-Caveat Lector-
from:
http://www-douzzer.ai.mit.edu:8080/conspiracy/conspiracy.html
<A HREF="http://www-douzzer.ai.mit.edu:8080/conspiracy/conspiracy.html">The
World Government Conspiracy
</A>
-----
Many embeds, links and more at site.
Om
K
--[3]--
The Hegelian Dialectic
The dialectical method of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)
consists of two main steps: the invention of artificial extremes
(``thesis'' and ``antithesis'') which superficially conflict with each
other, and the synthesis from that conflict of a goal, which is made to
appear to be the product of consensus. The artificial extremes are
chosen and propagandized (marginalizing the population) in such a way
that the goal is naturally synthesized from them. It is, essentially, a
trick - a fraud. It is a strategy of ideological divide-and-conquer. The
dialectic ruse dissipates the energy and coherency of its targets -
unless they recognize the ruse as such.
Hegel was a fountain of awful ideas, liberally cribbed by Marx and
Engels, by the sickly and neurologically defective Mary Baker Eddy
(founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, which - as evidenced by its
concept of ``Malicious Animal Magnetism'' - is in fact similar to
Scientology), and by the Unitarians (who are historical proponents of
universal government schooling in pursuit of socialist indoctrination).
Hegel was an influence on famed phenomenologist Martin Heidegger
(1889-1978) (NSDAP#3125894, 1933-May-1) (author of Being and Time
(1927)), on French existentialist and Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre
(1905-1980) (author of The Transcendence of the Ego (1937) and Being
and Nothingness (1943)), and on ``spiritualist'' utopian Marxist
philosopher Ernst Bloch (Das Prinzip Hoffnung (The Principle of Hope)).
A central precept of the Hegelian ethic is that people are principally
motivated by the desire to receive the approval and recognition of
others, and to avoid their disapproval. Since this motivation is not
predicated on the reasonableness of that approval or disapproval, the
principle is a mechanism by which an individual delegates arbitrary
control to others. This is, obviously, an enabling principle of
collectivism. By encouraging people to embrace this tendency, and
amplify it into a preeminent mechanism of decision making, Hegelianism
works directly to subvert the individual.
Here is a telling excerpt from Critical Theory and the Limits of
Sociological Positivism, an essay by Marxists George N. Katsiaficas
(UCSD) and Mary Lou Emery (Stanford):
The methodological basis of the critical theory of society is the
dialectical logic of George F. Hegel (1956). According to the principles
of dialectical logic, ``That which is cannot be true,'' (Marcuse, 1941).
[...]
Other scholars have referred to the critical theory of society as
Hegelian/Marxism, or dialectical Marxism (Klare and Howard, 1971).
In the above, one can already recognize the denial of facts, the general
relativism, the very rejection of reality, that is the hallmark of the
cryptomarxist liberal.
A Hegelian dialectic can be called a ``triple-false dichotomy'' - three
lies that jail. A triple-false dichotomy is an ostensible dichotomy
between two artificial, i.e. false, extremes, which are not in fact
diametric in consequence (that is, the third falsehood is the precept
that the extremes are related dichotomously). Each extreme is
nonsensical or otherwise morally void, and by causing rhetoric to be
dominated by ostensible adherents of these extremes, those exposed lose
some or most of their capacity to reason about the topic. The most
frightening, insidious way that reason is subverted is this: a
dialectical environment is one in which the synthesis is something like
a geometric bisection of the positions of two roughly equally extreme
(and irrational) poles. In this environment, people at the poles (most
people) fear to venture toward forthright support of a rational middle
ground (solution, as distinct from synthesis) because they expect the
synthesis to then be skewed in the direction of their polar opponents.
People are locked at the poles and unwilling to openly discuss the
domain of the solution, expecting such discussion to be interpreted as
weakness, with the result that the synthesis has free reign and the
solution has little chance to be realized.
Sometimes one of the two dialectic extremes is sufficiently absurd in
the present cultural context that it has no adherents, and is employed
only as a rhetorical tool.
A very familiar example of a dialectic is the Mac vs. Windows question.
Amusingly, there is even an evident liberal loyalty to the Mac and
conservative loyalty to Windows. Both of these operating system families
are essentially bad. If you synthesize the two, producing an operating
system exhibiting characteristics of both parent operating system
families, you still have an essentially bad operating system. If you
want to solve the problem and enjoy operating system reliability,
security, performance, flexibility, and versatility, you run Unix - the
nominally unpopular, nominally esoteric, largely unsupported third
option. The sheer number of people who have rejected the Mac-Windows
dialectic and adopted Linux (7.5m-10m according to the Economist
1999-Feb-20) is producing a demand many software houses can't and don't
ignore. The elites cannot enforce dialectics on software because of its
ethereal mobility, and because of first amendment protection in the US
and similar protections in other countries.
In the realm of public elections, however, the situation is quite the
opposite. The elites can and do enforce dialectics, shredding morale and
integrity. In popular voting and in legislatures, there is a 50%
threshhold for approval, an artificially low threshhold subject to
flittering and hysteresis, ideally suited to manipulation by the
dialectical method and by the mass media. The winner-take-all model is
an obviously corrupt principle, in which the intent of those voters who
voted against the victor are ostensibly represented by the victor, who
then claims to command the authority not just of those who voted for
him, but of all those who were eligible to vote for him. Since most of
any large population - 60%, 70%, or higher - consists of people of
ordinary intelligence, preoccupied with the mechanics of making a living
in a specialty disconnected from politics, centralized control of a mass
media apparatus can always be translated into dictation of who is
elected (this centralization of control is detailed in the media chapter
of my compilation). Finally, the two-party system is a prima facie
dialectic, perpetuated by the mass media apparatus, and permitting a
second major form of centralized electoral control by controlling who is
eligible to run under the banner of one of the two politically
subsidized perpetual parties. In short, this is a tyrannical oligarchy,
masquerading as a tyranny of the majority, masquerading as a democracy,
masquerading as a representative republic.
As a preface to the unabridged catalog of conspirator tactics which
follows, the following enumerates the principal Hegelian dialectics
promulgated by the power brokers. For each dialectic, I identify the
commonality between the ostensible extremes (undermining the precept of
opposition), the intended synthesis, and the solution by which the
dialectic trap can be escaped. For the solutions, I crib liberally from
my Innovist constitution.
spiritualism vs. materialism
The spiritualist is the mystic who believes in consciousness without
existence, and preaches subordination to an incomprehensible ``God.''
The materialist is the mystic who believes in existence without
consciousness, and preaches subordination to a vague and unaccountable
``Society'' variously called ``public interest,'' ``the people,''
``world opinion,'' ``the common good,'' etc. There are different
definitions in common use for each of these terms that are not similarly
objectionable.
�commonality: irrationality, self-sacrifice, and death worship
�synthesis: nihilism, concomitant manipulability
�solution: scientific moral absolutism, i.e. Innovism
idealism vs. pragmatism
Here, ``idealism'' means adherence to a value system that conflicts with
natural law, and ``pragmatism'' means the near-absence of a value
system, even that necessary to adhere to natural law, with decisions
made on the basis of expediency, i.e. minimization of immediate effort,
change, and risk. There are different definitions in common use for each
of these terms that are not similarly objectionable.
�commonality: irrational or indolent disconnection from natural law
�synthesis: patchy value system which is driven by (corrupt) principles
or by (corrupt) expediency in a manner favorable to the elite
�solution: moral absolutism, e.g. Innovism
hierarchical authoritarianism vs. unionism
Hierarchical authoritarianism is the traditional military mindset, and
the type of societal structure characteristic of ``right'' fascism (e.g.
Naziism). Unionism is the traditional guild or commune mindset, and the
type of societal structure characteristic of ``left'' fascism (e.g.
Soviet or Chinese communism).
�commonality: subordination of real individual interest to fiat
collective interest
�synthesis: hybrid hierarchy of unions
�solution: individualism, libertarianism
primacy of bourgeoisie vs. primacy of proletariat
�commonality: alienation, insecurity
�synthesis: instillment and perpetuation of class distinctions
�solution: individualism
order vs. randomness
For examples of randomness, consider found art, abstract expressionism
(Jackson Pollock et al), certain schools of improvisational jazz, serial
and atonal music (Arnold Schoenberg, Olivier Messaien), and lotteries.
There are, of course, many other examples of institutionalized
randomness.
�commonality: subversion of evolution
�synthesis: compartmented order, subversion of evolution
�solution: compartmented randomness, facilitation of evolution
oligarchism vs. democracy
�commonality: marginalization of individualists
�synthesis: pseudodemocratic oligarchism
�solution: constitutionalism
Christianity vs. Maitreyanism
�commonality: perversion of the ego, with a view to its destruction
�commonality: self-sacrifice
�synthesis: bourgeois socialism, mystical orthodoxy
�solution: deism, Innovism, rational self-interest
nationalism vs. anarchy
Here, nationalism is any situation in which the territorial extent and
integrity of a nation-state have been made to take precedence over the
desires of the territory's residents. This includes traditional
imperialism, regionalism (the ostensibly consensual combination of
diverse sovereign states into a single state), and the rigid maintenance
of territorial integrity when a nation is sprawling (as the USSR, the
USA and Canada, and to a lesser degree, China).
Anarchy is a period during which no sovereign, effective, law-enforcing
state is associated with a territory. An effective state invariably
appears, usually promptly, usually authoritarian, and often nationalist.
More specifically, an existing outside state will usually take advantage
of the power vacuum.
�commonality: perpetuation of cultural conflict
�synthesis: nation of tightly intertwined conflicting cultural veins,
producing local indecision - this interacts with the legislative
electoral system to render representation impossible except in
inconsequential ways
�solution: course fragmentation, treatied alliance and EC-style border
crossing, possible subsequent amalgamations
�solution: non-geographic legislators
multiculturalism vs. chauvinism
Note that affirmative action is one of many practical implmentations of
multiculturalism. Amusingly, affirmative action is a definitively racist
family of policies.
�commonality: degenerate view of culture
�synthesis: popular confusion and incoherence on matters of social
morality - manipulability
�solution: Innovism
orthodoxy vs. nihilism
�commonality: removal from reality
�synthesis: authoritative orthodoxy, personal quotidian nihilism
�solution: Innovism
gun-grabbers vs. gun-anarchists
``Gun grabbers'' are people and organizations who pursue the uniform and
complete prohibition of private firearms. Sarah Brady's ``Handgun
Control Incorporated'' is an example.
``Gun anarchists'' are people and organizations who resist any policy
that impedes or inconveniences popular access to or ownership of
firearms. They oppose trigger lock (and other physical security)
requirements, gun safety training prerequisites, forensic tagging of
weapons paraphernalia, and in the most extreme version, custody transfer
audit trails of any sort.
�commonality: misdistribution of deadly weapons
�synthesis: incremental marginalization of private weapons, arbitrary
state discretion in granting privilege of firearms custody
�solution: right to own and carry weapons, forensic tagging, equitable
licensing, disqualification for criminals
pro-life vs. pro-choice
Dialectically, ``pro-life'' is the stance that abortion must be
prosecuted as first degree homicide except when the child is sure not to
survive the pregnancy. Pro-life extremists generally place higher
priority on survival of the child than on survival of the mother.
Pro-life extremists generally seek to criminalize commerce in
contraceptive technologies and techniques.
``Pro-choice'' is the stance that surgical and pharmaceutical abortion
must be available ubiquitously, state-subsidized when the patient is
unable to pay, and without constraint on the method of abortion or the
stage of pregnancy at which it is performed. Pro-choice extremists also
support ubiquitous, often state-subsidized availability of contraceptive
technology, and extensive state-subsidized youth education programs to
teach the methods of contraception and urge their practice. Some
pro-choice extremists support the right to infanticide.
�commonality: state intrusion in human procreation
�synthesis: case-by-case state determination of access to abortion and
contraceptive technology
�solution: no state subsidies, lawful access to private abortion through
the second trimester
parental sovereigntists vs. state paternalists
``Parental sovereigntists'' hold that parents can raise and treat their
children in any manner they see fit, without the possibility of a loss
of custody due to a formal determination of neglect or abuse. The core
principle is that children are the property of their parents. In
practice, however, even the most extreme parental sovereigntists
unhesitatingly support a loss of custody when substantial physical
injury, sexual molestation, or gross neglect is involved.
``State paternalists'' hold that children are the property of the state,
and that parental custody is predicated on the discretionary consent of
the state. Parents must facilitate attendance of their children in
state-operated socialization and education programs, starting shortly
after birth and continuing until the threshhold of legal adulthood.
Stringent guidelines governing parents' conduct with respect to their
children are promulgated, and deviation from the guidelines is prima
facie justification for immediate abdication of custody privileges, at
the discretion of the state. The state monitors households for
compliance, and frequently interviews children to ascertain compliance.
In practice, state paternalists subscribe to this stance in undiluted
form.
�commonality: failure to properly place the interests of the child at
the forefront of decisions affecting the child
�synthesis: parental sovereignty in inconsequential domains of
child-rearing, state control of those domains crucial to socialization
into the contemporary power structure
�solution: parental sovereignty with basic state-enforced standards of
provision in the domains of housing, nutrition, education (basic
skillset and constitutional law), and medicine, but encouraging no
institutionalization
radical feminism vs. patriarchicalism
``Radical feminism'' is the somewhat incoherent stance that women should
reject all the traditional constraints and responsibilities associated
with womanhood, but exploit all its traditional advantages and assets.
It is driven by power lust and is alternately amoral or immoral.
Marriage, on the occasion that it actually occurs, is viewed as an
instrument of control to be exploited. Childrearing is viewed with
suspicion and disdain, and is largely delegated to others. Women are
viewed as inherently superior to men, and stereotypically male (though
in fact universally applicable) methodologies such as rationalism and
taxonomy are dismissed whenever they are invoked in opposition to a
desire or fear. Positions of ever greater authority - through corporate
careers and through marriage to powerful men - are sought with no
discernible consideration for honor or integrity. The corruption of
Lesbianism is also intimately associated with radical feminism.
``Patriarchicalism'' is the orthodoxy of woman as full time homemaker.
The woman is completely occupied by the bearing and raising of children,
the maintenance and preparation of victuals, the maintenance of a clean
and tidy household, the servicing of her husband's desires,
inconsequential domestic pastimes, and meetings and volunteer work
(churches, charitable organizations, women's clubs, etc.). The authority
of the man is insusceptible to challenge, and the man's responsibility
is confined to financial provision, heavy labor, and defense against
external threats. Under no circumstances is the woman permitted to
attain economic independence from her husband.
�commonality: gross immorality and perversion of lifestyle
�synthesis: incoherence and ambivalence in the woman's self-image,
facilitating state indoctrination of their children more effective
�solution: joint (with partner) intimate child rearing, and non-domestic
pursuits of consequence, as desired and feasible
extremist conservationism vs. laissez faire (destructivist)
environmentalism
Extremist conservationists believe that humanity has a moral obligation
to leave the earth untouched by humanity where we have yet to impact it,
and to return the earth to its prior condition where we have already
impacted it. They believe humans are intrinsically and collectively
evil, and that we are obligated to be ashamed of ourselves individually
and collectively. They recognize no human right to existence, much less
to self-determination or development.
Laissez faire environmentalism is the pattern of rampant environmental
abuse observed in the activities of major corporations and the military.
This includes old growth clearcutting, the blending of toxic waste
(including heavy metals, radioactive waste, dioxins, etc.) into
agricultural fertilizers and construction materials, release of toxic
waste into water tables, lakes, rivers, oceans, and the atmosphere,
gross abuse of antibiotics in livestock, careless productization of
recombinant foodstuffs, etc.
�commonality: extinction of humanity
�synthesis: incremental state intrusion by environmental regulation
�solution: minimally intrusive proactive regulation, full accountability
and offender reparation (deprecation of environmental cost
externalization)
communism vs. laissez faire (concentrationist) capitalism
�commonality: central control of society
�synthesis: bourgeois socialism, Keynesianism, incremental
centralization of economic control through regulation and distinguished
institutions
�solution: employee ownership, rigorous anti-trust regulations,
prohibition of state money, state borrowing, and state lending
communism vs. fascism
�commonality: central control of society, subordination of the
individual to the collective, blanket denial of individual rights
�synthesis: central control of society, preservation of trivial rights,
denial of those rights the exercise of which threatens the hegemony of
the elite
�solution: Innovist libertarianism
self-sacrifice vs. short-sighted inconsiderateness
``Short-sighted inconsiderateness'' is what people mean when they use
the term ``selfish'' in a derogatory manner.
�commonality: self-injury
�synthesis: popular decisionmaking driven by a molded amalgam of
self-sacrifice and short-sightedness, neutering the individual
�synthesis: guilt for acting in rational self-interest, resulting in
greater manipulability
�solution: rational self-interest
altruism as apex virtue vs. selfishness as apex virtue
Altruism is action of benefit to another individual or set thereof, and
exacting a net cost on the actor if emotional considerations are
ignored. Selfishness is action of benefit to self, even if emotional
considerations are ignored. That is, the costs and benefits at issue
here are principally monetary and material. There is nothing inherently
wrong (evil) with either of these. However, it is wrong to maintain that
either of them is a virtue in and of itself, much less that either is an
apex virtue.
�commonality: nihilism, in particular the rejection of Innovism
�synthesis: plastic, labyrinthine pseudomorality in economic matters
�solution: Innovism
sexual regimentation vs. sexual liberalism
Sexual regimentation is a patriarchal system in which sex is forbidden
except between formally and officially married couples, and must be in
the traditional ``missionary position.'' In sexual regimentation,
marriage is between people of opposite sexes, typically similar ages
with the female younger than the male, equal races, equal classes, and
similar religious alignments. The production of children commences soon
after marriage, and the raising of children is traditional and performed
principally by the mother. Divorce is considered to be a disgrace,
masturbation is considered to be an unmentionable perversion, birth
control is risqu�, and abortion is all but verboten. There is virtually
no frank discussion of sexuality. Prostitution and mistresses are compo
nents of sexual regimentation, and are names for sexual infractions by
patriarchs which are forgiven if engaged in discretely. Harems are a
variation of sexual regimentation. In many cases, infanticide
constrained by a system of standards is an aspect of sexual
regimentation. Compulsory, institutionalized eugenics is also a form of
sexual regimentation. A mouthpiece of sexual regimentation is the
Catholic Church.
Sexual liberalism is a system in which a loosely defined ``sex'' is
acceptable between one or more people who are all consenting adults or
all consenting non-adults, and can involve any combination of genders,
organs, fetishes, and practices. Sexual liberalism pointedly and
explicitly rejects sexual regimentation in all its dimensions. Adherents
of sexual liberalism do not value, or even recognize, any degree of
inviolability in relationships, instead viewing the universe of
candidate sexual partners as a population either without internal
partitions or with constantly shifting internal partitions. No sexual
morality is practically adhered to. Birth control and abortion are
routine. Sexuality is discussed freely and routinely. Children, when
they happen to be born, are often not part of complete families for many
or all of their formative years, and are often subjected to various
``progressive'' child-raising programs and trends in which the parent or
parents have little participation. The genetic parents are often not the
guardians. Sexual liberalism includes androgynism, transvestitism, and
partial and full transsexualism. A dimension of feminism is a component
of sexual liberalism. Cosmopolitan magazine (Hearst) is an undiluted
mouthpiece of sexual liberalism. ``Change of Heart,'' seen on the WB
network (Time Warner), is an extreme exhibition of sexual liberalism.
Loveline, distributed via Viacom's MTV and Westinghouse's WXRK (K-Rock
east, home base of Howard Stern) and KROQ (K-Rock west, home base of
Loveline), is a striking though less uniform mouthpiece.
Note also that an endless stream of movies and books portray the
romantic, epic love affair as an imperative for full and satisfactory
living, thereby encouraging people to fall in love without reserve.
However, the practical realities of contemporary culture generally
thwart the success of such affairs. In fact, such affairs are
practically seen as absurd and na�ve, and those who embrace them as
mentally ill. The effect of this system is to manufacture broken hearts,
and the utility of this to the conspirators is self-evident, since the
broken hearted tend toward distinctly attenuated adherence to personal
principle and the dictates virtue.
�commonality: neither recognizes nor permits natural romantic pairing,
and denies the validity of the epic romance
�synthesis: contorted laws and policies that artificially blur
boundaries between overtures, relationships, harassment, and rape,
poisoning the entire (socially crucial) arena
�synthesis: sexual and moral confusion - manipulability of objective and
of the bases of decision-making
�solution: self-knowledge, honesty and forthrightness in relationships,
serial monogamy, procreation only when a nurturing environment is
reasonably expected for the duration of childhood
moral totalitarianism vs. economic totalitarianism
�commonality: totalitarianism
�synthesis: moral and economic intrusion
�solution: moral and economic libertarianism with anti-trust regulation
total peace (categorical law and order) vs. total war
�commonality: onerous impediment to cultural, technological, and
scientific innovation
�synthesis: pursuit of total peace, conservatism and caution
�solution: voluntary militarization and weaponization of population,
public SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) education and
preparedness
draconian law enforcement vs. liberal permissiveness and apologism
�commonality: gross injustice
�synthesis: labyrinthine legal system that is manipulable by the elite,
and is inaccessible to laymen
�solution: decisive legal system free of loopholes, inconsistencies, and
unnecessary complexity, citizen armament and self-defendability
rampant lawlessness vs. studious regulatory conformity
Rampant lawlessness: glorified in the movies, heros who break all the
rules, Bill Clinton
�commonality: abridgement of individual rights and autonomy
�synthesis: routine but nonuniform compliance with regulatory
infrastructure superficially senseless or silly but in consequence
pursuing the elite agenda
�synthesis: popular paranoia
�solution: popular rejection of the cult of criminality, excision of
frivolous regulatory requirements and obstacles
blanket prohibition vs. blanket deregulation
�commonality: psychotropics producing rampant sociopathy
�synthesis: larger military and police forces
�synthesis: drug use only as prescribed by an institutionally affiliated
agent, e.g. a medical doctor
�synthesis: robust prohibition of those psychotropics the elite deem to
disfavor their agendas
�solution: tiered commercial availability of psychotropics to adults,
requiring demonstration of fitness, with the most severe tier being
available only in staffed and monitored recreational facilities
white supremacism vs. whites as pox and scourge
�commonality: whites as separate and distinguished from the rest of the
world's people
�synthesis: manipulability, popular assent to elite imperial bullying
�solution: no initiation of force, tightly constrained interventionism
as in Innovism
institutional, particularly state, education vs. no education
�commonality: popular ignorance and incomprehension
�synthesis: no education other than institutional education - doctrinal
and memetic domination
�solution: extensive private education industry, total state divestment
from education except specialized training for state employees
plodding peer-reviewed institutionally accredited formal science vs.
nonsensical mysticism
�commonality: onerous handicapping of ratiocination
�synthesis: common sense excluded from serious decision-making, with
only formal science being acceptable in ostensibly serious contexts, and
only mysticism being acceptable in colloquial contexts
�solution: independence, rational objectivism
specialism vs. superficial generalism
�commonality: impoverishment of intuition and wisdom
�synthesis: serious decision-making performed by groups of
institutionally certified specialists, only superficial generalism is
acceptable in colloquial contexts
�solution: common sense and multispecialism
intuition vs. reason
This is not a triple-false dichotomy at all: the intuition of a
reasonable person is itself reasonable. The intent of the false
dichotomy is to neuter the capacity to reason.
state religion vs. state nihilism
``State religion'' is any situation in which an instrument of state
policy or of state-funded education treats any theistic belief system,
or any other degenerate mental censorship or distortion, as possibly or
certainly true or reasonable.
``State nihilism'' is any situation in which such an instrument states
or implies that good and evil lack reality, or that opinions or
consensus bear decisively upon the ascertainment of moral right and
wrong.
�commonality: moral corruption by instruments of the state
�synthesis: promulgation of amorality and agnosticism - manipulability
of objective and of the bases of decision-making
�solution: deism, Innovism, scrupulous avoidance of state recognition of
or participation in matters religious
zionism vs. antisemitism
�commonality: persecution of the Jewish people
�synthesis: marginalization of Jews, making them manipulable
�synthesis: maintainance of a permanent US outpost in Afrasia
�solution: individualism, deism
consumptive asceticism vs. profligate consumption
�commonality: consumptive patterns driven by motivations other than
reason
�synthesis: manipulability of consumptive behavior
�solution: rational self-interest
overweight vs. underweight
�commonality: unhealth (obesity, anorexia, and bulemia) and corruption
of self-image
�synthesis: consumption of and dependence on unhealthy exotic chemical
industry food additives and pharmaceutical industry appetitie control
drugs
�solution: eat healthily and in moderation
statism (big intrusive government) vs. anarchism (no government)
�commonality: no recognition of individual rights
�synthesis: big intrusive government (Half of a big intrusive government
is still a big intrusive government.)
�solution: constitutionalism
intrusive state vs. organized crime
�commonality: institutions wresting autonomy from individuals
�synthesis: larger military and police forces
�solution: citizen armament and self-defendability
workaholism vs. indolence
�commonality: personal morbidity
�synthesis: time spent not working as defined within the system produces
guilt, rendering the individual more manipulable
�synthesis: personal self-defined time for thought and intellectual
exploration is annihilated
�solution: on-demand with-proportional-notice no-penalty vacation time,
recognition of the intrisic virtue of extensive self-defined time for
thought and intellectual exploration
Bill Clinton vs. Ken Starr
�commonality: servants of the oligarchists
�synthesis: political survival of Bill Clinton
�solution: prosecution and harsh punishment of Ken Starr and Bill
Clinton, and thousands of other related officials, for treason,
treasonous conspiracy, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct
justice, etc.
Democratic vs. Republican
This is not a real dichotomy: it is used to confuse and politically
neuter the public, and to facilitate and conceal legislative actions
that lack popular support.
Liberal vs. Conservative
This is a second-order dialectic, composed from many of the other
dialectics in this catalog, specifically from dialectic monopoles -
though as it turns out, it is composed almost entirely of complete
first-order dialectics. The definitions of ``Liberal'' and
``Conservative'' here are obviously the working American definitions,
and do not correspond to historical definitions. This is a dialectic
theatrically displayed on CNN's Crossfire and Fox News's intolerable
Hannity and Colmes. Bill O'Reilly, as it happens, is almost surely a
representative of the grand liberal-conservative synthesis as listed
below. In their fully implemented forms, Conservativism is roughly
Naziism, and Liberalism is mystical (``spiritual'') Marxism.
Here is the crucial realization regarding the Liberal-Conservative
dialectic: if you, as a candidate for office, take a strictly reasonable
stance on issues - for example, Innovism - then not only do you
``terminally'' alienate Conservatives and Liberals because of their
treasured dialectic monopoles, but you also alienate so-called
Moderates, since Moderates are in practice simply people who have
progressed to the stage in which they treasure dialectic syntheses (as
quite distinct from dialectic solutions). The effect of the
Liberal-Conservative system is to lump together a whole bunch of
mistakes, walk each individual up to a fork in the road, and convince
him that he must go one way or the other - choose one or the other big
bag of blunders. Most people do as they're told, and a reasonable,
innovative candidate of integrity cannot now be elected by Americans
anywhere at the state (province) or national level.
ConservativeLiberal
hierarchical authoritarianismunionismspiritualismmaterialismprimacy of
bourgeoisieprimacy of proletariatlaissez faire capitalismcommunism
oligarchismdemocracyorderrandomnessChristianityMaitreyanismchauvinism
multiculturalismorthodoxynihilismlaissez faire environmentalismextremist
conservationismsexual regimentationsexual liberalismpatriarchicalism
radical feminismpro-lifepro-choiceparental sovereigntistsstate
paternalistsmoral totalitarianismeconomic totalitarianismstudious
regulatory conformitylawlessnessdraconian law enforcementpermissiveness
and apologismstate religionstate nihilismblanket prohibition (of
recreational drugs)gun-grabbers Conservative-Liberal Syntheses
Conservative-Liberal Solutionshybrid hierarchy of unionsindividualism
instillment and perpetuation of class distinctionsindividualism
compartmented order, subversion of evolutioncompartmented randomness,
facilitation of evolutionpseudodemocratic oligarchismconstitutionalism
bourgeois socialismrational self-interestincremental centralization of
economic controlemployee ownership, rigorous anti-trust regulations
incoherence on matters of social moralityInnovismpopular assent to elite
imperial bullyingno initiation of forceauthoritative orthodoxy, personal
quotidian nihilismInnovismincremental state intrusion by environmental
regulationminimally intrusive proactive environmental regulationsexual
and moral confusionhonest responsible relationshipsincoherence and
ambivalence in women's self-imageintimate child rearing and pursuits of
consequencestate determination of access to abortionlawful access to
private abortionstate control of those domains crucial to socialization
parental sovereignty with basic standardsmoral and economic intrusion
moral and economic libertarianism with anti-trustcompliance with
regulations pursuing the elite agendaexcision of frivolous regulatory
requirementslabyrinthine legal systemdecisive legal system free of
unnecessary complexitystate discretion in firearms custodyright to own
and carry weaponspromulgation of amorality and agnosticismdeism,
scrupulous avoidance of state religiondrug use only as institutionally
prescribedcommercial availability of psychotropics to adults
--[cont]--
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
