Saturday, August 11, 2018

The Hegelian Dialectic and the Delphi Technique

The Hegelian Dialectic [1]has become well known among many conspiracy researchers as the problem-reaction-solution strategy. It is believed that many problems in society are deliberately created by government for the public to demand a solution, which is already predetermined. For example, gun control is believed to be a result of the dialectical process by many people who believe that the government seeks to disarm us and eradicate the second amendment. Gun violence is deliberately allowed to grow out of control with shootings continually being shown on the main stream media, so the public demands more gun control, which is already a predetermined solution. This process is based off something called Dialectical Materialism.[2] This theory suggests that all progress in the world, or all change that occurs does so through a struggle of opposites. Scientists in Communist Russia were expected to be able to fit all their conclusions and hypotheses into this framework. This might explain why Communism is such a disastrous system because it is not based on reality.

The Hegelian Dialectic was formulated to guide men’s thoughts into accepting economic Communism. Economics, being a creation of man, was viewed as a means of exploitation and a way to divide society into different classes. These different classes were viewed as the catalyst of implementing Communism because they were used to create conflict and struggle with the end goal being the elimination of classless societies. It is important to understand the framework of this dialectical process because everything from education to mass media is designed to give the appearance of a conflict of opposing ideas and the process is guiding the masses incrementally towards one possible outcome, total control over our lives.

Fox News and CNN are prime examples of this conflict of ideas. Fox is supposed to represent the “right wing” or conservative point of view while CNN, and quite frankly, the rest of the main stream media, tend to represent the liberal view. This is the illusion they want to sell you anyway. The one thing they both share is a constant display of narratives that keeps the public focused on the wrong arguments. In other words, arguments that guide the debate towards government solutions. While there appears to be an actual debate taking place the truth is that certain arguments are discredited and people making them are often put on the defensive or made to appear in the minority while making their argument.

Every important issue in American society is guided by this process. Two sides of an argument where the same people tightly control the narratives are beat into the heads of the public while opinion is guided into accepting certain solutions. Another good example to demonstrate this is again, the gun control debate.  This author is not suggesting that the recent mass shooting experienced in America were deliberately staged by government, though false flag events are historically real, it is being suggested that the media, in collaboration with government anti-gunners are using the dialectic to guide public opinion in only one direction, the total elimination of private gun ownership. Every time there is a mass shooting the media focuses on very specific things that shape the argument. For instance, the fact that the shooter was taking psychotropic drugs, or the fact that in the most recent examples the guns used in the shooting were purchased legally even though they shouldn’t have been. This leads to demands for more government solutions when in fact, it is government failure that led to the shootings in the first place. In the Parkland Florida shooting, which occurred on Valentine’s day of 2018, it was widely reported that the FBI had visited the shooter on numerous occasions to investigate possible threats allegedly made by the shooter. The overall developing narrative is that the system is broken and must be reformed. It is already against the law to purchase a firearm if you have been ruled mentally defective, are a fugitive from justice, have a restraining order against you, or if you are addicted to illegal substances. When the media presents these problems and highlights the shooters getting their guns legally despite them, the only possible solution that starts to present itself in the minds of the gullible is the full banning of firearms for everyone.

 Ironically, an old radio talk show host and author of the book “Behold a Pale Horse,”[3] William Cooper, predicted that the government would allow the issue of gun violence to grow out of control, so a scared public would demand an end to the Second Amendment.

“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far, is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.” (Cooper, 1991)

The above quote was from 1991, before the hysteria of the present-day mass shootings we have recently witnessed. There is little doubt that the gun control debate is working to create a demand for civilian disarmament. The AR-15 type rifle has become America’s most popular firearm for sporting and defensive use. They have also become the most demonized, and their capabilities have been greatly over exaggerated by the main stream media to keep the ignorant masses in a state of fear. The term assault weapon has been attached to them very effectively even though a weapon that has only a semi-automatic function is not standard military issue or would be virtually useless as an actual assault weapon.  They were banned for a ten-year period where a study was conducted which concluded their banning had little effect on violent crime. Because of this determination George W. Bush lifted this ban. Looking at the above quote it kind of makes you wonder if there was a more conspiratorial agenda to this, since this time the manufacture of AR style rifles has sky rocketed along with the production of after market accessories. All of which by the way, the general masses who are ignorant about firearms all consider to be “scary looking.”

Yet another blatant example of this process at work is the revelation the social media giants such as Facebook and Google and have been collecting mass amounts of data on their users to determine social attitudes on political issues. Cambridge Analytica, a data collection firm created in 2013, was according to The New York Times[4] working in collaboration with the Trump campaign to determine the personalities of potential voters and attempt to target them. Of course, there is a social outrage over these accusations however, this type of data collection was also happening under the Obama Administration and they bragged about it according to post by Accuracy in Media.[5]

“The Obama presidential campaign boasted and bragged about their use of Facebook data in order to win re-election. As our own Don Irvine wrote, a former Obama staffer tweeted that the Obama campaign used Facebook user data similar to Cambridge Analytica. The same staffer said that Facebook let the Obama campaign use their data because Facebook “was on our side.” (Accuracy in Media)

The end goal is predictable, the demand that government impose regulations controlling fairness in social media[6].   Even Mark Zuckeberg, owner of Facebook, has said he is open to government regulations governing social media[7]. Of course, he is playing the victim here, pretending that he wasn’t aware of how The Obama Administration used their data for their own aims. This is intended to portray to the general, clueless public, that he is re-thinking how he operates and that he feels shame over what has happened. The end goal, as stated above, is the acceptance of government control over what is said and expressed on the internet, period. It is working like a charm as well because both the left and right are upset over these revelations.

In August of 2018, Facebook, Google, Apple and YouTube virtually eliminated Alex Jones, founder of Info Wars, from any of their search drives. This is being viewed as outright censorship of alternative views and a violation of the first amendment. Alex Jones of course is a shock jock of sorts who works to expose the workings of the New World Order conspiracy and was allegedly banned because of his insistence that the Sandy Hook School shooting was an elaborate hoax designed to persuade Americans into demanding gun control. Many on the right are claiming that this has nothing to do with the first amendment and that private corporations can ban whom ever they wish, while others still are demanding government act to prevent these corporations from censoring anyone based on their political viewpoints. Again, this plays right into the hands of government because behind the scenes the left is planning an all-out takeover of the internet.[8] The claim of course is that the internet needs to be regulated to prevent foreign influence in our elections however, the truth is that the internet has been a powerful tool in exposing corruption and offering alternative viewpoints to the false mainstream media. To create a socialist paradise, the information must be controlled, and all Americans must base their beliefs on the same information. This creates quite a conundrum because the American government was created by, for and of the people to protect the rights of American citizens. Rights which our founders have described as inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken from us because they exist in the natural state of being human. If governments job is to protect these rights, then where else do you go when they are being infringed upon by corporations who seek to eliminate points of view which differ from their own? Was the banning of Alex Jones a deliberate ploy to get the masses to demand government intervention, paving the way for government control of the internet? It certainly is possible because that is exactly the way this is playing out.

This is how the dialectical process works and it is present in nearly all social issues confronting America.  From global warming to health care, from gun control to wealth inequality we are being led to believe that we are overwhelmed with problems that only government can solve, and to solve them they need us to relinquish more of our God given liberty.

The passage of Obamacare is probably the best example of all. The creation of a massive entitlement which forces people who can afford to do so to pay higher insurance premiums so the people who cannot, can get cheaper healthcare. Furthermore, there was a fine imposed by the IRS for not purchasing a healthcare plan[9]. Ironically, the fine was never more than the cost of an Obamacare plan which inevitably meant there was more of an incentive to not purchase an Obamacare plan because it was cheaper to pay the fine. The result is an unsustainable system which we were told would pay it for itself. The failure of Obamacare would force the government to implement the much desired by the left, single payer healthcare system.

Another method of guiding popular consensus is the use of the Delphi[10] technique. This method encourages the open debate between two or more opposing ideas with the intent of pushing the discussion in the direction of an already agreed upon solution[11]. This solution is usually based on the opinions or objectives of a panel of so called experts on whatever subject is being discussed.  Often, this is done in a public setting where the appearance is given that public opinion is valued on whatever subject is being discussed. The leader is often a trained change agent who is very skilled at identifying the types of people who are generally opposed to the already agreed upon consensus. They are also skilled at humiliating them and making their positions look foolish, which in turn, encourages those in the audience to keep quiet or go along to get along.  In the end, the opinions that favor the desired outcome are made to appear as if they are the majority. This could be done by dividing people into groups and having them submit their ideas on paper to a facilitator where they have no idea if they will even be seen. Or, people paid to express support of the desired outcome could be present in the audience giving the appearance they are in the majority. This technique is frequently used in the classroom as well to push socialist ideas such as socialized medicine and solutions to climate change.

No comments:

Post a Comment