Know Your Enemy

If for any reason you are lacking the time to read on further, or watch the video, you don't need to remember thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis, or any other technical teerms. I will post 3 pictures that basically show what this is all about. There is multiple ways to look at this. For us on the ground level, we only see what's in front of our nose. For others, it's more like chess, with what we see in front of our nose before steps further behind where the opponents mind is at.

 

Both sides will see the same events occur, the the sequencing is opposite.   But this seemingly minor distinction is the difference between living in a fantasy world where you are manipulated like a puppet, and being in control of the world around you, and others. 

At step 1, we are only aware of the problem.  The coronavirus.   Racial tensions.  The problems themselves are nearly limitless in their possibilities, and they are constantly being swapped out for others. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Now with the board widening out, it all starts to make a little bit more sense.  For us, it's problem, reaction, solution.  Coronavirus, people die, vaccine.  Racial tensions, violence in the streets, manufactured solution.  

 

For those opposing us?  The first step was was figuring their desirable outcome, such as give the entire planet a vaccine that governments will pay top dollar for, and forcibly give to their citizens. 

 

Step 2 is figuring out the reaction, which is coming up with the plant that it can only be made to happen if the world is terrified of a virus.  

 

Step 3 is trying to now manufacture the problem.  They already have the outcome planned.  They already it planned out what it would take for us to demand the very same 'solution' they are looking to implement.  At this stage, it comes down to how far you are willing to go to sell the problem.  Will you really create a bio-weapon?  Use your media influence to scare others into submission?  

 

Where it really becomes like chess is that our opponents in this match know their final moves already.  We might be a few, or we might be a dozen of these problem, reaction, solution cycles away from them reaching their end game.  We need to wake up and see the whole board instead of continuously getting stuck not willing to look any further than our neighbour for the problem.

 

Problem.  Reaction.  Solution.  Hegelian's Dialect. 

hegelian3

Know Your Enemy

If for any reason you are lacking the time to read on further, or watch the video, you don't need to remember thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis, or any other technical teerms. I will post 3 pictures that basically show what this is all about. There is multiple ways to look at this. For us on the ground level, we only see what's in front of our nose. For others, it's more like chess, with what we see in front of our nose before steps further behind where the opponents mind is at.

Hegelian’s Dialectics

First published Fri Jun 3, 2016

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classic version of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (see entry on Plato), for instance, presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character of Socrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whom Socrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. In the course of the dialogues, Socrates’ interlocutors propose definitions of philosophical concepts or express views that Socrates challenges or opposes. The back-and-forth debate between opposing sides produces a kind of linear progression or evolution in philosophical views or positions: as the dialogues go along, Socrates’ interlocutors change or refine their views in response to Socrates’ challenges and come to adopt more sophisticated views. The back-and-forth dialectic between Socrates and his interlocutors thus becomes Plato’s way of arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated views or positions and for the more sophisticated ones later.

“Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular dialectical method of argument employed by the 19th Century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel (see entry on Hegel), which, like other “dialectical” methods, relies on a contradictory process between opposing sides. Whereas Plato’s “opposing sides” were people (Socrates and his interlocutors), however, what the “opposing sides” are in Hegel’s work depends on the subject matter he discusses. In his work on logic, for instance, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of logical concepts that are opposed to one another. In the Phenomenology of Spirit, which presents Hegel’s epistemology or philosophy of knowledge, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of consciousness and of the object that consciousness is

Read More

Subscribe Today!




The Archives

Follow me on Twitter

Contact Form

%d bloggers like this: