A Hegelian Dialectic: Liberals vs Conservatives

You would hope that people aware of the reality of the use of the Hegelian Dialectic towards bringing about a New World Order would recognize it when it’s being used against them.

But instead, the truth movement is corrupted with the sort of dialectical thinking intended to keep the movement not only divided, but incapable of apprehending the real truth of the conspiracy

The ruse has succeeded for the fact that most people have forgotten one of their most basic childhood lessons, that: two wrongs don’t make a right!

By way of summary, the Hegelian Dialectic words like this: First of all, it’s an idea derived from the Kabbalah, which justifies its Luciferianism by claiming that evil is part of creation, and the result of the absence of good. In reality, evil is not a cosmic force, but a resistance to or contradiction of cosmic truth.

Ultimately, the Hegelian dialectic, like the Kabbalah, posits that history is evolving, and that in the end the truth will conclude in the resolution of contradictions. First an idea begins as a “thesis.” It is then opposed by an “anti-thesis,” before becoming resolved in a “synthesis.”

In their diabolical cynicism, the Luciferians exercise their influence in the world by nurturing false oppositions, in order to force the dumb populace into recognizing the apparent contradictions inherent in each of them, and thus inducing them to accept their false solution or synthesis.

There are many forms of the dialectic in operation. The most fundamental one, the one that has shaped the very premise of the Western democratic societies and now the Clash of Civilizations, is the nonsense that there is a conflict between religion and science, in order to produce a “synthesis” as secularism.

But the most potent use of the dialectic has been the dichotomy between the political left and right. Or more recently, as the debate between “liberals” and “conservatives”, represented in the US as the Democratic and Republican parties.

Anyone who falls into support of either faction becomes a victim of one deception or the other.

The left in European politics was fabricated by a branch of the Illuminati, a secret society known as the Philadelphes. They began to serve their purpose with the so-called Year of Revolutions in 1848, in order to challenge the powers that be. The pretext was to protect the rights of working people.

The ideology was articulated by a Sabbatean Jew named Karl Marx, as a further development of the dialectical process of history outlined by Hegel. As much as Marx has been blamed for the totalitarian communist regimes of the 20th century, the fact is that Marx took the principles of charity that have been cherished for millennia by humanity, and subtracted God.

Therefore, the pretext that communism is “Godless” has been employed ever since, to induce conservatives into throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The money used to build the communist regime in the former Soviet Union came from a Wall Street cabal headed by Jacob Schiff, another Sabbatean and the leader of the Rothschilds’ interests in the US.

Most importantly, the same cabal was later responsible for the rise of the Nazis, who served the opposite pole of the dialectic by nurturing the fear of communism.

When the various leaders of the defeated Nazis came to the US under Operation Paperclip, there they became responsible by continuing to cultivate this rabid fear of communism, which became the basis of the Cold War.

In the farther fringes of American politics, the same Nazi influence resulted in the continued blame of “the Jews” for this so-called communist conspiracy.

In reality, of course, both camps are wrong. And the clever ruse works like this: The true name of the “illuminati,” or whatever name we want to call them by, is consolidation of ideological and financial power. The aim is to achieve ideological supremacy by undermining the value systems of traditional religion, and they achieve financial power through monopoly capitalism and banking.

To this end, the dialectic employs the sham fight between the liberals and the conservatives in the following manner: liberals are recruited with legitimate concerns about the excesses of capitalism, but have polluted their ideology with anti-religious ideas, and particularly a rejection of traditional morality.

Conversely, the conservatives have appealed to the Christians by correctly alerting them to the moral degeneracy of the liberals, but in doing so, recruit them to support right-wing policies of corporatist neoliberlsm. Tragically, it is by employing the anachronism of a “communist conspiracy” that conservatives have been duped into denouncing “big government” and extolling the virtues of privatization, which plays right into the hands of the Luciferian Illuminati’s plans for financial consolidation.

 

Comments

In which part of Islam is big government sanctioned? David, you're economic views are flawed. Marx's ideology has nothing to do with charity. If anything, it is the opposite. Marx argues for a complete centrally controlled economy where there is no charity and every transaction is monitored. His labour theory of value is wrong. His price theory is wrong. His dialectic materialism version of history is inaccurate and illogical. There is no baby in that bathtub.

Marxism appealed to altruistic principles by calling for a redistribution of wealth. The whole idea of "Big Government" is propaganda invented by fascist economics. Now teaming up with the Libertarians, they are suggesting that government is the problem. Government is not the problem. Corrupt elements working within the government is the problem. Government is an institution, and only as good as the people who govern it. But you can't have a society without government.

"When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan." (Proverbs 29:2)

After prayer, the most important commandment in the Quran is "Zakat" which is state-collected charity for the sake of wealth redistribution.

There are two principle aspects of any economy: needs and wants. Needs are food clothing and shelter Whereas wants are less necessary. They can be serviced by the profit motive. Certain needs should not operate until the principle of the profit motive alone. Certain needs must operate under the principle of altruism.

Take the case of oil. In Islam, fuels are supposed to be held publicly, because they represent a need. Just like water. When you allow private interests to control needs, you open the way for exploitation. It's much like a drug-dealer and an addict population. The people have no alternative. Just look at what has resulted from the monopoly over oil held by the Rockefeller family. It has provided them wealth enough to control the world, through the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and through the Rockefeller Foundation to work as a CIA front to fund innumerable political projects, from the hijacking of the university system to MK-Ultra.

The same lack of foresight is now leading conservatives to call for privatization in dangerous ways. The most stupid is the idea that penitentiaries could be serviced by private corporations. Surprise, surprise, prison corporations have been teaming up with corrupt cops to provide product. Or, by collaborating with the music industry, through shared ownership, they have produced gangsta rap to encourage criminality.

That's because it's an obvious conflict of interest. But those who call for neoliberalism are not concerned with that. They are only concerned with profit, and know that leagues of redneck Americans are easily duped into denouncing "Big Government" on their behalf.

 

 

"Marxism appealed to altruistic principles by calling for a redistribution of wealth"

That is just a mainstream doxa and has nothing to do with reality. He argued for the abolition of private property. In order to "re"distribute, first people have to own stuff, then you rearrange. He argued for complete central distribution of wealth, regardless of supply and demand of factors of production.

 

"The whole idea of "Big Government" is propaganda invented by fascist economics."

No, it wasn't. Fascism is corporatism, which itself is about big government. While serfs were taxed 25% and it was considered cruel, and modern a western man pays about 60% of his income as direct or indirect taxes, one does not have to conspire to come up with the criticism of big government. On the contrary, one has to be blind in order not to see that banks and governments are working hand in hand to rob the common man of his wealth through fiat money, credit expansion, excessive government borrowing and etc.

 

"Now teaming up with the Libertarians, they are suggesting that government is the problem. Government is not the problem. Corrupt elements working within the government is the problem. Government is an institution, and only as good as the people who govern it."

I disagree completely. No effete system can work to bring benefit to people no matter how good intentioned it was to begin with. Such as the social security system, which is actually a ponzi scheme and can never work. Government interventions to raise wages result in unemployment for example. It might seem like a good idea to economically illiterate people, but once you learn how the price system works through the markets like it is sanctioned in Islam (islamic economy is free market economy), you would understand that you cannot change prices by decree. It would only cause imbalances. What you can do is, after everything is said and done, you can ease the end results through charity. Like donating money to an unemployed man. But if you guarantee employment to the same man, you would cause moral hazard, economic imbalances and corrosion. No libertarian I know of objects to charity. Maybe social darwinistic, objectivist rayndroids who do not consider themselves to be libertarians anyway.

Furthermore, charity is supposed to be a voluntary action, not a government sanction. That's what it makes it a charity. Another sociological fact is, in social welfare countries, people are more unresponsive to people in need of help around them. They do not know their neighbors, they do not respond to a man lying on the street and etc. Because that responsibility is transferred to the government. They are already paying half of their earnings, why care, right?

"After prayer, the most important commandment in the Quran is "Zakat" which is state-collected charity for the sake of wealth redistribution."

Yes and that is 2.5% of ones total wealth. Not income, not expenditure, no VAT, no property tax, nothing but only 2.5% of your total wealth yearly. Enough said.

"There are two principle aspects of any economy: needs and wants. Needs are food clothing and shelter Whereas wants are less necessary. They can be serviced by the profit motive. Certain needs should not operate until the principle of the profit motive alone. Certain needs must operate under the principle of altruism."

There is only a thin line between needs and wants. Food but what kind of food. What kind of thinks do modern man see himself entitled to? Is internet a want or a necessity? What about a cell phone? Going to the movies twice a month?

While I agree that there needs to be charity as a safety net, if you take a service and make it a complete state monopoly because it is deemed an essential need, all you do is make the service more expensive. Because the real cost of something is not what government charges it to be, but the real resources spent during the provision of the service. And when government controls the totality of one good or service, or competes with the private sector providing that service, it squanders wealth. Because the government essentially has no real budget. They overspend and borrow money. They overspend even more and print money. Without a real price system and budget, you are bound to squandering (israf) which is forbidden in islam. If you'd ban the sale of bottled water because water is an essential need and provide it only through government, we would be drinking the most expensive water in the world. Government does not have a magic wand, they have to take from somewhere to provide you something. The cost of that free government water would reveal itself somewhere else. What you can do is provide public fountains as charity and pay for the cost. We have thousands of private sebils or hayrat (good deeds) built in the Ottoman era here in Istanbul.

People would have enough money to help the poor if they were not taxed this much. Seeing fellow man suffering is a hardship for common people and they would act in order to change that situation. Using the poor people as an excuse and confiscating wealth and corroding the economy is something else.

"When you allow private interests to control needs, you open the way for exploitation"

Control the needs? Do you mean provide for the needs? No provider is in control of the thing provided as long as he is not a monopoly. And there can occur no monopolies in a market as long as it is a free market. The providers are bound with the quality and the price he provides and the demand of the people.

"Just look at what has resulted from the monopoly over oil held by the Rockefeller family. It has provided them wealth enough to control the world, through the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and through the Rockefeller Foundation to work as a CIA front to fund innumerable political projects, from the hijacking of the university system to MK-Ultra"

Any monopoly is obtained through the government via licenses (and bribing when the system is completely corrupt). In a market where entrance is unbounded, there can be no monopoly.  Blaming market economy for monopolies is absurd.

While at it, the monopoly over oil is actually due to the fossil fuel theory supported by the Rockefellers in western universities. Take a look at the abiotic theory of oil.

"The same lack of foresight is now leading conservatives to call for privatization in dangerous ways. The most stupid is the idea that penitentiaries could be serviced by private corporations. Surprise, surprise, prison corporations have been teaming up with corrupt cops to provide product. Or, by collaborating with the music industry, through shared ownership, they have produced gangsta rap to encourage criminality."

If by privatization, you mean taking the monopoly unchanged and just trasferring the ownership to a private entity from the public, then privatization is very dangerous indeed. But that is not privatazation, that is the sale of a monopoly. A real privitization is getting rid of the licensing and openning the way for private capital to provide that good or service which would be very beneficial for too many reasons.

"Government" is just a label for the communal organization of people. Government is inevitable. People are social, and depend on each other. They need a mechanism for form collective decisions. In the past, some group representing the collective had to orgnize who and how the city wall was going to be constructed. How sewage and other infrasructure, would be incorprated. And most importantly, how to conduct diplomatic relations with other communities.

It's no different in modern times. We still need basic infrastructure. Someone still has to decide on the laws that are fair to all, to ease cohabitation. Conflicts inevitably occur. One wants to build a fence which will block his neighbor's view. If it's on his property, who decides what his lmitations are. That is the purpose of governemnt.

But we've been programed in our time to be suspicious of governement, instead of recognizing that any government is only as good as it's leaders, and it's their morality that determies the justice of the system, not hte system itself:

Like the Bible says, "When the godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan."

I agree with you that people are too heavily taxed. Excessively so. Because the middle class pays on the taxes. That's why Islam provides a just solution, where the tax collected by the state is based on assets, not income. It's a log hard to hide assets than income, so the wealthy would finally be paying their fair share.

But the right uses the fear of "communism" to suggest not only that Big Government is bad, but that all goverment is bad. And I never suggested at any point that I agreed with communism. But, right or wrong, communism appeals to people's sense of the value of charity.

That's all I was saying. It's how the dialectic works.. Each side holds an element of truth to bring to people to their side, and utlimately dupe them into the same lie. That lie is control by the banks. That will happen under communism, and is being promoted inadvertently by neoliberals and libertarians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

@David Livingstone and @Can Attal
If you guys could complete the discussion from both ends then some sort of understanding of both your standpoints will be available for consumption buy the rest of the readers. So please continue.

I believe that a middle path will emerge from this discussion, much like the way Hagelian dialectic works.. :)

I didn't see the need to belabor the point, but if you feel it will be worthwhile, I will certainly asnwer. Thank you.

J
Or rather yajuj majuj, pinko being yajuj as per the Arabic meaning of the letter ya and majuj the Nazi as per the meaning of the letter meem. Ever noticed the biblical descriptions of yajuj skips out the ya.

Err in Quran surah falaq, the first sign mentions to seek refuge in God from the evil he created, namely being that which has no intent in itself but is created to seek out its own activity like wolves hunting you, or in that verse specifically dajjal. Like the animals (apart from the one dog that spoke to the inhabitants of the cave I hear) they are not resurrected the same goes for dajjal. The rest of the surah/post goes on to effectively refer to Satan, then majuj the technical Nazi, and then yajuj the pigsey.

https://youtu.be/nyikd8KD8sg - Alex Jones admits he is rose order illuminati. It is as if he started his organisation with the non-hagelian grounds up movement but now has swung to neocons merging with the islamophobe industry that came about through mossad NATO gladio B.

Add new comment