Tag Archive for: Explaining leftism

Dialectics: The Prime Weapon Destroying Western Civilization

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides.


For weeks now I have been ruminating on a paper or post about the state of the dialectic attack on Western civilization via every single imaginable metric. That is to say, think of a value or a compartment or a taboo that is part of the Western culture and thought process and it is under attack. From national feelings to sexual habits to your traditional form of diet in the West.

A lot of people get it at one level, but at the meta, its quite a well constructed ceaseless attack, created and launched via communist and postmodern think tanks, some of which date back over a hundred years.

The evidence is overflowing. So permeated is our culture now that you can basically play a version of dialectic Pin the Tail on the Donkey and win every time. You could blindfold yourself and spin around and walk forward with your arm out and whatever you stop against is probably an example.

Each day that goes by, my list of examples grows, and of course, the project becomes more intimidating. So I have decided to do a kind of proto-post on the subject. Perhaps each time I add a data point, I’ll do it in a separate post and link back to this one. It may be messy, but at least the ideas will be out there.

Let’s begin with this video on Diversity training:

What the makers of this otherwise excellent video fail to understand, can be seen in the last couple of sentences:

“Whatever the explanation, it is bad business in the long run”.

See, it’s meant to be. That is what many who are proper critics of the revolution that is now taking place, do not recognize or express. It is meant to ruin not just business, but all aspects of cooperation in our culture between all people by grouping them in various ways and setting them at each other. In fact they may not even recognize it as rhetorical/dialectic weapons in an actual war on Western thought, and the very concept of the individual itself. (My personal theory as to the nature of the vaccine mandates, was specifically to in part or in whole, dissolve the concept of the individual in our own heads and form an almighty collective we put before ourselves, guided by a God like state.) This is why people must be lumped into groups as the attackers define those groups, and set us all against each other. To not do so, is somehow racist, when in fact racism is a key part of the strategy by the leftist revolutionaries.

Another example is sexual preferences, which have been turned into sexual identity now. So much so, that cross walks are sometimes painted with rainbow colours, and crossing lights for pedestrians are sometimes modified to show homosexual people or couples. This is, as we now know, because the most important thing about crossing a busy street is celebrating men having sex with other men.

Much like this flagpole in front of a posh prestigious private school in Ottawa Canada: Photo of flagpole.

Because after the National flag and the crest of the school, the most important thing about educating children from grade 5 to 12, is celebrating sexual identity and practice of anyone engaging in non-conventional sex acts and identifying as being part of groups with similar prefrences at the expence, it would seem, of more meaningful identities. This is so important, they actually have to flag the school with it.

How long till that flag finds its way to the top? And then what is known as dialectic negation could occur. The replacement of the National flag, which is anathema to communism, with group identities which maintain acrimony and division. Until of course its all the party flag which by then will be a hammer and sickle.

Perhaps Trudeau’s first minister of health could design it. After all, her training was entirely in graphic arts. Her replacement is a graduate of the communist think tank university, The London School of Economics. Neither of them have any medical training.

Then we have the Rogers Communications building on Richmond Rd. in Ottawa. One of the HQ buildings for Canada’s main cable TV, internet, and cell phone providers.

Rogers is more prepared than the private school. They understand that the dialectic attack is part of a never ending revolution, which is what communism is. Their flag is the most up-to-date one with the bits added for Trans and whatever else has been added in the last year or so. At this point the Rainbow flag is at risk of being called racist since it is insufficiently inclusive of whatever new ‘groups’ or ‘communities’ have been created as part of the ongoing dialectic.

These photos are all from this August, 2022. “Pride Month”, which itself is revealing since it’s not “Gay Pride” anymore as, like the flag, its not inclusive enough, was all of  June.

(Also noteworthy is that the literally millions upon millions of young, healthy, productive and nearly entirely men, who sacrificed themselves for our freedom and culture and rule of law, get half a day a year to be celebrated and remembered, while people who like to have sex in unusual ways get a whole month.)

Two months later, and the flags are hanging off buildings which are highly symbolic of important aspects of our culture.

To be clear about the highly annoying and too-often repeated word, “Dialectic”, I mean one thing. Operationally defined for the purpose of this post: dialectics is the weaponization and re-tasking of language in order to be used against classical thought and non-communist, or counter-revolutionary people.

It takes many forms. One common form would be to define a word in such a way that the user of that word, no matter what the context or how that person may use or understand that word, or how its has always been used up until now, can now be made to be guilty of an actual crime based on the new assignment of meaning to that term by communist groups. But that is just one form of dialectics and one worth understanding. Dialectics are always selectively enforced. More accurately, they appear to be selectively enforced. But it is better to see it as a calculated form of weaponized language, the purpose of which is always to move the culture and the law ever leftwards.

When for example, it is not an actual crime to use one of the selected words, they can cite the use of that word to destroy the person in much the same way as if it was. Sometimes worse. I think it was Wendy Mesley of CBC who used, (now get this cause its an example with an example), “The N word” OFF AIR near colleagues, while quoting someone else who used “the N word” to try and show how horrible that person was because they used “the N word” and was fired or otherwise castigated and punished in some manner by the state broadcaster for doing so. The fact that she was waging a dialectic attack against a hated non-leftist by quoting him wasn’t important. It was the blasphemous utterance of the word itself, now more fetish than language, which caused her to metaphorically be put in stocks and have fruit thrown at her.

Photo: US Embassy August 21, 2022 Ottawa

The government funded media in Canada, mostly CBC, CTV and Global, but City News, whatever that is, and other news orgs. use the same MO.

They do not cover news and views. They wage dialectic attacks against targets they wish to destroy. Mostly ones which could be properly described as believing in individual choices for themselves and real non-racism as racism was originally sold to us.

In essence, there is only one metric at play in the developed world now. And its very easy to understand. Any revolutionary act will be amplified, rewarded, normalized and in all ways promoted. If the act is illegal, such as throwing a firebomb at police in Portland or Seattle, or killing a Trump supporter who is an unarmed woman-veteran waved into the Capitol building in the US, won’t be punished and the person who committed these acts will be protected. Any counter-revolutionary actions will be punished. Even if the act was fully legal and harmed no one, it can and will be construed as “hate speech” along the lines of Marcusean Discourse theory. Suddenly speaking a simple empirical truth will be a crime, and if they cannot make it an actual crime, they will doxx you, attack you in other ways, cause you to lose your job or punish you in legal and illegal ways. This is a full scale war for all the marbles. It just happens to be using information warfare for the most part at this time.

I have witnessed this myself for days at the building referred to as “The United People of Canada building on St. Patrick. Media will fire astonishingly awful attacks with question marks against the people within the organization, while asking softball questions to hate-filled protestors on their lawn. One question I heard repeatedly was, “Can’t you understand that people in this area would be frightened when they see vehicles here that are decorated in a similar fashion to the ones in the convoy when they were so traumatized by the protest?” This isn’t a question. It’s the crown attorney grilling a suspect when he knows they have no lawyer who will object. Had that question been asked as a “guilty by association” issue about any in-fashion group, we all know what would happen to the questioner. Imagine it about fearing a racial or sexual orientation group because of the imputed experience of people with other members of that group. You can see what I mean.

Photo: Rude and aggressive protestor who claimed to represent the area

I suppose this will do for a start. If anyone made it this far, my sincere thanks.

There will be MUCH more on the United People of Canada soon. It does appear that it was Ottawa’s Mayor who is interfering with their rent payments. I really hope they have a good lawyer.

AUTHOR

Eeyore

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Marx and the Banning of Elements in the Periodic Table

Examining the problem, reaction, solution/thesis, counter thesis, solution, or the dialectic scam of the left.

There certainly seems to be more than one understanding of this phrase. Here is our shot at it. Of course, there are scholars of Hegel/Marx who read this site, and we welcome any corrections or other interpretations of this well known phrase.

Picking Global Warming as an example, we have a completely invented problem which of course can be manipulated in any way needed to end up at the point you want to land on. Primarily, the destruction of the West with its notions of free market economy and individual rights. Since the problem is fake, and created and enforced by “consensus” (See video below) all the reactions from people calling it out as fake must be dealt with using the dialectic attack of hate speech. This was fabricated by a second generation Frankfurt School acolyte, a certain Habermas, in the form of “Discourse Theory”.

For the past many decades, various leftist controlled governments and leftist think tanks, have attempted to use the element of Carbon as a means to control industry and humanity in a highly selective manner. Like slavery as an issue, we must only examine the ‘problem’ of CO2 production in Western and free market nations, more accurately perhaps, in cultures with the concept of individual rights as being sacrosanct. We must not look at slavery in Africa or Islam ever but must focus on the past actions in The USA pretty much exclusively in terms of passing moral judgment. And we must not look at really dirty industrial activity, let alone CO2 production in China or India but must pretend that CO2 produced by any and all means connected to humans in the West as an existential threat to the entire planet.

There should be no need to try and disprove the idea that CO2 is a problem on this site. I do have a dedicated page to the science of it here on Vlad but I don’t maintain it very well as to engage in a debate based on a lie is to lose that debate since only one side seeks to know the truth and the power of the lie is much greater in the short run. At least where the goal is destruction.

One fact though, is that where CO2 is produced, more life happens. Plants grow etc. Plants, and life, are made of carbon. Even on the side of highways, plants tend to thrive from a truly poisonous form of carbon, CO1 or Carbon monoxide. CO2 is actually pumped into greenhouses to help plants hit their optimal growth rate.

But let’s pretend that CO2 production was a problem. Then why are those who wrap themselves in a false flag of environmentalism, so opposed to nuclear power? Its the obvious solution to those who claim that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to the planet. Whatever the issues with nuclear power, it cannot be as bad as that.

And then there is this:

Geothermal

A very worthy deeper dive:

So we have a solution now for food production that is safe, energy efficient and absorbs far more carbon than it produces.

Global Warming is a consensus based thing though. Meaning communists agreed on creating it and presenting it as an existential problem in order to get to the solution they want, which is communism. No real world approach to solving even the non-problem of “global-warming” will be entertained and any attempt to expose it as the fraud it is will be met with charges akin to hate speech. “Climate-denier” for example, makes moral equivalence with a Holocaust denier to one who would deny the ‘existential threat of global warming’. A fairly palpable use of the Hate-Speech tactic.

More recently, in order to destroy farming in the Netherlands and replace these farms with what will almost certainly be beehive brutalist housing for illegal mostly Muslim and African migrants forced on the local population since before 2015, a new element and compound had to be demonized as an existential threat. Nitrogen, which makes up damn near 80% of the total atmosphere, and ammonia.

I won’t even bother to deal with the issue of nitrogen. To think that the tiny amount of nitrogen released on a few dutch farms justify the actions against farmers we see in the Netherlands is even worthy of rebuttal on that basis, means a lack of understanding of the tactic at play. Much like when one knows that nearly all human beings are born either a man or a woman (with the exception of extremely few genetic mutations which end with those individuals as they tend to be sterile) and to pretend these are fungible is, well risible.

So let’s look at the new threat of ammonia.

How could we somehow solve the issue of ammonia in a way that would satisfy those who claim its a problem while maybe at the same time, solving other problems many are concerned about:

The bottom line is:

The problems we are bombarded with, from Covid to vaccine hesitancy. From global warming to cow flatulence. From Nitrogen to ammonia, are all fake problems which, even by engaging about it, causes us to lose. These are not problems at all, and some, to the extent they might be, are selectively enforced against the Western nations and peoples with zero effort to deal with these non-problems in places like China, North Korea, India and other places where the raw production of these gasses and so on are orders of magnitude higher than in the West.

We need to understand that so much of what we engage with on a day to day basis is we, the intellectual descendants of Socrates, being constantly basted with pseudo-reality and false cosmologies in order to destroy Western civilization where it actually lives.

In our own minds.

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Defunding police is ONE STEP before banning all private property

Before anyone scoffs at the headline, remember that a few short months ago, even the most red pilled observer showed total denial that police departments would ever be defunded or even serious talk about it. Yet here we are.

After watching the FOX clip below, please watch the DSA clip edited in August of 2019, but filmed sometime before that.

UPDATE: BREAKING: Minneapolis Unanimously Approves Abolishing Police Force

On Friday, the Minneapolis City Council voted 12-0 to approve a measure to abolish the city’s police department.

The unanimous vote will not automatically dismantle the police department, but it is the first step in a much longer legislative process, according to the New York Post.

The idea of dismantling police departments gained recognition among city council members amid city-wide, and eventually nationwide, riots after George Floyd was killed by police officer Derek Chauvin last month.

The Post continues that the vote to abolish the police force will require amending Minneapolis’s charter, and that a draft amendment suggests replacing the police force with a “Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention.” This department would consist of peace officers and use a “holistic, public health-oriented approach” to ensure public safety.

The proposal will have to first pass through a committee, be reviewed by Minneapolis’s Charter Commission, and finally approved again by the entire city council by August 21st. However, Mayor Jacob Frey, a radical Leftist in his own right, still is against the idea of abolishing the police and can veto the measure.

EDITORS NOTE: This column posted by Eeyore on the Vlad Tepes Blog is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.