3 posts tagged “control”

Words...which words are missing and why?  Which words are in PLAY and to what end, Fulcrum? What do they mean?  See-saws and the Hegelian Dialectic do make for a slick trick, quite simply. 

[Ed. Note:  I added the Bold in this Piece]

"... the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special priveleges.'"

-- Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Hegel in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a 19th century German philosopher and theologist who wrote the Science of Logic in 1812. For many historians, Hegel is "perhaps the greatest of the German idealist philosophers."

In 1847 the London Communist League (Marx and Engels, pictured left) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure.

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision for the future.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to stop land grabs, privacy invasions, expanded domestic police powers, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. Only then can we be released from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

When we understand what motivated Hegel, we can see his influence on all of our destinies. Then we become real players in the very real game that has been going on for at least 224 years. Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major American political parties, all the way down to local school boards and community councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, and terror and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal.

Calverton Private School has posted a great visual chart explaining the dialectic.

The ultimate Third Way agenda is world government. Once we get what's really going on, we can cut the strings and move our lives in original directions outside the confines of the dialectical madness. Focusing on Hegel's and Engel's ultimate agenda, and avoiding getting caught up in their impenetrable theories of social evolution, gives us the opportunity to think and act our way toward freedom, justice, and genuine liberty for all.

Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages taking sides. We can see it in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in democrats against republicans, in greens against libertarians, in communists against socialists, in neo-cons against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists, in peace activists against war hawks.

No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts. We're definitely not in Kansas anymore.

Hegel's theory that philosophy is the ultimate achievement of the human spirit is extremely difficult reading for a well-educated person. It's almost like reading a foreign language to the average student, and it rings false to the "healthy instincts of the plain man."

Detective Phillip Worts' 2001 article Communist Oriented Policing is a nice explanation of the influence Dialectical Materialism has had on America.

Henry D. Aiken, a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard explains the Hegelian theory of no-reason in Introduction to the Age of Ideology:

"...Beginning with Kant, the very conception of the philosophical enterprise that had prevailed since the time of Aristotle underwent a profound sea-change, with the consequence that the meanings of even such basic terms of the traditional philosophical vocabulary as 'metaphysics' and 'logic' were altered beyond recognition... Much of the obscurity that pervades nineteenth-century philosophical writing is directly related to this fact."

Considering the power it wields, and how many people have embraced the ideology, it's amazing how very few people in the world will tell you they understand the Hegelian dialectic. That's because it was never written to be understood. Even Hegel's biographers call his writing "impenetrable" which means: "incapable of being penetrated or pierced," innaccessible to knowledge, reason or sympathy" and "incapable of being comprehended" (Merriam Webster).

At one point, Karl Marx planned to simplify Hegel for the "common man," but we have not been able find this explanation, if it exists.

We think there's a very simple explanation for why the Hegelian dialectic is not simple, and why it can never be simplified. While the American's 18th century political system ranks among the top modern scientific achievements, the 19th century's educated imperialist writers pursued the highest achievements in irrational thinking about thinking. Hegel is at the top of our list of the world's most irrational thinkers.

How is it possible to consider a Hegelian argument? If the ideas, interpretations of experiences, and the sources are all wrong, can a conclusion based on all these wrong premises be sound? The answer is no. Two false premises do not make a sound conclusion even if the argument follows the formula. Three, four, five, or six false premises do not all combine to make a conclusion sound. You must have at least one sound premise to reach a sound conclusion.

Logical mathematical formulas are only the basis for deductive reasoning. Equally important is knowledge of semantics, or considering the meanings of the words used in the argument. Just because an argument fits the formula, it does not necessarily make the conclusion sound. Hegel knew this when he designed his dialectic. He was an imperialist con-artist who established the principles of dialectical "no-reason." His dialectic has allowed globalists to lead the world by its nose into a superstitious, unreasonable, racist age of global dominance.

Read the remainder of the article What is Hegelian Dialectic here.  Any search engine will turn up an abundance of material on the subject.  Very important, especially if you've ever felt confused, scatter-brained, used up, beat, or otherwise manipulated in any way by the words and images flooded your way on a constant basis...memes.  Thinking for yourself in even the slightest way can crush any see-saw for use as firewood, and it seems the best and quickest way is particular attention to words.


Hegel maintains that the juxtaposition and violent interaction of binary oppositions will continue until a position is reached which is so perfectly balanced that no new antithesis can arise, because there are no extremes left to form a thesis. This bland-sounding paradise is what Hegel calls THE ABSOLUTE IDEA, and history is the process of human civilization working toward this end point, motivated by a spiritual force which Hegel calls the WORLD-SPIRIT or WORLD-MIND. Because the ultimate cause of progress in Hegel's view of history is an abstract force, we call his philosophy a form of idealism (there are many philosophical ideas which merit this description). [via Calverton School]



Meme:

A meme, as defined within memetic theory, constitutes a theoretical unit of cultural information, the building block of cultural evolution or diffusion that propagates from one mind to another analogously to the way in which a gene propagates from one organism to another as a unit of genetic information and of biological evolution.^[1] Multiple memes may propagate as cooperative groups called memeplexes (meme complexes).

Biologist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976.^[2] He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.

Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (similarly to Darwinian biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. So with memes, some ideas will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and, for better or for worse, mutate. "Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."^[3]

A short story written in 1876 by Mark Twain, A Literary Nightmare, describes his encounter with a jingle so "catchy" that it plays over and over in his mind until he finally sings it out loud and infects others (also known as an earworm).

Divide and Conquer Policy :

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

Maxims "Divide et impera" or "Divide ut regnes" are traditionally identified with the principle of government of Roman Senate. This attribution is not entirely reliable, insofar as the Roman policy mainly aimed to unite the conquered nations both politically and culturally, under Roman rule. It is, however, borne out by the example of Gabinius parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of The Wars of the Jews (De bello Judaico) [2]. Likewise, Strabo reports in Geography, 8.7.3 [3], that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Greece, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites "Divide et impera" in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War [4] (Dell'arte della guerra [5]), that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns ranging from Louis XI to the Habsburgs. Its historical reception has been mixed. Thus Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the Institutes, reporting that when it was demanded by the Lords and Commons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in Parliament, it was answered: "Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt." [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.] On the other hand, in a minor variation, Sir Francis Bacon touts the cunning maxim of "separa et impera" in a letter to James I of 15 February 1615. Likewise James Madison recommends in a letter to Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787 [6], summarizing the thesis of The Federalist #10 [7]: "Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."

Typical elements of this technique are said to involve

• creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.
• aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
• fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
• encouraging frivolous expenditures that leave little money for political and military ends.

The use of this strategy was imputed to administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who were charged with playing one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of "Divide and Rule" gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also used to account for the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Also mentioned as a strategy for market action in economics, it can be applied to get the most out of the players in a competitive market.

Hegelian dialectic, two forces aligned against one another. One is thesis, the other antithesis.

The conflict will produce a synthesis

King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable:

In surviving accounts of Arthur, there are two originally separate legends about the sword's origin. The first is the "Sword in the Stone" legend, originally appearing in Robert de Boron's poem Merlin, in which Excalibur can only be drawn from the stone by Arthur, the rightful king. The second comes from the later Post-Vulgate Suite du Merlin, which was taken up by Sir Thomas Malory. Here, Arthur receives Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake after breaking his first sword in a fight with King Pellinore. The Lady of the Lake calls the sword "Excalibur, that is as to say as Cut-steel," and Arthur takes it from a hand rising out of the lake.

As Arthur lies dying, he tells Sir Bedivere (Sir Griflet in some versions) to return his sword to the lake by throwing it into the water. Bedivere is reluctant to throw away such a precious sword, so twice he only pretends to do so. Each time, Arthur asks him to describe what he saw. When Bedivere tells him the sword simply fell into the water, Arthur scolds him harshly. Finally, Bedivere throws Excalibur into the lake. Before the sword strikes the water's surface, a hand reaches up to grasp it and pulls it under. Arthur leaves on a death barge with the three queens to Avalon, where as his legend says, he will one day return to rule in Britain's darkest hour.

Malory records both versions of the legend in his Le Morte d'Arthur, and confusingly calls both swords Excalibur. The film Excalibur attempts to rectify this by having only one sword, which Arthur inherits through his father and later breaks; the Lady of the Lake then repairs it.

Caledfwlch

In Welsh legend, Arthur's sword is known as Caledfwlch. In Culhwch and Olwen, it is one of Arthur's most valuable possessions and is used by Arthur's warrior Llenlleawg the Irishman to kill the Irish king Diwrnach while stealing his magical cauldron. Caledfwlch is thought to derive from the legendary Irish weapon Caladbolg, the lightning sword of Fergus mac Roich. Caladbolg was also known for its incredible power and was carried by some of Ireland's greatest heroes.

Though not named as Caledfwlch, Arthur's sword is described vividly in The Dream of Rhonabwy one of the tales associated with the Mabinogion:

Then they heard Cadwr Earl of Cornwall being summoned, and saw him rise with Arthur's sword in his hand, with a design of two serpents on the golden hilt; when the sword was unsheathed what was seen from the mouths of the two serpents was like two flames of fire, so dreadful that it was not easy for anyone to look. At that the host settled and the commotion subsided, and the earl returned to his tent.

—From The Mabinogion, translated by Jeffrey Gantz.^[3]

Caliburn to Excalibur

Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain is the first non-Welsh source to speak of the sword. Geoffrey says the sword was forged in Avalon and Latinizes the name "Caledfwlch" to Caliburn or Caliburnus. When his influential pseudo-history made it to Continental Europe, writers altered the name further until it became Excalibur. The legend was expanded upon in the Vulgate Cycle, also known as the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, and in the Post-Vulgate Cycle which emerged in its wake. Both included the work known as the Prose Merlin, but the Post-Vulgate authors left out the Merlin Continuation from the earlier cycle, choosing to add an original account of Arthur's early days including a new origin for Excalibur.

Other information

The story of the Sword in the Stone has an analogue in some versions of the story of Sigurd (the Norse proto-Siegfried), who draws his father Sigmund's sword out of a tree where it is embedded.

In several early French works such as Chrétien de Troyes' Perceval, the Story of the Grail and the Vulgate Lancelot Proper section, Excalibur is used by Gawain, Arthur's nephew and one of his best knights. This is in contrast to later versions, where Excalibur belongs solely to the king. In the Alliterative Morte Arthure, Arthur is said to have two legendary swords, the second one being Clarent, stolen by the evil Mordred. Arthur receives his fatal blow from Clarent.

Attributes

In many versions, Excalibur's blade was engraved with words on opposite sides. On one side were the words "take me up", and on the other side "cast me away" (or similar words). This prefigures its return into the water. In addition, when Excalibur was first drawn, Arthur's enemies were blinded by its blade, which was as bright as thirty torches. Excalibur's scabbard was said to have powers of its own. Injuries from losses of blood, for example, would not kill the bearer. In some tellings, wounds received by one wearing the scabbard did not bleed at all. The scabbard is stolen by Morgan le Fay and thrown into a lake, never to be found again.

Nineteenth century poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, described the sword in full Romantic detail in his poem "Morte d'Arthur", later rewritten as "The Passing of Arthur", one of the Idylls of the King:

There drew he forth the brand Excalibur,

And o’er him, drawing it, the winter moon,

Brightening the skirts of a long cloud, ran forth

And sparkled keen with frost against the hilt:

For all the haft twinkled with diamond sparks,

Myriads of topaz-lights, and jacinth-work

Of subtlest jewellery.

Lancelot:

In the Arthurian legend, Sir Lancelot (Lancelot du Lac, also Launcelot) is one of the Knights of the Round Table. In most of the French prose romances and works, he is characterized as the greatest and most trusted of Arthur's knights, and plays a part in many of Arthur's victories – but Arthur's eventual downfall is also brought about in part by Lancelot, whose affair with Arthur's wife Guinevere destroys the unity of Arthur's court.

Lancelot is a popular character, and has been the subject of many poems, stories, plays, and films as a famous figure in the Arthurian cycle of romances. To the great majority of English readers the name of no knight of King Arthur's court is so familiar as is that of Sir Lancelot. The mention of Arthur and the Round Table at once brings him to mind to moderns as the most valiant member of that brotherhood and the secret lover of the Queen. Lancelot, however, is not an original member of the cycle, and the development of his story is still a source of considerable disagreement between scholars.

Lance:

This documentary also reveals the secrets of Former Fox news producers, reporters, bookers and writers who expose what it's like to work for Fox News. These former Fox employees talk about how they were forced to push a "right-wing" point of view or risk their jobs. Some have even chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect their current livelihoods. As one employee said "There's no sense of integrity as far as having a line that can't be crossed."

View the film here or here