to attempt to make you look ridiculous because of your ideas, to make you think that you are the only holdout, as you see all around you people crumpling under that assault.

Continue Reading