States Versus the Feds... another dialectic?

"A ruling Wednesday by a federal judge put on hold parts of the new law that would have required officers to dig deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. Arizona says it was forced to act because the federal government isn't doing its job to fight immigration."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZ8Gy51rOgX8-wDT3iqTGWw1uLiAD9H9I31O0

"Hegel and the Cunning of History" by John Dwyer

Working on a opposition research paper for my community and stumbled on this very well presented academic paper that explains Hegel quite nicely if you ask me.

05. Hegel and the Cunning of History

John Dwyer

Introduction to the Hegelian World

Plato believed that human reason could explain the world, individual morality and social life. Descartes also believed in reason, but severely restricted its ability to explain phenomena. Scientific reason could explain the laws of the physical universe, but could explain the nature of external objects. Hume destroyed the foundation of scientific knowledge by showing us that cause and effect did not relate to anything in physical nature, but was a psychological trick of the mind.

Intellectual thought, therefore, moved from a faith in reason to an extreme skepticism about the ability of reason to explain anything. Hume argued that there was not much that anyone could say with certainty; the best strategy for the human being was to enjoy life and try not to ask to many questions. Humean philosophy elevated the agreeable companion over the scientist and philosopher.

After Hume, it may have seemed that system building was dead. This turned out not to be the case, partly because the British empirical tradition never took a firm hold on the continental consciousness, and partly because new systems were built on the supposedly fragile foundation of the human mind. Continental thinkers argued that the human mind created its own reality; logical categories were not simply a way of understanding the world, they were the only genuine laws of the universe. It was even possible to think that individual minds were linked to a universal mind that operated and realized itself in human history. Enter Hegel.

If you were to hire a movie producer to film Hegelian philosophy, you would have to get someone like Cecil. B DeMille. So grand is the scope, so extensive the panorama, so comprehensive is the subject matter, that Hegel’s philosophy comes on like a tidal wave that never lets up. Hegel sets out to explain all of human life, all of history, and the meaning of the past that allows us to predict the future.

Hegelianism in a Nutshell

Hegel’s foundation is the realization that all of our reality, past and present, is a mental production. Our individual minds are limited, but history is the product of all minds over time. The universal mind moving through history is God’s mind. God moves through history with one goal – to realize himself and his essence. God’s essence is an Idea and the content of that idea is Freedom.

You will recall that the enlightened philosophes believed in progress, reason and nature. But their ideas of reason and progress seem puny in comparison with Hegel’s vision. Hegel argued that the Enlightenment was fundamentally flawed because it associated progress with individual freedom and happiness. Historical progress was only tangentially related to economic growth and the rule of law, Hegel argued. It was about the evolution of Ideas. While individuals might believe in these ideas or ideals, they were embodied in social culture. Every significant society embodies a particular idea. The historical role of society was to nurture that idea at a particular time in history. Sometimes that idea would be associated with a great hero, an individual who best personified the ideal of his time and used the force of his will to bring that idea to fulfillment. Caesar and Napoleon are examples of these world historical figures who put living flesh on ideas.

But it was the Idea that moulded history, not the men who helped move it forward. Men and women were merely the vehicles through which ideas expressed and realized themselves. The Idea was Freedom. It evolved from ancient times and, like a Cecil B. DeMille spectacle, it used a cast of millions to flesh itself out. Whereas a few heroic individuals were significant in the sense that they realized their particular stage in evolution and pushed the Idea forward, the great mass of people were hired extras in the spectacle of history. In fact, Hegel referred to the majority of people as victims on the slaughter bench of history, as various sub-ideas fought it out in the historical arena and contributed to the development of the one really big Idea – absolute Freedom.

Sound Complicated?

It gets worse before it gets better. Hegel is one of those writers who are difficult to appreciate until you grasp the big picture. His writings really do resemble a historical spectacle full of sub plots, twists and turns, flashbacks and a cast of stars supported by thousands of extras. Fortunately, Hegel doesn’t write like Hume. He doesn’t expect us to get it in lock-step fashion. He’s more than willing to repeat scenes and use different camera angles to get across his fundamental idea. This is a good thing, because some of his language is tortuous and his Teutonic sentences appear very convoluted to English (and presumably other) ears.

Hegel uses the terms Idea, God and Freedom as synonyms. The important think to know about Hegel’s God is that He is pure thought. He is the Idea that drives universal history. His essence is absolute freedom. All history is nothing more or less that the story of the Idea actualizing itself through mankind. Our world, therefore, is not merely created by God; it’s an extension of God. God is using the world and human history as the vehicle for self-reflection. Men and women, as thinking beings, are not merely created in God’s likeness, but are extensions of the Divine mind. Thought is the only thing that matters. God’s thought in history is the only thing that counts. Most phenomena and the vast majority of historical facts are chimeral; they are insignificant dross. The only thing that is significant is the Idea. The rich tapestry of history is woven by a divine master, whose design can only be appreciated when it is complete. “The owl of Minerva,” writes Hegel, “flies only at dusk.”

More here: http://opencopy.org/lectures/intellectual-history/05-hegel-and-the-cunning-of-history/

The necessity of debates

When two people argue over opposing ideals, that is a dialectical argument. In most cases, this is the formula used throughout American discourse. The sides to all our philosophical and moral dilemmas have already been established, and most sides have been given an ideological title that defines their full political or religious position.

So it goes. Every day our friends and family state what they are "for" and the only choice we have is to agree or defend the predetermined "opposition" side. If we do not agree with their stand on any issue, our loved and cherished ones are allowed (in a dialectical debate) to insist we hold another set of beliefs, that they will name for us.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote in 2002 that the last great debate in American politics would be between the Libertarians and the Communitarians. It was most depressing to see that the Libertarians had no intention of showing up for that great debate. When I investigated the Libertarian principles more in depth, I found their party founder to be a free trade internationalist. So the last great debate was supposed to be between two sides holding the exact same ultimate values and principles. It's no wonder the Libertarians shrank from it and refused to even identify it by name in their official party publications. Rank and file Libs don't have a clue what communitarianism is, and it's been the prevailing policy objective since 1992! Of course that goes for registered Republicans and Democrats as well, who obviously never listen to what Bill Clinton keeps saying to Canadians.

I started pestering the Communitarian Network and specifically Amitai Etzioni for an open, public debate about their Platform and 2020 vision for the United States in 2003. That was the original purpose for the ACL website. I presented my thesis in ASA format and asked for peer reviews. I asked for one college program in the entire United States to consider including anti communitarian studies as part of their pro communitarian curriculum. I kept trying in various ways to present another view of communitarianism to academia, but somewhere along the way I lost interest in pushing up that river. The only view of communitarianism allowed in US schools is positive; all opposition has been silenced, before it even materialized.

The Communitarians' problem with participating in real debates with real Americans is their philosophical foundation is entirely based in the Hegelian dialectic. Their final synthesis between all contradictions is supposed to be so perfect it gives rise to no anti thesis. There can be no valid objections to the ultimate 3rd way, otherwise it can not be ultimate.

So the goal of all dialectically trained change agents is to keep the debates within the confines of the dialectic, reduce our arguments down to two sides (thesis v antithesis) and never allow the debate to become a debate against the synthesis (communitarianism, 3rd Way, 3rd Sector).

What I need to decide is whether to engage in arguments with people who practice the dialectic. And how tricky do I have to become in order to force them into debating the ultimate synthesis?

The debate with Myers extended into a debate with Vinay, the creator of Hexayurts, who does not claim to be a communitarian, yet here I am accusing him of being one. That makes me just as gulity of telling him what his side is as people who identify me as a Libertarian or an Anarchist. This is a real dilemma for me. I don't want to box anyone into what I identify as their ideology. Does it matter that I can find many, many communitarian ideals in his proposals and manifesto? How am I supposed to debate communitarian principles endorsed by men like Vinay and Myers if they themselves do not identify their ideas as communitarian?

I am really not interested in debating any one of the thousands of theses and antitheses that led to the final communitarian synthesis. If I'm going to put my time into it, I want to debate the whole communitarian system as a whole, and as it exists NOW, all around the world. Where is THAT debate? That's the debate someone needs to have with Obama when he runs next time.

Lessons in the Hegelian Dialectic: Sarah Palin versus Ezekiel Emanuel

Lessons in the Hegelian Dialectic:
Sarah Palin versus Ezekiel Emanuel
by Niki Raapana
Anti Communitarian League
August 19, 2009

The Hegelian Dialectic is the ideological blueprint for manipulating people into fighting over issues. Skillful use of Hegelian tactics is a requirement for all modern politicians. The ultimate goal of every major political player in the game right now is to weaken both sides of every argument, so that a "middle ground" for the "common good" can be formed between them. This is the simple formula for tricking the world into accepting a totalitarian central government. It's happening in every country on the planet.

When Betsy M published her article called "Deadly Doctors," she sure opened a big can of political worms. She identified the philosophy of Obama's new health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel as "communitarianism." The problem is, the gods of globalism are still not ready to explain their new philosophy to the American people. Americans are much more effective if they continue to believe their sides still exist and keep the great political divides alive. Awareness of the emerging synthesis of all ideologies (called communitarianism) is reserved for insiders. To become an insider one must agree to go along with the big lie, for as long as the lie remains necessary. Once the world has completely adopted supremacy of communitarian law, the truth about the system won't matter much, because the communitarian police will have community enforcement authority over every individual in the world.

The American public is just not ready to be told the truth about the real philosophy driving all new changes to US law. Citizens age 50 and beyond may never be told. Communitarians insist all nations must be eliminated and that would upset the people who still think the US Constitution and their state constitutions are valid legal contracts. So the former Lt governor of the state of New York provided way more information than the Americans need to know. Something radical had to be done quickly to drive the topic back into obscurity. Just as hundreds of Americans started asking what the heck communitarianism is, the global scriptwriters made major changes to the book. Enter Sarah Palin, stage right.

On the surface it certainly appears that Sarah Palin and Barack Obama's Health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, are on "opposite" sides. Sarah clearly represents the fundamentalist Christian Republican Right, while Obama and Zeke obviously represent the open-minded non-denominational Democratic Left. Their millions of followers on both sides are totally convinced the "other" side are the bad guys and their own side is the good guys. This belief in their superior side means they never have to study the other side, or God forbid, to wonder what the outcome of all this fighting may be. Like mad dogs trained to fight in the arena, true believers go for the jugular veins of their opponents without a second thought as to why.

Sarah Palin proved her worth to the communitarians when she entered the national political scene as John McCains' Republican running mate. They made her a star in the best horror soap opera ever written. It might look like they plan to kill her off, but rest assured, they'll bring her back whenever they need her to keep the story line alive. And right now, they need her. Upon entering the staged presidential campaign in a whirlwind of exposure, Palin made an easy target of herself and successfully fueled the inflated egos of every deluded Republican and Democrat in the country. All it took to keep (nonexistent) American attention away from any possible awareness of Obama's communitarian philosophy was to bring a superstar like Palin into the campaign. And all it took to steer (possible) attention away from Emanuel's exposed communitarian philosophy was to bring Palin into the "debate."

Now the debate is between the most uneducated politician on the national scene and the "esteemed" bioethics professor who cares about people. Their most dumbed down followers argue over who's the nicer, more credentialed player. Communitarian agents scour the Internet forums and steer any discussion of communitarianism back to outdated (and now discarded) left and right theories. The substance of the debate never became centered on the actual and verifiable philosophy that drives the National Healthcare agenda. The only political argument allowed is between the left and the right (just as the only religious debate allowed is between the Christians and the Muslims). These phony, misleading debates are led by second grade bully's who won't acknowledge communitarianism until their teachers make them write it a hundred times on the blackboard. When the American followers are finally told that communitarianism is their new political and justice system, their assigned Borg leaders will make sure everyone reaches consensus and agrees that it's a "good" thing.

Hegelians don't care what the issues are. Neither do they care which "side" they are perceived to be on. Their role is to be a barrier to any authentic political discourse that may arise from thinking people. Hegelians do not think for themselves, they follow orders. They repeat words that have no meaning to them, throw around words they cannot define and have no interest in defining. When asked directly what they mean by a particular word, they always respond with "what do you mean what do I mean?" as if you're just too stupid to be answered. Most followers haven't got the first clue what livability, health and safety, and quality of life means. They build "good communities" and only stupid people ask them what they mean by good.

Appealing mainly to the egotistical and self-centered, the Hegelians promote the idea that they and their followers are superior to the common man in every way. Born again Hegelians may not be able to tell us who they follow, but they will always insist their ideas are more "enlightened" than common folks. Over educated, upper academic Hegelians believe God told Hegel the only reasonable future society is a friendly, caring, global police state. Uneducated Hegelians don't even know they're Hegelians.

All unenlightened sheep are to be kept locked inside very publicized dialectical conflicts of opposites. Only the unseen, enlightened few understand the actual goal of all the conflicts. The most useful idiots are the ones who believe their side is the side that cares oh so much more about "people" than the other side. Completely brainwashed Hegelian thinkers go so far as to believe they are born smarter than the other side, with many convinced they were chosen by God himself to rule over all of mankind, forever. Taught to use any stupid argument at their disposal that enrages their assigned opposite "side," their job is to fuel established conflicts and say anything they want, as long as it keeps the masses distracted.

The more outrageous their behaviors, the more outrageous the response is from their gullible public followers. This is why hateful slurs, mocking, sneering, racial insults, un-humorous "jokes," accusations, slander and Godlike condemnations are such a big part of our national political discourse. Like Hegel taught the leaders of the emerging supranational system, ideological conflicts that grow into violent clashes between huge groups of people are the best way to "help" save the world. Follower's on both sides of every conflict use the same, tired arguments because both sides follow the same Hegelian playbook. To the Man, Straw Man, Wag the Dog or fists and guns... they do whatever it takes.

It's not an accident that every rebuttal I get to my articles on communitarianism insist it's an insignificant term that means nothing. I actually just got new comments on my blog that explained the "difference" between liberals and socialists. and never mentions the word communitarian once! The debate between communitarianism and US constitutional law will never reach the public until it's completely over. First we all have to come together for a purpose greater than self. Then we can all rise together in perfect harmony, or we can fall into the pits with the others who refuse to be "free."

"Clinton said Obama's election was the first one in which people were "self-consciously communitarian - understanding we are going to rise and fall together."" http://www.pittnews.com/node/19708

The "first secret of the dialectic"

Trotsky told us the "secret" in 1936

"... The revolution gave a mighty historical impulse to the new Soviet generation. It cut them free at one blow from conservative forms of life, and exposed to them the great secret - the first secret of the dialectic - that there is nothing unchanging on this earth, and that society is made out of plastic materials. ... "

{p. 159} The Revolution Betrayed, by Leon Trotsky http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm written 1936 first published 1937 Translated by Max Eastman (from Peter Myer's elist)

The assassination of William McKinley

One of the most interesting discoveries we made in the course of our anticommunitarian studies was that President William McKinley was shot in a building built especially for the World's Fair in 1901 called the Temple of Mvsik, and his tomb in Ohio bears a striking resemblence to the structure of the Temple of Mvsik.

What is MVSIK? (See: http://mum.org/armemcc.htm) The best explanation I could find for the word "mvsik" is that it has something to do with menstrual blood and withcraft ceremonies. Once I found that little tidbit of weirdness, I pretty much took off in other directions. As I refresh myself in preparation for Part II of my Hegel series I have come, in a roundabout way, back to considering the "deeper" implications of McKinley's torturous death. He did not die from the assassins' bullets, he was saved by a black man named Big Ben Parker. He died at the home of an attorney representing big business at the time, and there's the fact that NO qualified surgeon was allowed to treat the President's wound. McKinley was treated by a gynocologist who had never performed surgery in his career. At the time it was just all weird... but now that I think about it again...why choose a gynocologist to treat a man wounded in the menstrual Temple of Blood? And, McKinley's dying words of acceptance can be understood in several different ways. He had a full Scottish Templars funeral procession, as he was a fellow-traveler too.

What role (if any) did witchcraft and freemasonry really play in American political history? What am I to make of the connections between LSD and the 60s drug culture, the Order of the Red Dawn, alchemy, sorcery, qaballa, witchcraft, hocus-pocus, Satanism to the CIA, MK-ULTRA and all the other creepy possible aspects of the Communitarian Church? I grew up in the 70s and did more than my share of experimentation. This former 70s wild child tripped along without the slightest idea of who was behind the manufacturing and distribution of our local drug supplies. 15 year olds don't ask those kinds of questions, do they? Then, when I got sober in 1990, there was (magically?) a whole "recovery" movement just waiting to "help" me by introducing me to "advanced" spiritual beliefs, that, as it turns out, were the same beliefs held by the people who designed the drugs. By 1995 I quit the program after I recognized it as a cult, but I had NO idea what the basis for the cult actually was. Not that I "know" any more today, but the evidence I am reading is leading me to re-look at some of things I've previously ignored.

My Christian upbringing forbade indulging in the occult, yet everyone in my family was a witness to numerous psychic occurances. My mother later in her life expanded her beliefs to include astrology and reincarnation, among other things. In 1979 when I was living in Hawaii I had a dream about a car crash on the Waimea bridge, which was so vivid I told it to my roommates when I woke. Two days later I was in that car crash, and I sat on Waimea Bay alone (a very dangerous thing to do if you're a blond!) long past sunset. I was so absorbed in thinking about all the years I had ridiculed my older sister for her psychic visions, that I forgot where I was.

My sister Susan has this belief that when children suffer attrocities at the hands of their caretakers, parents or otherwise, their soul "flees" and takes refuge someplace else. I always thought that was a cop-out ideology as it removed the ultimate personal responsibily for criminal acts and it was also my pattern, as I easily discounted most anything that I couldn't understand (or gave me the creeps). The truth is, even if it's highly unlikely, my dad could very easily have been more than what he was. His military connections include special forces operatives and they all work in close association with the CIA. Recently released government records show the U.S. Army was spraying the American people with chemicals including LSD. This seems so nuts, but all these years I've been trying to figure out WHY I devoted myself so intensely to studying the Communitarians, and I can't help but wonder if I'm a CIA experiment gone awry. Of course that wouldn't (or would it?) explain my dad's absolute rules against my drug use (which I never heeded). But, one main purpose of all the CIA experimentation was mind control, and so in my case it would appear the opposite occured, unless I consider what I might have become had I not stopped my natural progress and devoted twenty years to getting high.

Either way, I was one of millions of unwitting teenage "volunteers" in U.S. government sponsored drug induced behavior research. But, instead of joining the Theosophical Movement, a witch's coven or the orgies, I just partied at keggers and in the discos, and when I was ready to quit partying, the best option for my recovery from partying was "them." I thought I was "done" with the bulk of my research (and my recovery), now I find that I haven't even begun to peel back the layers of the Communitarian Church's influences on the U.S., let alone my own psyche.

So now I have to learn more about The Nine, Madame Blavatsky, Alice Baily (who's so far not even mentioned in this book I'm reading) alchemy, freemasonry, sorcery, Christian and Judaic Cabbalah, and MVSIK. How's that for going "deeper?"

For some time after we published the Hegel tutorial I continued to seek documents that would prove/disprove our thesis. I logged what I was finding at http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.2.html

Thanks to all commenters on the last post. I appreciate the input and the concern. I am a bit suprised so many of my readers don't think I should bother "debating" upper academia even though I understand that they are as programmed to think their way as I am to thinking mine. I'm still foolishly hopeful that a genuine debate is a good thing, thinking that, at the very least, it would open it up to commoners across the globe who are being manipulated into believing the big lie. Someone from Vassar has spent a lot of time at our manifesto... maybe we'll hear from them sometime.

What prompted you to search for the Hegelian Dialectic? current poll results

Our Hegelian dialectic tutorial was rewritten in December 2002 as WTF is the Hegelian Dialectic? ... We later toned it down to What is the Hegelian Dialectic? when all these visitors started coming in from schools, government offices, and academic institutions around the world. We've been contacted by professors, newspaper editors, artists, and hundreds of other readers who found it over the years. Hundreds of visitors downloaded it and many stay and read for upwards of 15 hours. We appreciate the ones who took the time to digest it, and the ones who wrote us with their thoughts. Thank you to all the people who answered our poll.

The above poll was added sometime in early 2004. We sure are curious to know what "none of the aboves" were, and whether the Board of Regents people have an opinion about our thesis.