November 15, 2018

Hegel’s Dialectic of “Choosing Sides”

The other day I posted an article about how we love to believe lies and as such makes us extremely susceptible to fraud, hoaxes, cons, etc. Even when told we have been made fools of, there is little hope that the fooled will snap out of it and realize what is taking place. Ah, the power of the master deceiver.

In that article, I wrote: “…if one lie is what we want to hear, we readily accept that as truth. We must believe in one side or the other, one actor over the other, one author over the other…right?”

Hegel was a 19th-century German philosopher and theologist. His Dialectic has been copied and put into play to the point that it is the controller of all things in our lives – mostly political. Few of us recognize this fact.

I would suggest that those seeking knowledge, study about the Hegelian Dialectic by starting here.

From this study, we discover Merriam-Webster’s definition of dialectic: “…the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite.” and “…development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism.”

I have often chosen to place the “triad” of “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis” into “create a problem, embellish the problem, offer a predetermined solution.”

Because Hegel’s dialectic is so active in our everyday lives, it is important to understand what it is and what it can do to us. From the article linked to above, we read: “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 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.”

And yet, in our insanity, we continue walking down the same street and falling in the same hole somehow believing each time it will be different. The result is less of all the things we once valued in life and more of those “outright assaults on individual liberty.”

We are consumed with Hegel’s theory: “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.”

Once the crisis/conflict is created, the antithesis begins which involves the need to create sides, each side warring with the other. This is actually easier than one might suspect due to a long time false paradigm of Left/Right, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, and the “Two-Party System” of politics. In addition, this false paradigm relies on each one of our natural, GOD-given personality and character traits.

The anger, the hatred, the calls for “getting in someone’s face,” rioting and general violence, etc. are all part of the embellishment of a “problem” created for us by someone administering this dialectic. Once this embellishment reaches crisis mode, “synthesis” kicks in with a solution to a problem that was created by those seeking to implement their controlling solutions.

All one must do is to study and understand this dialectic, recognize it as part of our ongoing and angry existence in the country, and then take the action suggested above – “the only way…is to step outside the dialectic.” The only way to step outside the dialectic is to study it, understand it, and recognize it.

Without that, you are stuck…on stupid!

Share

Obama Just Another Man of Sin

Share

Sometimes Psychopaths Tell The Truth

Thinking back..

Share

Govern-Mente

U.S. Citizen believes anything..

Share

Be Still For Their God, Your Political Leaders, Is Satan

Presidential portrait of Obama with hidden art within the art itself that most folks cannot see right off; The first photo shows the Serpent in the garden of Eden. Second photo snake. Third photo shows the fangs on Obama’s forehead which also represents angel/sperm. fourth photo shows dead sheep on the left side and T-Rex on right side. Fifth photo, Obama dead sheep T rex layover work to bring out hidden art. Sixth photo Obama serpent striking in Garden of Eden, Fang again = Sperm. Basic every day subliminal messaging that most people never see without some help…This is not to be misconstrued as left wing bashing because the right is identical to the left and of the same source.. This is an example of the hidden yet subliminal messaging the enemy uses daily to communicate and to mock those blinded by Strong Delusion thus lacking the capacity to see the hidden artwork all around us in this world..

Jonathon Kleck did the over lay work to bring out the hidden art..

Maybe you can see them now?

Trump is their toy too…Stay tuned…

Share

Well Worth The Time

What if we lived in a world where the Vatican’s is a big snake and it’s a dragon, and inside the snakes mouth is the largest altar in the world that is a vagina and a penis and there’s angels turning to semen which is Genesis 1:1 as well as Genesis 1:26, let us create man in our image so they created them male and female, oh wow there’s a big altar of a big dead sheep that’s a bunch of angels turning into semen and a penis and a vagina, a transmutation from angel to human to eventual reconciliation with Yahweh or falling further into Satanism thus becoming locusts.. I no longer wonder why they made an altar of that because it’s true.. It’s right there in plain sight, yet the fallen humans walking in strong delusion cannot see it… If it is shown to them they deny it..

 

What will you turn out to be?

 

 

Share

Luciferian Locust Political Legal System of Pestilence – Time To Get A Clue

Share

Thinking Themselves Wise, They Are But Fools

 

Ephesians 5:13 Geneva

{13 But all things when they are reproved of the light, are manifest: for it is light that maketh all things manifest.}

Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children,

And walk in love, even as Christ hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, to be an offering and a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor to God.

[a]But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as it becometh Saints,

Neither filthiness, neither foolish talking, neither [b]jesting, which are things not comely, but rather giving of thanks.

[c]For this ye know, that no whoremonger, neither unclean person, nor covetous person, which is an [d]idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, and of God.

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for, for such things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

[e]Be not therefore companions with them.

For ye were once darkness, but are now [f]light in the Lord: walk as children of light.

(For the fruit of the [g]Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth.)

10 Approving that which is pleasing to the Lord.

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but even [h]reprove them rather.

12 For it is shame even to speak of the things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things when they are reproved of the light, are manifest: for it is light that maketh all things manifest.

14 Wherefore [i]he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and stand up from the [j]dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Again;

{13 But all things when they are reproved of the light, are manifest: for it is light that maketh all things manifest.}

 

Share

The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!

Share

Give Up Second Amendment in Exchange for an “Upgrade” of the First?

You can’t make this stuff up.

I was sent a link to an article at Powerline, where the author made a valiant attempt to inject some semblance of rational discourse into a topic that never experiences anything close to rationality – school shootings.

To prove this point, simply read the comments that follow the article. I’d like to take a moment and address one of them. A commenter writes: “I suggest a trade-off: Conservatives support the deletion of the 2nd amendment in return for an upgraded 1st amendment which restores prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and makes the graphic depiction of murder on TV, film, the Internet and video games illegal.”

I immediately wondered what world this person must live in. I know where I live and it’s seldom in and of this world but I think my reasoning skills are a tad bit better. Let me explain, even though our existence has driven us to a point where an explanation is actually needed.

This person suggests that “conservatives” support the deletion of the Second Amendment as part of a trade-off. I’m wondering why liberals, who have and will continue to enjoy their Second Amendment right aren’t included in this obvious ignorant attack? I guess I just didn’t know only “conservatives” support the Second Amendment.

Try, if possible, to understand the trade-off. Before I comment further, I hope that it is obvious that this person fails miserably in understanding the First and Second Amendments or even holding any discernment as to the difference between a God-given right, a Government-given privilege, and the freedom to make choices according to your morals and/or ideology.

The commenter suggests an “upgrade” to the First Amendment in exchange for a repeal of the Second Amendment. It is unbelievable, to the unlearned I suppose, that a person views a reduction in their rights as an upgrade. Once upon a time a right, in the context of the Bill of Rights, was constructed with the idea that a person was free to exercise that right while at the same time not infringing on the choices of others in exercising any right or choosing not to. The comment above surely delineates a lost understanding of something so basic.

For those in need, here is the First Amendment as it is written: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The “upgrade” is said to include: “…restores prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and makes the graphic depiction of murder on TV, film, the Internet and video games illegal.”

For clarification, we the people and We The People, have butchered the First Amendment but not nearly to the extent of the Second. However, people mostly have the right to pray or read the Bible any place and at any time they so CHOOSE. I have yet to find written in the Bible where Yahweh says that prayer must be done openly in a public arena, in a formal and structurally organized way and included in the curriculum of public schools. In other words, because Government dictates that praying and Bible reading are not part of the public school curriculum, any student, for the most part, and while not disturbing others in their quest for an education, can pray or read their Bible if they so CHOOSE. I’ve never understood those that think they are denied their “right” to their established “religion” because prayer and Bible reading are not “REQUIRED.”

As much as what movies, music, video games, Internet, and all is a reflection of the decadent and immoral American society as a whole, last time I checked, a parent has a right to control what their children are allowed to see and listen to. Parents fail miserably in this but is that a good enough reason to pretend that making this crap illegal, in other words destroying another right of a person to CHOOSE, the right answer? Is that why the person called this an “upgrade.” Up is down, down is up…etc.

Supposedly, once we become “of age” we can CHOOSE to see and hear what we wish. As the Scriptures say: Bring up a child in the way in which he/she should go and he/she shall never depart from it. As much as some would desire, it is still quite difficult to control what a person thinks…short of lobotimization.

I would suppose that in this person’s mind, their “upgrade” was some kind of carrot at the end of a stick. It doesn’t work that way. Rights are about CHOICE not about being forced to have to abide by someone’s ideology, including governments’.

The Second Amendment doesn’t force people to pick up a gun and use it. The Second Amendment is about giving any lawful citizen of this country the option to do that if they CHOOSE. If I believe that Government is a serious threat to my existence, as well as my freedom to make choices, anyone mandating to me that the only gun I can own is a single shot .22 caliber rifle, isn’t allowing me full exercise of my right to self defense and/or the threat of tyranny.

What another commenter said was that there would be no First Amendment if the Second Amendment (or the principle on which it was founded) did not exist.

What man-governments have done to the Second Amendment, masked behind comments like, “reasonable controls,” is to continue to limit and restrict the choices of people in how they can defend themselves. Gun Free Zones outlaw freedom of choice. People who get shot and killed in a Gun Free Zone are the responsibility of every government and individual who demands and has been successful in taking away my freedom to choose how and where I can defend myself. Someday, you will have to answer for your totalitarian behavior, but for now, you will have to live with the reality of what you have done. There is blood on your hands.

Sleep well tonight, my pretty!

Share