Could this be the ultimate goal of the elite? Destroy America's faith in her system of government in order to pave the way for something new, something we may not fully understand? The evidence of this is overwhelming if you understand the Hegelian Dialectic.
The Hegelian Dialectic is a way of controlling and guiding our thoughts and actions into already existing, predetermined solutions. Another way of describing this would be to say that the extremes of both sides, the left and the right for example, are presented as conflict while the actual goal of the elite is presented as the compromise. The best, most recent example is the DACA debate.
DACA itself is an unconstitutional executive order signed by former President Barack Obama. It gave temporary legal status to children of illegal immigrants who by no fault of their own, were brought across the border. The current battle between the left and right is just a circus sideshow designed to condition the public to accept the inevitable outcome. That outcome is the eventual legalization of the DACA people. In fact, President Donald Trump has stated that he is for giving them eventual legal status.
This is how the Hegelian Dialectic works, while the corporate media and their government sidekicks portray the issue as a conflict with the President standing firm and the Democrats caving, a bill to give these people permanent legal citizenship is being advanced in congress. H.R. 4760, Securing America's Future Act of 2018 will give legal status to some one million or so immigrants while also enabling them to bring some family members across the border. According to supporters of the bill, legal status would be granted to the so called DACA recipients over a 10-12 year period, however this is roughly the time it takes to become a citizen already.
Proof of the effectiveness of the dialectical process is seen by observing the Trump supporters defend his complete reversal on the issue.
By presenting the extremes of both sides, full and complete amnesty on the left and deportation on the right, the public is likely to be subdued into accepting H.R. 4760 as an acceptable solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
According to Chuck Baldwin, this bill will require all Americans to possess a national I.D. card. Without it, Americans would not be able to travel, open a bank account or even get a job. A national I.D. which possesses the biometric information of the individual has been a long term goal of the both the left and right for years. In a post on Facebook, Baldwin cites the concerns of Dr. Ron Paul about the bill.
"For years now, statists in BOTH parties have been fighting to RAM their radical National ID-database scheme into law.
"In fact, this scheme was a key portion of the infamous failed “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bills BOTH parties tried to ram through during the Obama administration.
"Now, using the momentum behind Trump’s tough talk on immigration and border security, I’m afraid the statists believe the best way to finally enact their National ID scheme is by promoting their bill on Capitol Hill as a “DACA fix” while they sell it to the GOP base as a border “security” measure.
"Of course, that’s nothing more than a buzzword meant to trick Americans from all over the country into thinking that Congress is going to seal our southern border.
"But in reality, it means something far different.
"The “security” members of BOTH parties in the U.S. House want doesn’t target any U.S. border. Instead, it’s meant to create an all-out police state within them."
In typical fashion, the left and right are working together under the guise of a crisis in order to pass legislation that would otherwise be unacceptable to the American people. It wouldn't be the first time an Orwellian bill was passed under the guise of preserving American ideals while using an American sounding name. The Patriot Act, for example, was rammed through after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack under the false notions that it would secure our freedoms when in fact, it set the stage for much of the surveillance state that is in existence today.
American's want to believe that they elected a President who is standing for their values and willing to take it to the left in big ways. The truth is that Trump has always been a Democrat and has always supported amnesty. In fact, he donated most of his political money to Democrats during the election which put Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in power. This enabled the passage of Obamacare. For those that think that Trump may have changed his position consider the fact that even after 2010 he continued to donate heavily to democrats, even after the passage of Obamacare. Need I remind you that the repeal of Obamacare, a major campaign promise, has not yet occurred? Also, consider that in his own book Trump stated the following concerning single payer health care.
"We must have universal healthcare. I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses." (Donald Trump, The America We Deserve)
Could this be the real reason that Obamacare has not been repealed as promised?
While Trump, in the opinions of his biggest supporters, has accomplished many big things the truth is that when it comes to major policy initiatives of the big statists nothing is changing. The Hegelian Dialectic is being used to present Americans with contrived conflicts in order to guide our thoughts and actions into pre-determined solutions that in the long run, further the objectives of big government. Many will scoff at this however, the fact remains that Obamacare has not been repealed, there is no wall, there will be no wall and for all practical purposes, the media side show concerning the government shutdown seems to be a show as the president now supports a pathway to citizenship. Is that what you voted for?
The media will continue to be used as a means to keep Americans arguing over the issues they want you to argue about while legislators work together contriving bills that serve their interests, not yours.
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution." (Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals)
The Hegelian Dialect (thesis vs. antithesis = intended synthesis), aka political compromise.
ReplyDeleteCompromise, compromise, compromise and invariably to the left--three of the inherent consequences of government without an immutable ethical standard, found only in Yahweh's unchanging triune moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments).
The following example illustrates the disparity between man’s ever-changing standard and God’s never-changing standard:
"Two people could have walked down any U.S. street in 1930 – one with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U.S. city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal." (W.W. Turner, The Amazing Story of the British Sovereign (Nashville, TN: 1970) p. 4)
In a mere forty-year period, man’s standard had completely reversed itself. The same transposition of ethics has occurred innumerable times under all governments based upon the traditions of man.
Consider also the Supreme Court:
"...Constitutionalists believe the superiority of the United States juridical system is demonstrated in that even Supreme Court decisions can be overturned and made right by either future Supreme Court justices or by constitutional amendment. But history has proven the opposite is more likely. Furthermore, the injustices that often occur in the interim between a bad decision and a better decision would seldom, if ever, occur in a Biblical court.
"Nothing demonstrates this fundamental defect better than Roe v. Wade, which constitutionally has provided for an endless number of infants to be murdered. While Christian Constitutionalists wait for the Constitutional Republic’s system to (they hope) correct itself, millions more infants are being murdered. Under Yahweh’s law, not one infant would have been murdered.
"Even when wrong decisions are overturned, they can be overturned again by a later court. Judicial records expose this capricious tendency of the United States juridical system:...
'The Court had reversed itself in 219 cases by 2000. Of this total, all but seven instances came after the Civil War. All but 28 came after 1913. Over 60 percent came after 1941. This process is accelerating.'29
"Judicial “standards now change as rapidly as the Justices. This causes an uncertainty for society; and, in fact, often establishes a dubious standard which, in effect, is no standard at all.”30 Unlike the Bible, the Constitution is not an infallible standard. Returning to a more “pure” constitutionalism is not the answer. The answer is found in returning to Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments...."
For more, see Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation" of free online book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
I always appreciate your perspective Ted. In many ways I agree with you.
Delete