A look at some of the lesser used dialectical rubrics

Sorry for the title. But jargon is needed sometimes if you want both accuracy and brevity. To be more clear, this is about some of the phrases that were used to achieve destruction of something enormous by a single line of attack on our civilization, by using language that was roughly the opposite of what it was actually intending to achieve.

And by enormous, we mean an actual foundational pillar, a load-bearing wall, an aspect of civilization so essential that we don’t notice it day to day like our own accents when we speak, but without it, life becomes less economical in one or more ways.

The more obvious ones will not be detailed, since that is the coinage of this site altogether. But they need to be at least mentioned as a template with which to see the others.

The Religion of Peace:

This phrase was used as the anaesthetic to prevent people from complaining too much when entire areas of Canadian and other Western cities were transformed by mass Islamic immigration. In many Western cities, women can no longer dress as they please. Homosexual men cannot be openly homosexual on the streets. Alcohol cannot be openly consumed where it is legal, certainly not near mosques but more broadly in Muslim areas, and in some cities in the UK, rock concerts by Infidel women carry risks of major Islamic terrorist attacks.

Sharia law patrols are a real thing in New York, and various German and UK cities. Again, all this is well documented on this site complete with videos. Perhaps as time permits, the ones that are taken down will be found and restored to this post.

Safe and Effective:

This was repeated ad nauseam by political authority and their pet scientists and media stenographers who carefully crafted language to make sure people took the experimental DoD gene therapy shots. Why they wanted this is not the purpose of this essay. But there is no doubt that they wanted it, and that the phrase, Safe and Effective was the lie, a lie equal to The Religion of Peace in magnitude and number of degrees away from the truth, used as the anaesthetic to deceive people into compliance or at least minimize resistance.

Gender Affirming Care:

For those who don’t already know, the Trans movement as it is now, being primarily a Marxist dialectic attack on civilization by the destruction of sexual dimorphism, has enjoyed terrific success. In no small part due to laws passed by Trudeau, that encourage socialist teachers to convince children to undergo chemical and surgical procedures that will sterilize them and often transform their lives to the point of suicide. For anyone who does not understand how the “trans-movement” has as little to do with the very rare person with genuine sexual dimorphism issues as the modern gay-rights movement has to do with gay rights, watch these two videos please.

[At this point it is worth inserting the most fundamental meaning of the Hegelian/Marxist dialectic. The idea of taking a thing, creating or finding it’s opposite, and smashing them together to destroy both with the expectation of a new thing at the end that the Trudeau Government CBC COMINTERN is trying to achieve, and later be destroyed again in a new dialectic. Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.]

And about how what one might think of as ‘non-reproductive sexual activities’ has been hijacked and politicized with special emphasis on the Trans dialectic:

Whenever anyone objects to their children, or the children of others being turned into monsters by the schools, they are met with these various dialectical turn arounds. First, that it is “gender affirming care“, to confuse a child to the point where it thinks “it was born into the wrong body” and somehow that metaphysical condition can be fixed by drugs and surgery. Like convincing a boy he is really a dog and sewing some of his own intestines above his anus and claiming it’s a tail.

To object to that, you must be a transphobe. Very familiar use of Discourse theory and Liberating Tolerance.

Discourse theory was from a second generation Frankfurt School communist named Jurgen Habermas. His idea, was to create a consensus amongst leftist thinkers, and then shout anyone down who tried to inject truth to topple the consensus with cries of racism etc. All too familiar to us all. Trans-phobe is such a critical theory attack.

Then we have Herbert Marcuse’ “Liberating Tolerance”. This video is under 3 minutes and critical to understand what is taking place around us in terms of the new limits of speech and ideas in public discourse. I post these last two videos to show the mechanism used to achieve these other dialectical lines of effort or active measures.

The Trans dialectic is a hard core active measure to destroy our personal and internal concepts of men and woman. There is a reason so many women’s sports winners are men pretending to be women, and so many Beauty contest winners are now men. Ideally ones who are ambiguously female. Like the winner of the Euro-Song contest a few years ago who was a transvestite with a thick beard. The idea is to attack us at the conceptual level. Disgust is both created in normal people, and then punished for your disgust which in reality is punishment for being counter-revolutionary. The punishment comes in forms hidden under whatever adjectives they make up along dialectical lines, but can be as real as being debanked or otherwise ostracized from aspects of your society. The punishment is extra legal, but may as well be as severe as punishment from an actual court.

(Although he himself claims not to be trans, but a gay drag queen, the effect is the same)

And now we get to the destruction of the inner cities across the Western World.

Harm Reduction:

Some decades ago, the reversal of recreational drug laws has led to entirely predictable results. Exactly as putting sugar in an ant farm, instead of punishing, humiliating, and otherwise making the cost benefit of doing recreational drugs to the point of becoming a derelict unacceptable to the vast majority, they decided under the dialectic of “harm reduction” to increase the amount of harm drugs do to society as much as possible. They effectively ended law enforcement for possession and dealing of small to moderate amounts of very dangerous drugs. They provided warm clean safe injection sites. Well, safe except that people were there to inject really dangerous drugs. Government and NGOs were out on the street providing food and comfort to users. And like all other dialectical attacks on society and the culture, the motives as stated are noble. To reduce harm to the people addicted to drugs. Of course the number of addicts went through the roof and entire parts of major cities are lost to drug addicts while more and more potent and addictive drugs work their way to Western cities. Not sure what the magnitude of the problem is like in the Philippines. Last I checked, dealers were killed. It would be good to know if they have vast amounts of prime retail areas being ruined by the deification of thousands of addicts, more protected under law than say, a Yale educated molecular biologist who is President of Thomas Jefferson U who’s career might be destroyed for questioning items #2 and #3.

The chief executive officer of Thomas Jefferson University said he was “disappointed” in president Mark Tykocinski’s “careless use” of his Twitter account in which he “liked” tweets that question the science of COVID-19 vaccines and call gender reassignment surgery “child mutilation.”

“At his level, he is held to a higher standard and should have known better,” Joseph G. Cacchione wrote in a message Sunday to Jefferson faculty, employees, and students.

Tykocinski is a Yale-educated molecular immunologist and academic leader who was elevated from provost to president July 1 and has worked at Jefferson for 16 years. He reports to Cacchione, who oversees the entire Jefferson enterprise, including the health system, which has a separate president.

Ok then.

On Fentanyl deaths in the US

Diversity is our Strength

Trudeau loves riffing on this one. At a time when all revolutionary leaders where parroting this phrase, Trudeau would try and improve on it for the hole in one.

I was actually looking for the one where he says something like, “Diversity is our strength but more than that, our strength comes from our diversity” or some such nonsense. I can’t remember it exactly because like most Hegelian phrases, they upset the logic circuit of the brain so they are hard to retain. This one is more annoying though and proves the point better. Speaking in two languages is a sanctimonious virtue signal, and not unifying. It is in fact always excluding one group or another in one speech unless everyone speaks both languages fluently. An elite group indeed. The actual title of this video from YouTube, which won’t allow an embed of it, is this phrase: “Trudeau praises inclusive diversity”. This is pretty much a bullseye for the Hegelian dialectic in a few words. “Inclusive diversity”? Sorry. That is more a Zen Koan than a possibility. Especially as he opens up with a group that is excluded without naming them, cause its Muslims. Here is one example of how the rubric of diversity is destructive. But this has been the case for decades now in all sectors of civilization. Now we see the rotten fruits of it.

But the most important aspect of this phrase, is how it dialectically opposes the axiom all have known for thousands and thousands of years, and songs have been written about it. The single phrase that has allowed cultures to exist. The phrase that once you forget it, you are just waiting till a group who remembers it decides to make you extinct along with all your collective accomplishments throughout all your collective history as a peoploe. And after all, that is the goal, isn’t it?.

Multiculturalism

Isn’t this amazing? The Hegelian dialectic in a single word!

Culture is the way a group of people decide to do a thing or set of things in order to make life possible and ideally fruitful and enjoyable in a given area. For example, Western culture says don’t beat women no matter the circumstances. Islamic culture quite clearly states “And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them”. In other words, if they don’t obey, beat them. Even if we decide to be non-judgemental about this, clearly these are non-miscible cultural norms. Either it is illegal to beat women, or it is advisable to do so. And law, for those of you who have not figured it out for yourselves, is nothing at all but the codification and creating consequences for cultural norms, and the breach thereof.

But we have done Islam to death on this site. Let’s pick a fun example.

Suttee:

In pre-colonial India, the Hindus had a lovely cultural custom that the British put to a hard stop. The Hindus used to burn the widow of a man who died, alive on his funeral pyre. To be more clear: In Hindu India, it was a central legal and cultural practice, that when a man died, leaving a living widow, she was to be placed alive upon his funeral pyre, a large pile of burning wood or other materials, and burned to death along with the incineration of the body of the husband. Multiculturalism is not just an oxymoron, like Global Warming, no one really believes in it. Because if they did, they would live much much differently than they do. Multiculturalism really means communism and everyone lives with virtually no cultural practices at all. And you can see the result of this in more and more Western countries as more and more central aspects of Judaeo-Christian-Greco-Roman culture becomes either unacceptable, illegal, or anathema.

Even the concept of private property is a culturally specific thing. Therefore, so is theft. Which explains in part why leftist states are now encouraging enough theft that retail stores are closing all over Blue States in the US. The central point being, the very word “Multiculturalism” is an oxymoron and a dialectic. Smash one culture or more into another and both get destroyed for a synthesis. In this case, a God like Hegelian state. Which is the goal. Make no mistake all those who hate religion as a guiding principle. The idea is to take away individual morality and replace it with an all powerful state which can arbitrarily decide life and death matters for all people, none of whom have any value as an individual.

Global Warming is also clearly an attack on Western civilization, and one that fails every scientific test and has never once got a prediction right. Not. One. Right. Also that its rules are meant only to be applied to Western nations in a way which cripples industry and economies while not being requested of China or other nations with larger populations and produce massive amounts of CO2.But Global Warming as a phrase isn’t as obvious a dialectical term as the others. But it is perhaps the most destructive in terms of individual liberties at the end of the day. 15 minute cities being one obvious example.

The end game: “And the state shall be unto like a God that bestrides the land”. -Hegel.

If anyone found this essay at all worthwhile, I invite you to read this paper by Stephen Coughlin which explains all of this far better and with a greater depth of understanding.