How An Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy Silences a
Dissenting Movement Using Hegelian
Dialectics
l page 1 l page 2 l
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 [20th]
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.
