We use that term from time to time. And to be frank, some of these terms of art are quite specific and require a great deal of previous understanding to make use of the particular term properly, and it can be very difficult to hold on to and maintain these understandings. None more so of course, than “dialectics”. That is something that I personally think about at some level all the time and manage occasional epiphanies in its meaning and importance that allows occasional (OK all too frequent) use for a particular use case.
In this post, I am concerned with a Soviet era information-warfare term, active measures [aktivnye meropriyatiya]. This is something Western governments have been using heavily on its own citizens since the communist revolution of 2020.
Below would be, based on my tentative understanding of the term, a clear example:
France is being turned into a communist-Islamic sh*thole at Mach 3. Churches and Cathedrals are destroyed, burned down, priests and clergy are being killed or otherwise disenfranchised. Freedom of speech is destroyed altogether, (obviously all the same things are happening/have happened in Canada, the UK etc) thanks to the mass murder of Charlie Hebdo and a number of others. Islamic honour killings and mass rapes go often unpunished and although it is hard to prove, likely also go for the most part unreported altogether.
Jewish institutions in France have needed armed security for some time now, and that will probably come to an end once the revolution goes fully overt.
But below, there is a 28 minute video on whether or not the communist betrayer of France, Emanuel Macron’s wife is actually a man.
If we are correct, then it might also go to explain why some counter-narrative sites are kicked off of YouTube very quickly, while others manage to stay on and in fact, make a handsome living from it.
Controlled opposition usually means it appears to support a counter narrative, but it is in fact either an active measure, or an allowable counter-narrative. CBC in Canada along with CTV etc. are brilliant at allowable counter-narratives in very specific ways. My personal favorite example was pretending to hold the Trudeau Gov’ts feet to the fire during covid by demanding to know why the mRNA shots where not provided quickly enough or there was not sufficient quantities of them for everyone to have 2 shots right away, without ever examining the need for them or the safety etc. But you can find examples of allowable counter-narratives on CBC by tuning in to its radio broadcasts at pretty much anytime for an hour or so.
We are very open to arguments to the contrary. So please feel free to put them in the comments. They will be read. This post is speculative. And no accusations are being made, other than about CBC. Just looking at models and what pieces fit it.
You know, on Macron choosing an older man to partner with…Macron was how old when this “older person” got ahold of him? I believe 18 or some such? You are the first person I have heard put this online. Haha! If you ever want to chat, Id love to talk about this phenomenon in person. Feel free to shoot me an email.
Kathleen
I don’t follow. Candice Owens has been putting this out there for over a year. The Macrons are suing her for some reason over this apparently.
But how does this relate to my post whether it is true or not?
Macron was 14. “She” was his teacher.
I watched the whole Candace Owens series on Macron and his bride. I think Candace was very careful in putting this series together (researching / sourcing), knowing that she could be sued and would be under attack. Also, there is much more to the series than revealing that Brigitte is transgender. It includes the background on both the Trogneux (Brigitte’s family) and Macrons families including details on parents and siblings. Things revealed on both sides are quite disturbing (actually quite sick, if you ask me) ; however, it helps you understand how Macron got into power and why he married Brigitte.
Thanks.
I have not watched it. So I appreciate your take on it.
Chatter Bug
The very term ‘dialectic’ turns people off from listening to the argument: most don’t know what it means and feel insecure about it, so they simply dismiss whatever is said after that term without even really listening to it.
If one wants to be effective at getting the true message across, it is a lot easier to use the terms ‘conflation and confusion’.
It means the same thing, but does not alienate 99% of the listeners/readers.
Fully agree with you. Except for the part where they mean the same thing.
Communist thought has a different epistemology from Western thought.
If yuo really want to understand it, you need to approach it from that perspective.
Yes, other words will do at the tactical level. But it depends what you are trying to do. If the goal is educating or even understanding at the strategic level, there is no way to do it without approaching it as Hegelian dialectics.
You can also explain Islam by comparison to Christianity as that will create effective rage bait. But if you want to understand Islam such that you can actually predict what devour Muslims will do, you have to go at it from first principles.