Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The Dialectics: archive

To active dossier <<<

P
oliteia: "The Alinsky Legacy: the Subversion Handbook,"
by Dr Sam Holliday

'Rules for Radicals' by Saul D. Alinsky is an handbook for how 'Have-Nots' can take power away from the 'Haves.' In it he explains how to manipulate the political system through "community organization" using a mantra of "change". Obama is the embodiment of the Alinsky's Legacy. This has been known for many years, but even today very few people recognize it. (...) The ability of Obama to implement Alinsky's plan is due to his appealing image, to his skills, and to the transformation of American culture as a result of postmodern thought. It is not difficult to connect the dots. (...) Why does black pride and white guilt count for so much? Why does Obama's hypocrisy, financial indiscretions, anti-American past, and questionable associations count for so little? Could the answers be that the USA is now in the declining stages of its cycle? (See: Understanding Change) How far will the Legacy of Frank Davis and Saul Alinsky be taken? Can it be stopped? Can the cycle be reversed? (...) >>>

21st Oct 2008
~


... VDH doesn't know about the Dialectics ... women's lib was the first ax at the root of the white, heterosexual male power structure ... but it was so successful that no one noticed and almost all co-opted the tactic ... the Left is right: they own feminism ...

Townhall: "What Was Feminism?", by Victor Davis Hanson

The media went hysterical over Sarah Palin (...) She may have appeared to the public as an independent, capable professional woman, but to a particular elite she couldn't possibly be a real feminist or even a serious candidate. And that raises questions about what is -- and what is not -- feminism. Feminism grew out of the 1960s to address sexual inequality. (...) A woman's worth was not to be necessarily judged by having either too many or too few children, given the privacy of such decisions and the co-responsibility of male partners. (...) women were not to be defined by their husband's or father's success or failure. The beauty of women's liberation was that it was not hierarchical but included the unmarried woman who drove a combine on her own farm, the corporate attorney and the homemaker who chose to home-school her children (...) did not look for special favors (...) surely did not wish to deny innately feminine differences. Instead, they asked only that men should not establish arbitrary rules of the game that favored their male gender. (...)

That old definition of feminism is now dead. It has been replaced by a new creed that is far more restrictive -- as the controversy over Sarah Palin attests. Out of the recent media frenzy, four general truths emerged about the new feminism: First, there is a particular class and professional bent to the practitioners of feminism. (...) Emancipated women who, like Palin, do not believe in abortion or are devout Christians are at best considered unsophisticated dupes. At worse, they are caricatured as conservative interlopers, piggybacking on the hard work of leftwing women whose progressive ideas alone have allowed the Palins of the world the choices that otherwise they would not now enjoy.(...) Joe Biden, said Palin’s election, given her politics, would be "a backward step for women." Third, hypocrisy abounds.(...) This past week we were supposed to learn about a liberated Gov. Sarah Palin. Instead the media taught us more than we ever wanted to know about what they now call feminism. >>>

Updated: 11th Sep 2008
~


... at last, another definition, but it isn't reduced further down the roots: the KGB/Frankfurt School strategy against the West through self-restraint ... auto-subversion, might be another ...

Pajamas: "Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong," by Roger Kimball

(...) Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to the socialistically inclined. (...) liberalism and feelings of guilt go together as predictably as tea and crumpets. In the title essay of his remarkable book The Chatham House Version, Elie Kedourie criticizes the anti-Western bias of Arnold Toynbee’s multi-volume A Study of History. “In my eyes,” Toynbee wrote in his concluding volume, “the west is a perpetual aggressor.” Kedourie points out that behind Toynbee’s impressive erudition (”the far-fetched analogies, the obscure references, the succession of latinate, polysyllabic words”) one discerns “the shrill and clamant voice of English radicalism, thrilling with self-accusatory and joyful lamentation. (...) a conviction of superior virtue punctuated by declarations of unappeasable guilt. Whose guilt? Ours–or, to be more precise–yours: all you who have not yet fully acknowledged the miserable condition of Western society, especially the more affluent purlieus of Western society, and above all those parts of affluent Western society that happen to be white, male, and Christian.

This phenomenon, though long recognized, was without a proper name until James Piereson, writing in The Weekly Standard a few years ago, coined the perfect epithet: “punitive liberalism.” (...) Piereson writes, the Democratic party was gradually taken over by a bizarre doctrine that might be called Punitive Liberalism (...) It was, as Piereson notes, one of Ronald Reagan’s great achievements to overcome, at least temporarily, the emotional mandate of punitive liberalism. (...) Did Reagan really “vanquish” punitive liberalism, or did he merely rebuff it momentarily? The extraordinary, uncritical acclamation accorded to Obama by the Left suggests that “we have scotched the snake, not killed it.” (...) I hope that people will begin calling Obama’s “fairness doctrine” by its real name: it’s not fairness, but punitive liberalism. The first step towards freedom is calling things by their real names. With the phrase “Punitive Liberalism,” we at last have a truthful name for the toxic doctrine that would have us believe success is a form of failure. (...) >>>

Updated: 20th Aug. 2008
~

Townhall: "Pacifism: The Last Refuge of Hypocrites," by Burt Prelutsky


(...) The left makes no secret of the fact that they hate war. But the truth of the matter is that their opposition to armed conflict is situational. It depends entirely on the party affiliation of the commander in chief and, of course, on the politics of the enemy. For example, the left was eager for the U.S. to enter the Spanish Civil War in order to fight Franco and his fascist allies because the Soviet Union and the Communists were lined up on the other side. However, as soon as Hitler and Stalin signed a mutual non-aggression pact, the American left decided we had no business getting involved in European affairs, even as Poland, France and Holland, were being swallowed up by the Nazis. Of course that changed just as soon as Germany invaded the Soviet Union. As that icon of the left, Lillian Hellman, was reputed to have announced to a group of fellow Communists on that fateful day, “We’ve been attacked!” During the Cold War, these were the same people, as devoted as ever to serving the interests of Joseph Stalin, who insisted that America unilaterally disarm itself and turn its atomic arsenal into plowshares. When Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops into Kosovo, a place where no American interests were involved, the left raised no objections. (...) And isn’t it odd that nobody, including the New York Times, John Murtha or Barack Obama, ever asked Bill Clinton if he actually had an exit strategy? These days, it must be apparent even to the goofiest liberal that victory in Iraq has been snatched from the jaws of defeat by the U.S. military. (...) >>>

Updated: 2nd Aug. 2008
~

Politeia: "Global Warming, A Problem Not Supposed to be Solved"

These guys are spot on. Environmentalism is just another control mechanism in the fight against reality: the Postmodern dialectic. It goes from Rousseauian anti science and technology, to - increasingly - anti humanism. It's a particularly destructive set of crypto Fascist values. Wake up! >>>

Updated: 30th July 2008
~

Townhall: "Kathleen Parker's Quest To Save The Males," by W. Thomas Smith, Jr

Years ago, my then-girlfriend urged me to read John Gray’s Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. (...) it was in a neat little one-volume package that we males could refer to whenever we screwed up (...) Enter author Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist who frequently champions both men and women, but never one-over-the-other because of gender. (...) her new book, Save the Males, explains “why men matter, and why women [and men] should care.” (...)

Save the Males covers everything from how we got to this point culturally, the unfortunately related “porning of America,” why boys need men, to the increasingly popular notion that men and masculinity are simply irrelevant. What is however relevant – particularly to active and former military guys like myself who clearly understand how the continued track of gender-norming in the armed forces could ultimately erode national defense – is that, as Parker writes, "As a rule, most women are physically weaker than most men" and “There’s a reason there are no women in the NFL.”

I know: We're not supposed to actually say those things. But it's critical when one considers the fact that in the infantry – even the modern infantry – physical strength (along with high-tech equipment and great leadership) is key to dominance on the battlefield. (...) As I previously said, the truth hurts: and this book is going to sting some, especially those who do not want to let men off the hook. For the rest of us – men and women – willing to take a good hard look at why men matter – looking at the issue as objectively as Parker has – it is a very important read. >>>

Updated: 25th July 2008
~

Politeia: "Global Warming=Earth Lib"

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House (Select) Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee, betrayed his credentials by using another popular rhetorical trick from the Postmodernist cupboard, the false equation: (he) "equated the drive for global warming legislation with the drive for women’s suffrage in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."Either that, or a dialectical process from the Rousseau school of thought is taking place in the mind of the Representative, the liberation of planet Earth from the oppressions of the perceived 'white, male power structure' (another term for rational civilization). (...) >>>

Updated: 16th July 2008
~

Pajamas: "Saving the Males From the NY Times," by Bernard Chapin

Members of the mainstream media not only cherish alternative lifestyles; they also wish to purge everything from our culture that prevents their realization. This was evident on Father’s Day when the New York Times Magazine commemorated the holiday by placing the misandric query, “Will Dad Ever Do His Share?,” on its cover. Inside is a lengthy expose by Lisa Belkin on this subject entitled “When Mom and Dad Share It All.” Those familiar with the contents of the Gray Lady will be unmoved by yet another attempt to denigrate fathers. After all, fulfilling the needs of politically correct oppression merchants practically has become the paper’s central purpose. (...) >>>

Updated: 2nd July 2008
~

Introduction to the dossier
In reaction to ultra rational positions taken by the later thinkers of the Enlightenment, a brand of 18th century German intellectuals sought to save the old order by undertaking a cultural movement countering the rationalist influences. These reactionaries are known as the German Idealists, the Romanticists, the Counter-Enlightenment movement, or the anti-modernists.

In the effort, anti-modernist philosophers Kant (1724-1804) and Hegel (1770-1831) sought to square Judeo-Christian cosmology with reason.

Kant saw philosophy as a grey area between science and religion and made it the battleground in the war on reason. His rescue effort resulted in the corruption of all three fields. Philosophy - in Aristotelian and Thomist hands a precision instrument for the exploration of reality - has never recovered from Kant's speculative theories about the nature of thought.

Kant devised a dialectical mechanism which was later further developed by Hegel to reflect contradictions: the dialectic of contradictory elements, also known as 'new reason,' making contradictions part of reality. Thereby he inflicted on the world the self-perpetuating mechanism for progress through strife and conflict. A practical application we see around us every day is the adversarial approach to communication, common to the journalists, lawyers and politicians.

Hegel skewed Kant's proposition by replacing God with the State. Later followers posited further variations on such themes, creating in effect secular pseudo religions. This is the origin of mystical nationalism and of malignant racial and cultural theories, including Postmodern multiculturalism.

Hegel's followers divided into Right, and Left (or Young) Hegelians. Young Hegelian Karl Marx (1818-1883) further developed the dialectic, devising yet another skewed version (dialectical materialism) of Hegel's skewed version.

Marx' paranoid vision of society has divided the world into two species of humans: the oppressors and the oppressed, resulting in a perpetual struggle of minority groups against the 'power structure.' The latter should not be understood as 'those in power', but rather 'those in power, other than us'.

Contemporary Postmodernism in which Left and Right Hegelians re-united (yes! there are quite a few Fascists there too) have harnessed political correctness to today's version of Marx' class struggle. Rousseau's vista of a noble, primordial world destroyed by the logic of man's egoist drive for civilization, might well have sired the epidemic of Western self-loathing. But it is now part and parcel of the postmodern dialectic: political correctness, a mechanism for self-control along the lines of direct action or positive discrimination with the aim of establishing redistribution of power and rights.

This dossier aims to compile examples of the practical applications of the Postmodern dialectic. These often takes the shape of contemporary multicultural and social ideas concerning minority groups and often condense in 'moral' legislation and influencing public opinion through the manipulation of people's perceptions.

The overt, narrow objective is the liberation of the minority in question (women's lib, black power, gay rights, etc.) with the view of shifting power and rights from the ones in power ('white males') to minority victim groups (everyone else).

The ultimate aim however goes far beyond the narrow collective group interest: the deconstruction from within, of Western culture as it developed over the course of three millennia.

The next step on that path was set when the Left recently abandoned the patronage of the traditional historically oppressed groups in favour of their enemy, Islamism: its potentially deconstructive powers are simply too promising to pass up. The fact they have made this shift without any visible signs of cognitive dissonance, says much about the ruthlessness of the underlying ideology. Next stop: 'borders are immoral.'

Dated: 4th July 2008
~

Related:

- "Socialist Causes Explained"
- "Just Doing His Job" (video)

No comments: