What Is The Hegelian Dialectic?

A term that kept coming up in my research on modern governments was “Hegelian Dialectic.” I spent some time studying it to understand not only what it was, but how it is being used by the ruling class to manipulate the public into fulfilling a pre-determined agenda.

heg1

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

First described by Enlightenment German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the Hegelian Dialectic is a mechanism to arrive at a final truth or conclusion. Right now you probably use the Aristotelian method for arriving at truth, which is to observe all the facts of the situation and then make the most logical conclusion based from those observations. Hegel explained a process where truth is instead arrived through the friction and conflict between one force (the thesis) and its opposite (the antithesis). The final result from that clash, the synthesis, is the best conclusion.

In all likelihood, the synthesis is not the final and absolute truth. It becomes the new thesis where a new antithesis forms to oppose it. The conflict between them leads to a second synthesis. This process repeats until the final synthesis is revealed, which theoretically is absolute truth.

heg2

In plain terms, the Hegelian Dialectic is the battle of two extremes to get a result that is somewhere in the middle. That result will develop an opposing force of its own and the ensuing battle yields another result. The objective reality we have right now has incorporated within it all previous “battles” of thesis and antithesis since the beginning of time, meaning that—according to the theory—we are living in a progressive arc to absolute truth and world perfection.

Examples of thesis and antithesis

Thesis: British and French power hegemony after World War 1
Anti-thesis: Hitler
Synthesis: USA hegemony

Thesis: Traditional conservatism
Anti-thesis: Marxism
Synthesis: Globalism

Thesis: USA government losing domestic power
Anti-thesis: 9/11
Synthesis: Patriot act, NSA spying

Thesis: Feminism
Anti-thesis: PUA, MRA, neomasculinity
Synthesis: ?

The nation dialectic

Hegel proposed his dialectic as a natural way of arriving at the truth, but had in mind that the nation itself was the vehicle to create new syntheses. Like most Enlightenment thinkers, he threw god away and made the nation-state god instead. The modern elite has taken this a step further by pre-determining a synthesis (a specific agenda) and then developing events that arrive at that synthesis through artificial means.

If the elite has a result they would like to have, whether it be increased authoritarian rule or a war that solidifies their power, all they have to do is devise an anti-thesis that will lead to the outcome they want. This is commonly done through false flag attacks, where the government of a nation attacks itself so that it can respond in the way that it had wanted to all along, because it’s only through that attack would citizens agree to the planned synthesis. False flag attacks are in fact a common way for governments to fulfill their goals.

Here are two Hegelian loops we may be currently living through:

Problem (thesis): Russia refuses to enter the New World Order
Reaction (anti-thesis): Destabilize Ukraine and Syria, forcing Russia to act aggressively
Solution (synthesis): Create pretext for removing Russian leadership and installing Western rulers,

Problem: Nationalism in Europe
Reaction: Allow millions of Afro-Islamists
Solution: Strengthening of United Nations and European Union to “protect” people from social unrest

People use the dialectic in their own lives when trying to solve problems:

Problem: Not receiving enough attention
Reaction: Invent drama, catastrophes, diseases
Solution: Receive attention from family, friends, strangers

What the ruling elite does, and have been doing for centuries, is create reactions which requires solutions they had wanted all along. The reaction (e.g. 9/11) puts citizens in a state of fear and anxiety that allows easily implementation of the solution without resistance. Would Americans have protested the Patriot Act more strongly if 9/11 had never occurred? They’d probably laugh at its proposal, just like how they laughed at George W. Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security at the start of his second term.

heg3

Beware of government “solutions”

One way you know the government is using the Hegelian dialectic to fulfill their agenda is when they have a ready-made solution immediately after an event, all without public debate. This is most commonly seen in the United States with gun control, where after every mass shooting, calls for limiting sales of guns are made by the media and government. Strict gun control or outright confiscation is a pre-determined solution in the USA that will certainly be attempted in the future.

From Nero burning Rome to Hitler burning the Reichstag, power-mad leaders across the decades have manufactured crises in order to present the public with situations where their Police State solutions “make sense”.

“Give up your rights — it’s for your safety…”

[…]

Every major financial crisis America has experienced in her history has followed this same Hegelian dialectic pattern with the outcome being another incremental step toward world financial domination by an elite few. [Source]

A related use of the Hegelian dialectic is to create the appearance of healthy governmental opposition. We see this in the United States where both Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same body. They create a theater show for the public that two opposing forces are debating and compromising to serve the interests of the nation when they are actually both controlled by the same globalists who donate money to both parties. The cuckservative phenomenon has shown that mainstream conservatives are nearly identical to the left besides a few hot button issues like abortion and religion (they have even converged on homosexual marriage).

In the West the choice is basically between a controlled ‘left-oriented’ information, and a controlled ‘right-oriented’ information. The conflict between the two CONTROLLED groups keeps an apparent informational conflict alive. Unwelcome facts that fall into either camp are conveniently forgotten. Books that fall into either camp can be effectively neutralized because they will incur the wrath of both ‘right’ and ‘left’. The faster the cattle run, the faster the treadmill takes them to nowhere.

[…]

The Hegelian dialectic is being employed to secure and sustain absolute world power and authority to an elite. [Source]

[…]

…the Hegelian dialectic requires a thesis and an antithesis, a pro and a con. Are these not absolutes? Is not the very concept of left and right, east and west, black and white, etc., required by the dialectic a confirmation of absolutism itself? [Source]

heg4

A reasonably titled policy like “sustainable development” is part of a dialectic to control human behavior and reproduction

It’s effortless to rule when you have citizens programmed to demand the changes that match your agenda:

The disturbing aspect to Alinsky’s approach for “radical social change” is his belief in the Marxist-Leninist method of always keeping the masses demoralized so they will demand change, or even insist the system be abolished altogether. [Source]

Many of us are already aware of what the elite is doing to society in order to maintain control. The Hegelian dialectic allows us to see how they are doing it, adding an important piece of the puzzle to more easily recognize their authoritarian schemes.

Whenever a crisis occurs that politicians, governments, world organizations like the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, US Fed, or countless other quasi-governmental entities have a solution for, three things are certain:

1. Their solution will not solve the original problem.
2. The problem was possibly created themselves in order to introduce their desired “solution.”
3. The engineered process of Problem-Reaction-Solution is reducing your liberty and making you more dependent on the state.

After violent catastrophes and global events, think for a moment to see what their real agenda is based on the reaction by those in power, and consider resisting if you have the strength to do so. To be on the safe side, you can assume that just about any non-local solution by the government is part of a plan to hurt you, and that it will have the opposite stated effect if allowed to be implemented.

Read Next: How America’s New Nobility Has Forgotten Its Obligation To The Country

122 thoughts on “What Is The Hegelian Dialectic?”

  1. Create the problem , then offer the solution. Repeat over and over until desired results are obtained. This is reality. Bread and circus for the masses. Like Herman Goering said, It is good for us rulers that the common man does not think.

    1. From distraction. By Distraction. To Distraction. The media keep the common man confused and disjointed by playing this tune.

    2. So when you read in the newpaper that Greece let terrorists through who attacked in Paris, there’s a “who cares” feeling to it, is sort of part of their plan..

    3. Global warming is one example. I read an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about Lake Poopo in Bolivia drying up because of climate change. A bit of Google research showed that it’s always periodically dried up, but it cycles and that one of its wettest periods was actually in the 1990s, during the supposed era of global warming.
      BTW there is some juvenile humour there: Lake Poopo used to be in the land of the Wankarani people and it is fed by Lake Titicaca. You couldn’t make that stuff up!!!!

    4. Interesting comments and good article. V For Vendetta (movie) is a great example to see what our government is up to these days (fear mongering through panic and terrorism):

    5. So every single time I see an ISIS training video or war video on one of these news channels, I think, “That doesn’t look like real war.” Or “That doesn’t look like real warriors training.” It usually looks like five guys playing dress up and pathetically doing push ups or jabs (which my 5 year old son can do better from what I can tell) or about a dozen guys standing around with guns while one shoots over a sand dune and someone is setting off firecrackers on the other side.
      I’m not saying ISIS doesn’t exist. I am saying I think about 90% of the videos that make it on TV are fake productions either because the channels can’t get real videos or because they are too wimpy to go get the real videos. Does anyone else think this when they see these video’s?

      1. Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak talk a lot about these “video” productions on their show, the No Agenda Show.
        The SITE Intelligence Group, run by Rita Katz, is the organization to look at. Media pays for their intel and the group somehow “finds” all these videos on social media.
        http://naplay.it/670/1-04-09

  2. The more I look into what has been going on in this world since the 1960s, the more questions I come up with that don’t have easy answers. I’m just going to say it, because these questions need better answers than we have. Like these:
    Were the beginnings of the New World Order associated with the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963? Why was feminism funded by the CIA and the gospel spread by Gloria Steinem? Was the Bush family involved in the Hinckley assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan? Were they involved in the JFK assassination? Did our own government engineer 9/11 or use radical Islamists, whom they had been funding through the 1980s and 1990s, as a “cat’s paw” to get the ball rolling on the Draconian new laws and abolishment of personal freedoms we’ve seen since then? How many terror events since then have been false flags? Was the financial collapse of 2008 also engineered by our government and criminals on Wall Street?
    We should not be afraid to ask big questions like these and expect reasonable answers. Just think – if the corporate-government elite are implicated in these and many other Thesis/Antithesis actions, how long have we been sheep standing by being happily led to slaughter?
    George was closer to reality than anybody else I’ve seen, and decades ahead of his time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy-sVByUHqE

    1. It does make you wonder if there’s some alien force behind the less than benign forces at work in our world. There was an american writer called Budd Hopkins (I think he died recently) who was a ufologist who I used to read quite a bit. I always thought he was a very credible and level headed guy, who more or less stated after numerous regression sessions with people who claimed to be abducted by aliens in their sleep, that there was an advanced alien force at work with the world’s governments. This apparently, had been formalized in the 1950s with the american government in particular.
      I’m not too sure what to make about these ideas, but, all these people couldn’t be lying about what they said under hypnosis. Why are the reports so consistent if they were making it up? Anyway, with all these ideas, it’s a bit like Hegel, you’re pointed one way only to realize that the truth is in the diametrical direction.

      1. It seems hard to believe aliens would get much out of it. Most likely they would be so much more advanced than us as to be beyond our comprehension like a human compared to a bacteria.

    2. Listen to those with great questions , not answers. Wisdom does not come from having an answer for everything . It comes from having a question for everything

    3. The end result is totalitarianism.
      Furst create a problem of lack of security -> more acts for security and more restriction of freedom.
      The whole banking and debt system based fiat currency is covert wnslavement and controlled by elites. They create money as they please. Boom and bust are controlled by the richest, boom they get people into buying and spending and they loan their blips of money? when bust they buy the actual goods at a discount and wait to sell it again at a higher price.

    4. Outstanding comment. These questions should really be the next checkpoint for the Manosphere. We all see it. It’s taunting us, every day.

    5. Jesus Christ, pal … “did our own government engineer 9/11 …” Do you really have to ask?!? You sound like you’re really late to the party. I didn’t think there were any rational people left, circa 2015/2016, that actually believed the grotesquely preposterous “official” lie, or questioned if indeed it were a gigantic balls-out lie. The evidence of 9/11 being carried out by elements of the government itself is so overwhelming that it defies belief that there are still stranglers out there trying to figure it out.

      1. Just as people say it was a conspiracy..there are other people who can say that people are making up the evidence or faking experts. Then you get the CIA paying people to make fake conspiracy thoeries that are then easily disproven. Its all very Orwellian.

    6. The Bushes are all CIA going way back and the CIA has always been the personal hit squad and misc evil for the elites. There is a famous speech kennedy gave about secret societies that America wasn’t ready to hear and he wanted to smash the CIA into a thousand splinters. If only he had been more careful than brave. His assassination was a circus of errors(they had about 12 shooters who failed to score a head shot until the driver purposely slowed the car way down). They had to alter the video because kennedy grabbed his throat and they had to take out frames to make it look like the car didnt slow down. It gives me hope for Trump to avoid a similar fate. If Trump gets rid of the CIA thats would be the biggest blow to the globalists. No more vaccines and fluoride and illegal immigrants and bigger government. No more fake global warming scares. No more fake shootings. All that effort lost!

  3. The role of radicals and extremists is to further the dialectic. The reason conservatives have failed in everything is that dialectics is the enemy of established Authority. That is why the right must radicalize. The nature of the dialectic means that establishment conservatives are just liberals of 20 years ago.
    As the left moves into into a position of Authority, we need to force our dialectic upon them and move society towards positions we prefer. So we must advance extreme positions and push for radical causes. Force the left to compromise, then advance an even more radical position.

    1. The left knows that, hence why they fear news outlets and letting non-lefitists having any publc platforms. The left has a new message now—“shut up!” There is a reason why they are talking about revoking the 1st Amendment and procesuting those who do not conform to their narrative.

      1. There is a certain right wing conservative newspaper in Germany called Junge Freiheit. I used to see it in newsagents in other parts of the country but had not been seeing it anywhere lately. So got tired of looking at it online, went into a newsagent in a busy train station, looked through the rack, couldn’t see it and dared to ask the guy at the counter if they had it.. He kind of chuckled and grabbed it from a small pile hidden under an A4 page behind the counter. I think the extreme left possibly steals it or attacks the shops if they don’t hide it but pleased it was there 🙂 Yes the left has a message “shut up”. Sorry to say a member of a conservative party was recently bashed up and now feel depending on where one lives has to carry these beliefs rather quietly..

        1. At least the news agent still carried it. I have been an expat in Europe for awhile and well aware what is beneath the surface (eg. Pim Fortuyn and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) of soclialist representative government.
          Ich habe “Junge Freiheit” nie gehört, aber ich werde sie nächstalsmal suchen. Ich bin nicht so oft im HBH und benutze keine öffentliche Verkehrsmittel.

        2. Du kannst schnell diese Zeitung mit jf.de zugreifen. Hatte nicht gewusst, dass einen niederländischen Politiker ermordet wurde.. Bin auch hierher ausgewandert. Ein andere Politiker, der ich mag ist Oskar Freysinger aus die Schweiz. Sehr leidenschaftlich und charismatisch und auf unserer Seite..

      1. That’s because until recently the right was conservative, and conservatism is anti-radical. But there is nothing left to conserve! So now there is only revolution. I have seen a remarkable change in the rhetoric on the right in the last few years. A sense of how total our defeat is. How we have been betrayed. And a growing radicalisation. And where you have words, deeds will follow.
        Understand this..the west you love is dead. In its place you have an anti-west. It looks like the west. It talks like the west. But it isn’t the west. Once you realise that there is no West left to defend, you can sever whatever lingering attachments you have the the system. You can oppose it completely. Our goal is not to preserve…there is very little that remains worth preserving, Our goal is to subvert and destroy. Once that is accomplished, we can build a new West, inspired by the best of the old West.

        1. That is very interestingly put, right is no longer “conservative” as there is nothing left to conserve, only revolution. I wonder where you are, in Europe, or the US? No need to be too specific on the forum, am in Europe myself. I feel sad and have trouble understanding that “the west I love is dead”. It is certainly very sick, but probably this phrase is most true in the US, but it is probably almost true in Germany too. Well, there is a lot of the resemblance of the old West in many places, but I think a snapshot of the political mindset of most of the people suggests too much leftism and apathy to imagine a new west is about to emerge by itself rather than rapidly decay further. You sound like you’re onto it.. We HAVE been betrayed. The most radical thing I’ve seen in Europe is Generation Identitaire. Of course there are arson attacks going on.. I do what I can in a legal and clandestine way within the context of my non-political-acitivist life to “subvert and destroy”.. am well interested to hear any ideas you have, as much as you’re willing to put on a forum..

  4. Nice. Gives me food for thought.
    “Is not the very concept of left and right, east and west, black and white, etc., required by the dialectic a confirmation of absolutism itself”
    Interesting.

    1. That was the idea behind the social evolution that would “inevitably” lead to Communism. Capitalism leads to revolution which leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat which leads to socialism which leads to communism.

  5. Great work, I think the biggest reason I like reading these in depth articles of yours is that they combine a lot of different things that I had previously read about/ researched into one clear, concise summary.

  6. Hegelian philosophy has become it seems the method par excellence of maintaining the status quo. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
    Interestingly, Hegel’s political philosophy has no absolute end point truth if you analyse it. The pinnacle of truth is the State or the Prussian State in his case. It’s a complete tautology and I suspect that’s way it been adopted so effectively and ruthlessly by the ruling powers.

  7. Shouldn’t we be alarmed anytime there is a “government sponsored training” going on near or in your city?
    Or rather some call it “anti-terrorist rehearsal” or any time of enforcement training going on after all these false flag attacks.
    We should always be ahead of the news (not media news) but what’s really going on so we don’t end up like victims like mass shootings or terrorist activity.

  8. Ron Paul has a lot of flaws. I have come to the conclusion that absolute libertarianism is not the way. However, the movement he created seems to have created enough of a movement to throw a monkey wrench into the process of managing the population. I think Ron Paul is the reason we have Trump. (Not that I trust Trump 100 percent !).
    But it is looking less and less that it will be Clinton vs Bush and that is already something.
    I personally am glad that Trump is not calling for an end to social security. But is in favor of me keeping my guns.
    I actually like Trump better than Paul from the point of view of policy. However, I admire the moral force of Paul.
    Trump is an egotist, but the fact he is such a loose canon and his own man makes me support him. I hope he will be less likely to fit neatly into the grand scheme of a dialectic.

  9. Roosh is writing about Hegelian dialectic. And analyzing the way politics works on the planetary level.
    Just for the hell-of-it, I went over to Jessica Valent’s feministing. It was as I suspected. Triviality after triviality.
    I will not even bother to mention the topics as criticizing them would put me to sleep.
    I do not want to encourage a “click surge” of femiisting. And give Jessica Valenti the imppression that there is a surge of interest in her ideas and that she is a fascinating woman.
    However, dudes, just this one time, it might be a good idea to click over and back. Just compare the low IQ shit over there.
    I am going to commit a heresy and encourage you all to vist our friend JV.
    feministing.com

  10. Just like the Romans who invented the Jesus myth to subdue the serfs, our own government is spreading the new age lie to pacify and conquer everyone, and they have succeeded.
    People walk around contemplating the end of the world. Well I’ve got some bad news for you guys: the world already ended. They have accomplished their goal. So conquered is the landscape that the only alternative group abide by the same exact precepts as the ruling class, which makes me wonder what these people are fighting against and then makes me realize: oh yeah, it’s a perfect scam.
    “Sacrifice” “Service” “Humility” “Go with the flow” “It’s an illusion” “It’ll be better in the spirit world” Does this sound like the foundation of a free society to you?
    I won’t let these people “one up” me.
    They tell me “you’re one of us”, “cone on and join the team for the big win”, but all I see are two faces on the same brown coin, same brown intellectual slavery, same brown dictatorship.
    Some of you people are cool and make some valid points. Others among you are big mouthed cunts not worth the time of day, who somehow have a problem with my autonomy and individualism.
    People wonder why I’m so hostile to this spiritual theocracy. It’s quite simple really. They treat me like shit, demand I serve them and try to take away everything I hold dear. It would be one thing if I could mind my own business and not be bothered, but since the enlightened ones are dead set on giving me orders and placing a crosshairs on my forehead, yeah… they wish they could brainwash this guy with the jesus angel shit.
    My biggest accomplishment before I die will be a completely selfish life.
    People weren’t meant to live like this, and people who adhere to an altruist worldview secretly wish the world was not like this. Your enemy cannot make you free.
    You can delete my post now, before your God sees it and casts lightning on you.

    1. “The Romans who invented the Jesus myth to subdue the serfs.” Incredible.
      Perfidius: “These serfs sure are uppity; let us subdue them.”
      Simplicius: “Maybe we could simply kill them, since we butcher them already by the scores in the public games, and the lives of such chattel are worth nothing to us, who have massacred so many peoples of the earth.”
      Perfidius: “No, dear chap, that’s the hard way; let’s invent a dissident religion that will accelerate our cultural disintegration, undermine the aristocracy, vacate the Imperial power to the banks of the Bosphorus and install a power vacuum only to be filled by invading Huns and Goths, eventually suffering the humiliation of granting our Imperial titles to the various, new monarchs of this dissident religion that will pop up all over our ancient holdings throughout the European continent, yea, and even unto the Isles and frigid York.”
      Simplicius: “Have you been forgetting to mingle water with your wine, again?”
      Perfidius: ::snore::
      Cabal of Inconspicuous Roman Patricians Lurking in the Shadows Whilst Twirling Their Moustaches: “Euge, euge!”
      Drunk dad, indeed.

  11. I just wrote about this for my upcoming book, but I’m not sure if it’s strictly controlled in this kind of a way as it is just an ideological pillar of theirs in general. Frankfurt School critical theory basically took Marx’s critique of political economy and imposed it on culture after World War I failed to lead to the kind of revolutions Marx predicted.
    The culture is now thoroughly steeped in critical theory with all its victim classes, and now that culture demands that government act in certain ways – this is the “long march through the institutions.”

  12. Well, this is interesting, and in a sense a real-breakthrough. Interestingly enough someone on ROK pointed out the other day that the T,A,S, progression is actually dwn to Fichte – I checked and discover it was true. I’m a bit rusty on my Hegel, but it seems his focus was specifically on the oppositional dynamic of anti-theses, which may or may not amount to the same thing, but works similarly as a dynamic of history – or in Hegelian terms Geist / Spirit.
    Most people who encounter the dialectic will probably do so through leftist politics, originally through left hegelians and then of course through Marx who integrated it into his materialist philosophy history – dialectical materialism. With Marx you get a sense of history doing its own under the surface – the productive forces are working below like tectonic plates that will eventually clash and throw up the next stage – and all we see are the relations of production, the superstructure. But what’s interesting about Roosh’s article and this more conspiratorial idea of how the dialectic is working is that it suggests there are people, be the elites, puppet-masters, or more prosaically academic scientist technocrats who having leapt on the back of history’s wild stallion are trying to tame and domesticate it, arguably for sinister and selfish purpose, and I think that is very true.
    If you think about the relation of history to the productive forces, consider how under the economics of the last century or so, where central banks have held sway – above all the Fed – economic history – bizarrely unpredictable and impossible to fathom for most economic historians – has taken the form of cycles of boom and bust – except we know with some certainty that for example the intervention of the fed helped create the great depression whether on purpose or by accident – but what if it was on purpose? OK, not quite an example of the dialectic (at least not necessarily) but potentially a way in which governments or rather central banks centrally manage not merely the economy but in a sense history?
    Maybe that’s wrong, maybe things aren’t as conspiratorial as that, and maybe everything isn’t a false flag intended to produce a reaction, or a revolution intended to produce a counter-revolution, but there is every reason to think that history does – with whatever level of succes and degree of control – get manipulated quite purposefully by those in charge
    One thing that hasn’t been touched here, perhaps because it has nothing to do with the matter at all, is the possibility is that there may be something more than simply an attempt to manipulate the hegelian dialectic. It may well be that more than one kind of ‘technology’ is in play, or alternatively that different technologies here may reflect different aspects of the same thing. There is a strong esoteric side to a great deal of modern history, one that has developed in the background over the last century or so. I am not aware that Hegelianism was anything other than what it said it was but many of these types of ideas involving oppositions, binaries etc reflect what might be described Hermetic / magical thinking. I was thinking just the other day how the notion of binary oppositions (a feminist cliche) can be traced back not only to structuralism but possibly also to magical ideas of polarisation.
    This idea of polarisation involves something very similar to the dialectic but without the necessary progression – here you – the magician – deliberately learn to occupy both positions – an example in politics would democrates and republicans, but in personal life it might be occupy both sadness and happiness at the same time – but succumbing to neither.
    This permits – as Smoking Jacket alludes to – the possibility of distraction, i.e. directing attention away towards something and away from something else.
    Is this being combined with a dialectical manipulation of history – I would say highly likely, although we should be very wary of assuming this, or suddenly assuming that everything is conspiracy, or so much smoke and illusion (although some of it probably is). As Roosh points out if history is being manipulated in this way (at whatever level) it is also being manipulated with the end in mind – whether that end is a specific outcome or – conspiratorially – a new world order for the elite to reign supreme without having to worry about the insects at their feet. From a magical point of view though outcome isn’t necessarily concrete – it may simply be effect. In fact in a slightly less conspiratorial sense one could describe it as – a show / performance / magical act.
    There is a great deal going on that we are beginning to see. One shouldn’t perhaps automatically assume it is wrong or evil, as I believe many of the masters of dialectic / or magicians believe they are genuinely progressing humanity forward, but it is certainly time for us to be thinking about what is going on in a less naive way than before. This is a good start perhaps. Ideas start to filter down: people have become aware of ‘what was being done’ with respect to cultural marxism (since the 1990s). Hopefully they will start to have a better idea of some of the other things going on as well, such as dialectical strategies. The only thing we can be absolutely sure of, is that its all an almight head-fuck

  13. Bravo Roosh! I am glad you are writing about the Hegelian Dialectic, which can be hard to understand at first, but you presented it in clear manner.

  14. I’ve understood the basic premise, but never had the dialectic explained succinctly. Thanks for this much needed article. In any decent education system, this would be covered for at least one hour one day out of the year in 12 years of indoctrination.
    And governments use this left and right. However, like any other philosophy, one must be careful not to apply it to *every* event. For example:

    Problem: Nationalism in Europe
    Reaction: Allow millions of Afro-Islamists
    Solution: Strengthening of United Nations and European Union to “protect” people from social unrest

    I’m not convinced nationalism was a problem in Europe, at least not in my lifetime. Not to say the dialectic doesn’t apply or that the powers that be aren’t using mass immigration as a tool, but I don’t think the problem is being correctly identified here. Nationalism in Europe is at an all time low, historically speaking.

      1. Understood. However, I think we are seeing a lack of nationalism, which is why Sweden, Germany, France, etc. are overrun with those from other cultures, when the entire idea of tiny nation states in Europe is that each is a distinct, separate culture. Nationalism has been dying since the first world war, and especially the second. Still, your point is taken, and I’m sure those in power want to completely wipe out any remnants of nationalism to accelerate their agenda.
        Also, I’ll say that as an American, we are a geographically large and culturally diverse group and I don’t even know what America stands for, and it makes it very difficult for me to have nationalistic thoughts about such a nebulous idea. Perhaps when we were a nation of ideals, rule of law, justice, peace, freedom, happiness, etc. But no more.

        1. “However, I think we are seeing a lack of nationalism which is why Sweden, Germany, France, etc…”
          Nationalism is beaten out of the European people at birth and is constantly associated with national socialism or “far right” wing (always undefined and scary) ideology. You should see how schools and media constantly reinforce that narrative. The European state shames people out of being proud of their culture their whole lives and not getting on board with being a pan-European citizen (which is crumbling apart in front of everyone’s eyes). It isn’t just mulit-culturalism is a failure, but so is the EU. When the Germans finally run out of money, it’s all over.

        2. That may be in true in all of Europe except for Poland. We have luckily preserved our patriotic traditions and they’re currently undergoing a resurgence.

      2. Wisdom, right here.
        The Catholic Church teaches subsidiarity in civil/political matters, based upon her doctrine on the virtue of piety. “Piety” is the love due to our origins, which is first to God, then to our family, people and nation. Charity comes after the duties of piety are fulfilled. Subsidiarity teaches that decisions and loyalties should be kept to the nearest possible level of society. I.e., the rights of a man over his own household shall not be questioned unless some very extenuating circumstance warrants it; the decision of the mayor or local magistrate will not be micro-managed by the governor, nor the governor by the king, nor the king by the Church, nor the local diocese or synod by the Metropolitan, nor the Metropolitan by the Archbishop, Patriarch or Pope, unless the matter absolutely must be referred higher.
        It certainly does, as you say, keep people tied to their locality, their families, their nation, while stomping firmly on the head of would-be conquerors of the world.

  15. This is a little too simplistic, although perhaps you are right in the way that it is applied to societies by the elite.
    Dialetic is a valid instrument of thought, it has only been abused by egalitarians as a means of relativism. It allows them to place their opposing narrative on the same footing as the prevailing narrative, with no regard as to which side is more rational, objective, or truthful. With this method the leftists pervert dialectic thinking into a form of truth-through-compromise, a way to give more credence to their ideas than they actually deserve, even though this was never Hegel’s intent to begin with.

  16. In other words, we need a King.
    I realize, speaking as a Monarchist, that this rather seems cheesy, but consider that rulership is skill that can be mastered just like any other, and monarchs are the only thing that can effectively check oligharchs. For ordinary people to do so takes tremendous effort, money, and time, often which they do not have, and cannot be relied upon in the future.
    I don’t prefer to use the term “globalist,” because not all oligharchs are globalists. But, the term does fit oligharchs to a T, because they are notoriously disloyal to the nations they belong to. Whether you’re talking about public oligharchs (elected politicians and bureaucrats) or private ones (corporations, banks, trade unions, activist groups, charities, etc.), they see their respective nations only as feeding troughs. Without someone who is loyal to the nation on the whole, who is unbeholden to any one group for his power, who has the power and authority to keep the piggies in the sty, the piggies will always run roughshod.
    Of course, this doesn’t mean that all monarchs are loyal and perfect. But, at least a monarch cannot ditch responsibility for what happens in his nation very easily, not like an oligharch can. At least you know where to point your guns.

    1. I also believe that monarchy (with constitutional checks) is the best form of government. In a sense it’s similar to the argument for privatisation – if you own something you will take better care of it. A monarch ‘owns’ the state and its people, either symbolically or, historically speaking, literally. His children will inherit the state and its people, therefore he has an incentive to take good care of them. In addition, as you say, the monarch will be equipped to control the elite. Although most people tend to think that monarchs and the elite (or nobles as they were historically) are on the same side, historically monarchs have actually often assumed the role of protecting the people from the elite.
      I think semi-powerful monarchies formed on a eugenic basis (the monarchs should marry with the intention of producing talented and strong offspring) would be the best solution.

      1. The question is how much power you give the oligharchs? In truth, Absolute Monarchy may be the only way to go, and in order for that, you have to have that monarch belong to a religion, arguably the only one Christ Himself founded while on this Earth. Nevertheless, if you give any power to oligharchs, they will take the mile and will always scheme to grab more, in part because it’s natural for them to do so, and in part because they don’t know how much power they really need.
        It is important to understand that an “absolute monarch” doesn’t really have absolute power. All it means is that he has the power to make laws, to wage war (with whatever army he has at the present), and to hear legal cases. Back in the day, his ability to tax was heavily circumscribed by the fact that there wasn’t a whole lot of wealth to be going about anyway, and that to create an income tax meant creating a new bureaucracy (a new oligharch) that would vy for power. So a monarch, who wished to keep his power, learned to use it judiciously.

  17. THEN-1945
    PROBLEM: A HOMELAND FOR JEWS.
    REACTION: KILL ROMA GYPSIES AND CLAIM 6 MILLION JEWS WERE KILLED.
    SOLUTION: NOW ALL ALLIES CREATE A STATE ISRAEL
    NOW-2015
    PROBLEM:NOW WE WANT A GREATER ISRAEL,NEED TO CLEAR LOCALS.
    REACTION: CREATE ISIS AND KILL LOCAL INHABITANTS AND CREATE HAVOC
    SOLUTION: WELCOME MUSLIM REFUGES INTO EUROPE

  18. I was fortunate to grasp these concepts when I was in college in the mid 90s. It was due in large measure to the literature and books given to me by a long time friend of my parents. He was a ” John Bircher” and his understanding of how all of this worked was deep and vast.
    A few books that I remember him giving to me to read were: “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” , “The History of Fabian Socialism”, “The Creature From Jekyll Island” , “Saviors Of The Earth?” and many more whose titles I don’t recall. Some of these books are probably out of print now for all I know.
    I also remember reading back issues of The New American where such fine writers as William Jasper and William Grigg wrote about these topics and more on a regular basis.
    The New American along with the JBS is a shadow of its former self – having rotted from within. They keep guys like Japser on a leash now – which is unfortunate. His depth of philosophy, history, sociology and ability to make it all relevant was unparalleled.
    Grigg is on his own now and ekes out a living as a writer. He’s got a great blog: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
    He’s probably one of the finest modern writers alive helping to keep the light of liberty shining.

  19. “Like most Enlightenment thinkers, he threw god away and made the nation-state god instead.”
    Actually the Enlightenment philosophers were all religious. They claimed that “God has given everyone rights”, which was easy for socialists to exploit: If all have rights then conquest is evil as it tramples on rights, and since Westerners were the most successful conquerors by far, then we were evil. Socialism simply takes Xtian claims to their logical conclusion. Don’t try to blame the Enlightenment equalism on the evil unwashed infidels.

    1. Hegel was a bit late to the party as the Enlightenment is generally considered to be an 18th century phenomenon and he was only born in 1770. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers were religious in one way or another with certain exceptions like Hume and Rousseau. It wasn’t until the 19th century that God really got thrown under the bus.

      1. They were Deists and Freemasons; their deity was driving the bus, under which they threw the knowledge of God.

    2. No, the Enlightenment Philosophers (with few exceptions) were “spiritual, but not religious.” They completely vacated the God of Christendom and made way for their luciferian divinity, promoter of man’s “brotherhood” and “enlightenment” and “liberty.” Not everyone who invokes deity is religious, let alone Christian.
      Why this foolish idea persists that Socialism is Christianity done right, is beyond me. The Late Ancient and Medieval epochs were the most Christian, and least Socialist, periods; Socialism stands almost alone amongst political ideologies as having been explicitly condemned by the Church as an heresy. Socialism is the antithesis of Christian charity and liberty.

  20. I almost died of laughter when he said that poor Russia is essentially provoked by “elites” and “forced” to act aggressively in foreign countries. That’s what Hitler thought-he, the poor guy, was just provoked by evil Jewish communists and businessmen. So don’t blame him. So Russia never attacked anyone aggressively in it’s history or never established an empire the size of South America?
    Are they pretty much just vodka drinking hippies?
    One also has to be seriously ignorant to believe that anyone is capable of removing corrupt Russian officials from Kremlin. Even during the worst years of drunk Yeltsin administration nobody even entertained that kind of stupidity.

  21. They apparently do not feel threatened for they control the internet, yet allow the flow of information regarding their existence and plots and schemes of new world order and domination to be seen by people. Here’s another unanswered question, what is the game of misinformation? Are we dealing with something much more sinister than what is even being allowed to be released? Is the matrix really this clever? Or is it just a bunch of silly humans all vying for power like most animals with base desires, humans who have cleverly manipulated the tools to their advantage like technology over their fellow man. Morality is all but out the window now, if you want to destroy these so called “elites” (I personally call them cowardly fucks) you have to play dirty fellas, you have to start fucking with their carefully arraigned agenda. However, the governments under their control will have no trouble labeling you a ‘terrorist’ and have you killed by a squad of armed men too roided out in the live fast pay-good tac team life style to stop and give two shits about questioning such a ridiculous order. Look at Snowden, I don’t personally like the guy, he should have stayed and fought and died on his feet like a warrior, but his fleeing did cause more trouble for them, or was he a plan all long? You see where I”m going with this.
    Remember, these cowardly fucks will never lose one wink of sleep over however many of your friends are killed, maimed, discredited, cuckolded, robbed, jailed etc. You must feel the same nothingness with a pinch of vengeance towards them. You must want to make them suffer. You must attack their arguments like Trump is doing, upsetting their peachy order (or is he?)
    One thing to be certain of is never be certain of the enemy’s move, it is designed to be confusing and even those of us who have figured it out still can lose the bread crumbs if we go too deep, some trails are placed there purposefully to get us to go in circles, only the ones that lead to the sources of their power are the real trails.
    Like being in a hall of mirrors, the way to the exit is lined with lies and deceit, the way out to your answer and solution can only be reached by those who recognize what is truth and what is farce. Here’s a hint: without the media and money they would be nothing. They could not fund all the CIA front groups and drug cartels / terrorist groups without their fiat currency, and they could not constantly shove messages, whether on the surface or subliminally, without the media, subconsciously changing the thoughts of an entire population. You remove these two elements from Earth and we will be in for the rudest awakening you could dream of, but it would work, and they would lose power, the grand curtain would be removed from our sight and the window to truth would no longer be obscured.

    1. You don’t know when they’ll strike unless you have inside info or unless you bug their temples and lodges. It would take legions of comitted disciples and warriors to undertake such a task. It seems such a demoralizing job to spend a life’s work getting ones hands dirty dispelling of the dregs of the planet. Dispell of the enemy as sport or keep it spirited as an art form but never make a career of being a hatchet man. A spirit never grows with stench on the hands and the vilest corner of humanity on the mind which is why I’ve never found ‘johnny law’ types appealing. Their righteousness tires and they awaken as part of the system. They’re the shit shovelers of the species.
      Stay enlightened. The enlightened mind floods and burns away all that is foul without getting those gifted piano fingers dirty and without distracting the mind from probing the more important mysteries of the universe. The senses stay sharp and send alarms when the shadows draw near.
      With all the web conversing, you get a sense of ‘someone just took note of that’ or a prickly feeling of some mama’s boy fed fags knocking on the door. They never come. They’re waiting until the chatter stops and then they sum up all the threads and content. They have it all. Previous purges in history relied on word of mouth snitches. If any cabal or state borg wanted a list to purge, now all they’d have to do is order a list from google like an advertizing list, only it would be a list of key words and threads all digitally crunched and sourced or branched like the branches of a tree. Real time people who are enemies amongst you operate in the same way as the state borg. They don’t betray you at the onset. They wait. With a tight smile they listen as you good heartedly try to inform them or convert them to enlightenment, then at the opportune time they make a case against you or they sieze upon some reason to close a trap on you. I’ve been bitten by a few traitors in my time and I’ve learned to sense them and smell them out. Now it’s ME with the tight smile and a cleaver behind my back. Still I find time to ponder the greater mysteries of the universe . . . and of course to pursue my hobby and passion, juggling. 🙂

  22. The whole climate change debate falls into this class of discussions. The ready-made solution is to impose a world government that taxes and controls everything. AGW is the excuse they use. Never mind that the science is still suspect, the outcomes are less than conclusive, and there are many other possible solutions: they want their world government, consisting of unelected and unaccountable technocrats.
    .
    The other thing that comes to mind is the constant stirring up of racial tensions in America.
    .
    Feminism does this with the “war on women” narrative as well as constantly recycling lies about pay equity and such.

      1. Ever since some over-educated idiot coined the phrase “moral equivalent of war” the powers that be have beat us over the head with it.

  23. If you had ever read Hegel (a task not to be taken lightly) you would understand that the conspiracy theorists’ conception of his dialectic is painfully hollow and understood at the most basic and elementary level, if it is indeed understood at all. The dialectic as envisioned by Hegel was not something the “government uses against” people.
    The Hegelian conception of the dialectic is as a naturally occuring process facilitated by the Absolute or the Idea (see below for condensed explanation of the Idea). It is far more a process of resolution than it is a method of finding truths, and it certainly does not describe a process of creating problems. Other philosophers, including Aristotle and Hegel’s contemporary (though 46 years older) Kant, used the term “dialectic” more as a method of finding truths or truths, but for Hegel, the dialectic was much more than an empirical or rational method — it was Truth itself.
    As you mentioned, Hegel held the State in high esteem, and he believed it to be an expression of the Absolute. Hegel did not attempt to throw out God and replace it with State, and he did not believe the State created or should create artificial problems solely for the purpose of implementing solutions that would give it more power. For him, the dogmatic, small, limited conception of God was a poor conception of the true wonder of the Creator. Hegel conceived of God as the Absolute or the Idea — essentially, “God” is not a “being” (as God is fully self-determining and ordinary “beings” are limitied by what they are not) but the total and only reality, the only Constant in a universe of Change.
    It is tempting to apply the idea of the Hegelian dialectic to the current social, political, and economic conditions of man, but this is wrong because Hegel’s dialectic is rooted in idealism. The Idea influences these things, but its scope is much larger than them. For a more concise and relevant theory on these issues, consult the dialectical materialism and historical materialism of Marx…but that is a different story.
    Understand that Hegel’s conception of the dialectical process (i.e., the way in which he described the dialectical process) was not such that he believed the dialectic applied to or described the tactics of the Hidden Hand. The fact that people believe the “Hegelian dialectic” to be or describe some sinister plan is the result of a very poor understanding of popular philosophical ideas, a poorer understanding of society, and an abysmal understanding of the process of critical thinking.

    1. well that’s a great post about Hegel, but the article – whatever it is – isn’t about understanding Hegel on his own terms – its about the idea that certain groups or people have sought to use this idea of the dialectic (whether its truly Hegel’s dialectic or not doesn’t really matter) for the furtherance of their design, and the actualisation of their Will, collectively or otherwise. If some biologist analyses the chemistry of a plant that produces natural toxins to ward of animals / predators and then develops from that a drug or poison from that plant for use on humans, then what we need to understand is how the drug / poison works, and indeed what is being done with it. Its naturally occurence in nature is certainly of interest but ultimately we’re not talking about the same thing.
      Now if you look at what is being suggested it may well be false that dialectical type thinking is being used to drive and manage history or political events, but its not absurd to suggest that there are some who beginning with an outcome / synthesis in mind look to create the conditions which might bring about that outcome, and specifically use the creation of opposing arguments or groups to guide the public (or groups in question) towards such an outcome. To do that one does not need to have an intimitate understanding of Hegel’s philosophy of history, of his idea of state, geist, absolute etc – none of those things are of any necessary interest because we are dealing with a question of technology transfer or at best an emulation of processes. In other words it isn’t a question of philosophy its a question of what works.
      Whether it does work, or whether its being practiced (and if so to what degree) is another matter. There is a danger that this becomes as you indicate some kind of conspiratorial or hidden hand version of history, which is ultimately unverifiable, but its perfectly reasonable to observe that there is something dialectical about the way that opposing groups / opposition groups etc seem manufactured (often literally funded by elites). We know voting left / right, democractic / republican etc changes nothing essential and its not unreasonable to think that that’s a result of the opposition always being to some extent controlled and directed.
      Roosh’s article is on point and your post while learned misses that point

      1. It is approximated that a good 30% of people across the board are what you could term as ‘codependent’ which translates to the remaining 70% conspiring to some degree, greater or lesser, whether on an individual level or en masse to regulate the docile ones. Stiff necked and type A’s usually require special customs selectively enforced against them or are kept broken from youth by those that wish to circumnavigate them while retaining power over them. The less enlightened or less aware a person is, the more easily they’re manipulated or conspired against. For example the Native American indians waking up one day on reservations – – totally conspired.

        1. that’s probably correct. People, individually or collectively, want to control their environment, and manipulating, controlling, and direction the behaviour of others is one of the main ways of doing that now that we’re no longer worrying about the weather / acts of God. What that means perhaps is that rather than the social world being transparent, manipulation, conspiracy and artifice should be assumed to be the order of the day. Yet, when we think of movements within history etc being directed at a macro-level it seems something quite different and more sinister. I guess its just the same thing on a different level

      2. My issue lies with the false understanding and usage of the Hegelian dialectic and the larger implications of this false usage. I can already see the conspiracy theorists discovering Marx’s link to Hegel and deducing that this (false idea of the) Hegelian dialectic is a cultural Marxist conspiracy.
        This article should have been written without the false incorporation and description of the Hegelian dialectic. As far as its content goes — the idea of the State essentially fabricating problems or issues in the attempt to strengthen its own power, I agree that this is true. Various states have done this and continue to do so. But to ascribe it to the Hegelian dialectic bastardizes a very complex philosophy and turns it into something more akin to an Illuminati/Freemason/Bilderberger/etc. conspiracy theory.

        1. The connexion between Hegel and Marx isnt exactly unknown, and anyone who knows of this is unlikely to think that Hegel and Marx were somehow in cahoots. Conspiracy theory thrives because historians are paid lackeys as aren’t doing their jobs. Ideas such as cultural marxism aren’t conspiracy even if they often accompany conspiracy, and the fact is that far from hegel being respected on his own terms, his philosophy has always been used and exploited. This article wiould only be mistitled if it purported to be a serious enquiry into the nature of Hegel’s philosophy, but it isn’t that. Its a look at how what has come to be known as the Hegelian Dialectic (incorrectly it seems if we allow for the fact that Fichte appears to have come up with the schematization – something I learned incidentally on ROK a few days ago) has been used and effectively weaponised. If you allow for the fact that Marx and the Young Hegelians turned away from ‘mere philosophy’ towards a praxis that sought to exploit what would be useful in ‘changing’ the world, then the article is broadly speaking on target.
          As for the conspiratorial angle, I agree we need to be careful about that, but equally historians have been so careful about it that they’ve ended up downplaying or even ignoring uncomfortable elements. Shlomo Aveneri for instance is one of the few historians who tackled Hegelianism and both Marxism and Hessian communism, which of course was one of the early sources of modern Zionism. Even to this day though something like this which should be discussed as a simple matter of historical fact is treated with kid gloves, with the result that conspiracy theorists end up filling the gap, and with it going beyond what might actually be the case to the point where everything reflects the hidden hand.
          But there’s good reason to think that a great deal does goes on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, and even that this might be the norm rather than the exception. If that is the case, and professional historians won’t tackle it as they should, then clearly conspiracy theorists or others who might have a lesser commitment to impartiality, will be prepared to tackle it

    2. Beautiful. Although I would say that its incorrect to treat Hegels dialectic as idealism. Hegel defines idealism as the certainty of being all reality, i.e. the attitude that presupposes that the underlying universal substrate of objective reality (the dao) is self-consciousness, which does not seek to verify the truth of this certainty via empirical observation. Idealism is a falsehood that consciousness overcomes by the very act of engaging in the empirical observation of inorganic nature, seeking out natural laws via experimentation that make nature predictable for it, so that it may control nature as it controls itself.
      What should interest us is that self-consciousness eventually attempts to observe and establish laws for itself in relation to external actuality via psychological laws. Closely related to this is its desire to make the objective world rational, since it fails to find rational laws that determine the activity of agents with free will. This stems from a choice that exhausts the possibilities of a free self-consciousness and the manner it can relate to external actuality. First, it may choose to conform to the objective world as it is given, despite its lack of rationality (blue pill). Second, it may choose to not conform to the objective world as it is given (red pill); the second choice leads to two possible ways in which self-consciousness deals with its own non-conformation.
      First, it may not conform, and offer no alternative to the irrational objective world as given (criminality, i.e. pua, sexual strategy is amoral, mgtow, etc.). Otherwise, it may offer an alternative (reformationist, i.e. neomasculinity, men’s rights, dark enlightenment, American Founding Fathers, French Jacobins, etc.). The second attitude leads to the alteration of the character of the given. Hegel notes that this attitude arises for a self-consciousness that has never belonged to a true community. Self-consciousness is essentially holding frame, so much to the point that it alters reality to make its frame truth; in doing so it doubles itself.
      This self-doubling is at first expressed and realized by sexual desire and satisfaction, but I’m not that far yet.
      You should be able to see that Hegel is talking about something more substantial than a bare and empty speculative idealism. Especially if youre living it.

      1. Nice writeup. Thanks for going a bit deeper into Hegel. I’ve not read too much Hegel so I’m not yet fully fluent in Hegelianism. That said, I don’t believe I referred to Hegel’s philosophy as mere idealism. Looking back, I did write that his dialectic is rooted in idealism. Perhaps a better term to have used is “rooted in the Idea.” By which I mean that Hegel’s dialectic is rooted in the Idea/Absolute/Geist/etc., as opposed to the suggested interpretation of Hegel’s dialectic as presented in this article as something that is “used against us by politicians.” This sounds to me more Marxist in nature than Hegelian. I’ve seen this “Hegelian conspiracy” thing far too often, and I just do not want to see such a comprehensive philosophy reduced to cheap fodder for mass consumption. To close, I’ll point out that while your interpretation of the red pill/blue pill dichotomy via Hegel’s analysis of self-consciousness is on point, I believe what you addressed is not what is being presented in this article. The issue of this article was the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a driving force behind sociopolitical and economic (and cultural) change. As if one could grasp the dialectic as some sort of conspiratorial tool. It is with this premise that I take issue.

  24. “What the ruling elite does, and have been doing for centuries, is create reactions which requires solutions they had wanted all along.”
    Which is done by the bought professional political class by manufacturing consent or offering false choices to the public. When a large portion of the public does not get on board (global warming, socialism, etc…) they then replace the population by drowning the country with more compliant peoples who will nullify their vote. It gives an air of legitimacey, but everyone recongizes the fraudlent, if not criminal, actions for what they are.

  25. Same thing happened in Star wars, Palpatine was secretly leader of the Sith and separatists. And for the Galaxy’s safety he declared himself Emperor

    1. I don’t think Neo-Masculinity is about “men’s rights,” so much as it is about the restoration of Patriarchy and virtue, which is naturally integrative, not disintegrative.

  26. I have nothing to add, Roosh, but just wanted to say thank you for a fascinating and educational article.
    I realized that, like you said, I use the Aristotelian method for arriving at truth, but in your contrasting it with the Hegelian Dialectic, I realized that there was one arena of my life where I was utilizing it without knowing it. That will be changed immediately.

  27. The “Owners of Capital” want wage slaves DEAD before turning 60. Best case scenario for them, is for someone to work 60+ hour work weeks from ages 16-60, put all of their money into a 401K, cars & home mortgage, neglecting to go to the doctor for decades and then suddenly drop dead of a heart attack; all before they can drain their 401K’s and start using earned social security & medicare benefits.
    Due to the way our current economic system works, we CLEARLY have too many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the “owners of capital” to employ them for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization. In the United States, for example, its clear that the “owners of capital” have chosen NOT to employ people on a large scale, preferring “tent cities” and “jailing the homeless”, INSTEAD of providing more “make-work employment” arrangements.
    Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level. Why?
    Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a DEFINITE reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those same high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. Government strong-arms this concept because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone whom is looking, able to perform, qualified for and willing to work.
    Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Basically due to the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 4-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!
    This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it. That’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Note this will NOT be to the specific detriment of society, but as a means to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy, as the previously increased minimum education levels for employment. The real goal is decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time, but also not decreasing the supply of “potential workers” who’s mere existence drive wages down for EVERYBODY. Keep in mind this cohort of people “not pursuing full-time employment” also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. The reality is if everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and “entrepreneurs” suggest these days, we would ALL be making 0.25 cents a day. THIS RACE TO THE BOTTOM EFFECTS THE SELF EMPLOYED WAGES AS WELL.
    The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern corporate labor, cost-cutting, strategies. These measures eventually will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers. Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave, waiting in the wings, to do the work for less or nothing at all. In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or flat out used slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is the “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare
    The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England
    But, how was that possible?
    Because “the owners of capital”, post the black-death-pandemic, still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables, more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare
    After the Black Death ran its course, in the 14th century, a Peasants Revolt was triggered by the “Statute of Labourers 1351”. By 1381, the sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the “Statute of Labourers 1351”. This statute was used by the “Owners of Capital”, as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages
    [url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/statlab.asp]The Statute of Laborers; 1351 (“Statutes of the Realm,” vol. i. p. 307.)[/url]
    Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but the “owners of capital” still didn’t want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn’t have to conform to demands of the market. That’s where we are today, a form of Neo-feudalism, driven by Fascist ideology and practices. Remember the USA a former “slave owning nation”, that fought “tooth & nail” to maintain the legal right to own slaves; even turning indentured servants, whom by contract, were set to be released in 7 years, into indefinite slaves through legal loopholes.

    1. Keeping up with the basics in terms of education and on-the-job work skills won’t be enough, for jobs requiring future-tech, contemporary labor market, skill-sets. The poor and even the middle class (not the upper middle class) will simply NOT be able to keep up with the skill demands for future employment, which will include REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS, STATE LICENSING, etc. The lower class laborers will still need to earn wages, pay mandatory education/licensing fees out of pocket AND keep a roof over their heads, ALL at the same time. In the VERY NEAR future, these very high costs skills that will be needed to stay “relevant” in ALL labor markets, will only be affordable to the rich, or possibly, to a VERY few, forward thinking, middle class families, willing to sacrifice everything they have financially, while pooling resources, to keep their offspring competitive, in the larger job market.
      I will begin with the usual assertion I hear in regards to the impact of these, soon to be real, “future-tech jobs”, which contrary to beliefs of some, includes the trades and accompanying “proprietary tech” that will not be repairable, only “replaceable by a certified/licensed tech”.
      [i]“Someone has to get paid to fix the robots!”[/i]
      I often hear this above noted rebuttal to mass automation and current labor cutting measure in the modern workplace, BUT it misses a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes, with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc. or the lower classes simply went directly into the trades, learning on the job, WITH PAY. HOWEVER, in current engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times have changed, to favor kids whom have had access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and have free-time to “practice on before” entering college or into their chosen training program. So, when these kids finally get to college or into their apprenticeships, those whom have had lots of “free time” to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of class, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer who had to flip burgers, part-time, to pay for rent and school expenses.
      Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs, while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school have part-time jobs. Teens at one time made up a sizable portion of the workforce and such changes in employment practices have shifted away from this, meaning, poor kids do not have any opportunity to build jobs skills of any kind, before, during and after college.
      Although not my primary point, I do think there is plenty of evidence that lower class teens today, not only, do not have the opportunity to get part-time jobs, but in addition the wealthy kids are beginning to develop advanced skill-sets, that COULD be MORE helpful in their future adult careers, than say, “working at a taco stand after school”. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are very good, EARLY, examples of people who made use of their free time and access to money, without the need to labor for part-time pay. During that free time they developed specialized skills that could not have been learned at a MINDLESS part-time job or even in formal schooling. In the end, they leveraged free time learning and access to tech, due to having wealthy parents, into long term careers.
      Here is a modern example of a company with a big contract to fill and absolutely “no will” to increase wages to attract experienced personnel, nor the desire to train inexperienced ones on the job, while paid. Instead they put out a story on the web bellyaching
      http://bridgemi.com/2013/03/is-shortage-due-to-skills-or-wages/
      In the link below this paragraph, I have posted an example of what I believe to be a young person, from a well off family, who majored in robotics at USC. She doesn’t appear to have had any unrelated part-time jobs, in relation to her major, while in college. She also seem to have had access to technology, to experiment and PLAY with, in her spare time. She earned her masters & bachelors back-to-back AND at the end of college, got a job offer at a University sponsored dinner party for robotics majors. NOBODY I went to college with, EVER, got a job offer at a university sponsored dinner party. In contrast, I’m sure many Ivy league and top 10 school graduates DO get job offers at university sponsored dinner parties. My point being, these future “robot repair jobs” are going to require smart kids, with desire to advance, whom also went to good schools, had lots of spare time and money to play with the tech outside of school AND get their jobs offered at dinner parties, some of which will be non-paying internships at first. These job offers will not be gained through sending out blind jobs applications through Linkedin or company job boards, as has been done up until now. Basically what this girl is doing for Disney will, in the near future, be more like what a plumber or electrician does today, EXCEPT you won’t get trained on the job, in a low-pay apprenticeship, when at “entry level”. In fact to even be considered for these “future-tech jobs” in the first place you’ll need to have good academic pedigree, lots of unpaid hobby experience and 1+ years of unpaid internships. Can kids outside of the upper middle class do the same thing as this young woman? I think not!
      Here is her story, readers can decide for themselves, my opinion is that this is what careers in the trades are going to look like in 15+ years:
      http://onedublin.org/2013/09/11/imagineer-molly-rinke-on-creating-immersive-experiences-at-walt-disney-imagineering/
      Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces, in the coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school and get a masters degree in robotics, in full-time only, engineering programs. Contrary to belief, these programs strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have both the money and free time, whom have NEVER work at an unrelated job to their majors and also buy expensive robotics hardware/software to experiment with outside of class.
      Mark my words the future labor market in the pursuit of “maintaining robots or other tech” is going to be the sole domain of rich kids, with advanced degrees from good schools because NO ONE is going to train anyone else perceived as lesser, in that kind of job, WITH PAY.
      To continue my above point, I believe “rich kid” job mobility is going to be a bigger problem for regular folks, beyond what the previous “rich kid” pedigree typically bought in the 20th century. Their unfettered access to endless money and time, to “explore academics” and hands-on work, with no consequences, is going to END job mobility of any kind for the lower and middle classes; even for those whom have met the typical required higher education and work experience standards. Its a superstar only job market now, with no room for middle of road folks.

      1. Man, I read that about half an hour ago, was very interesting. I also feel that uni was a waste of time and hobby experimentation was the way to go in the modern tech employment space. Have not yet followed those links but that last line “superstar only job market now with no room for middle of the road folks” does ring true with what I’ve been feeling about it.. A prolific profile on github, your own technical blog, stackoverflow, contributing to and maintaining your own open source projects… Yes, uni was a waste of bloody time, and as you say is somewhat depressing for the middle of the road people who can’t get into this, and even for those who can there’s no point being an also-ran you just end up the technical equivalent of a roadside worker shoveling shit.

    2. Say what you mean, and drop the terms of Communist ideology. “Owners of Capital” have always been around, and societies thrive precisely when people have a sense of ownership over the things they work to improve.
      Perhaps what you meant to say was ((Owners of Capital)) – I don’t know, but maybe it is. In which case, just be plain: a Jewish elite and other unprincipled persons, without any stock or loyalty in Western Civilization, are fighting to eliminate the real ownership of capital and are instead rigging the whole system so that, through usury, their small cabal become the owners of everything. There is nothing wrong with owning capital, provided one does not use unjust means to acquire or maintain it – indeed, such ownership is beneficial and diffusive of itself to the benefit of others. The problem is usurers and others, who strive unjustly to arrogate all property and even cash flow towards themselves precisely through denying ownership and autonomy to the society at large.

      1. Just to be clear, I am NOT against “ownership” and yes, I was indeed, labeling the current elite class, very broadly, calling them the “Owners of Capital”.
        As for “dropping the terms of Communist ideology”, I tend to use academically accepted terms, so that definitions can be crosschecked, by anyone who reads what I have written. I personally choose not to use, newly created, virally popular, community driven, derived terms & definitions”, but, that doesn’t mean those definitions are incorrect, I just personally go out of my way to use terms that have been peer reviewed. Note, there are PLENTY of conservative economists using the same terms, as I have, to support their positions in opposition of left leaning fiscal & social policies.
        Regardless, the following is true, NO MATTER WHAT YOU LABEL THAT GROUP, they want wage slaves DEAD before turning 60. Best case scenario for them, is for someone to work 60+ hour work weeks from ages 16-60, put all of their money into a 401K, cars & home mortgage, neglecting to go to the doctor for decades and then suddenly drop dead of a heart attack; all before they can drain their 401K’s and start using earned social security & medicare benefits.
        As has been said, 3rd wave Feminism and the replacement of male directed spending for female directed spending, absolutely fits with everything that I have pointed out above, in regards to the overall trends in the USA labor market.
        However, I don’t understand why people try to solely blame the “Jewish Elite” for instigating these types of issues. American WASP’s (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) are just as guilty of the same practices, if not all of it and were absolutely the ones that started us down this path; such as, fighting to eliminate real ownership of capital for regular people, by rigging the whole system, through usury, allowing them to become the owners of everything.
        It was “Yankee” types along with industrious French, Irish and German immigrants that built the country, then WASP’s with multi-generational wealth came along and dismantled it.
        It was also WASP’s that created the Ivy League and its related fraternities (i.e. Yale’s, Skull and Bones). It is WASP’s, whom maintain the ever growing coffers of the Ivy League and force its ideological influence over US industry.

        1. I generally think of “Yankee” and “WASP” as the same thing. How are they different, to you?
          I agree that many whites go along with the flow, and some of them play the money game. But I think the Jewish elite were the ones most proactive in fighting for the legalization of usury in the wake of the Protestant crisis, and the ones who, for a long while, at least, were most willing to support degeneracy and disreputable behavior in collecting on usury. Now, even the white folk have grown depraved, and I won’t withhold blame from them where it is due.
          I do agree with you that they want everyone working as wage-slaves and dying quickly – and, if not quickly, they want them to hemorrhage money into health care.

        2. In the grand scheme of things, Jewish peoples are newcomers to the USA and are not nearly as financially influential as many tend to believe. A LOT of Jewish wealth was destroyed and confiscated, before, during and immediately following WWII (also note, something similar happened to the Jews during WWI, but on a smaller scale). So, with all that in mind, have they contributed to our contemporary problems in some way? Certainly. Did they “get the ball rolling” to our current state? Nope, not even close. Also keep in mind that Jews have never been welcome on Ivy League campuses. So, since we know that Ivy League graduates have DOMINATED leadership positions on Wall Street, it should be VERY easy to surmise whom has been the real cause of our societal woes.
          YANKEE = Daniel Boone
          WASP = John D. Rockefeller
          YANKEE = Davy Crockett
          WASP = Samuel Prescott Bush & his father James Smith Bush
          YANKEE = Jim Bowie
          WASP = William Henry Vanderbilt, whom famously said, “Accommodation of the public? The public be damned! We run them because we have to”
          I hope you understand now, why I classify Yankee and WASP differently, while giving the “Jewish elite” a pass.

        3. Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie were not Yankees. A Yankee is a round head and a puritan boor/asshole. “A LOT of Jewish wealth was destroyed and confiscated, before, during and immediately following WWII” ~ Not in America, Jack!

        4. I certainly see the difference in moral character between the men on your Wasp and Yankee lists; I just don’t understand what objective criterion is used to assign them to one or the other. WASP means “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant,” and certainly all the men on both lists fit that moniker. Southern whites were often of Celtic extraction (Scots and Irish, mostly), and sometimes were Catholics, which is why the epicenter of WASP-dom was in the Yankee North, where all those descendants of English Puritans were dominant. I suppose one could say “(Almost) all Yankees are WASPS, but not every WASP is a Yankee.”

        5. Also, it’s interesting to study the history of the Jewish involvement in Freemasonry from it’s earliest periods of modern organization for the global Leftist Revolution. Jews were influential in financing the American Revolution and promulgating the Luciferian and Syncretistic, Relativistic views of Freemasonry and modernity, which the WASPS imbibed.

  28. I like you roosh. But in this case youre wrong. The elites do not have a monopoly on Hegels dialectic. You use it too.
    Problem: women are in a state of spiritual decay.
    Reaction: find out why. Discover neomasculinity.
    Solution: see your article on neomasculinity.
    Hegels dialectic is the selfs path towards the Absolute. Just yesterday I was able to re-express lifting and self-improvement in hegelian terms. I am a self-conscious unity that makes use of my body as an instrument to actualize deeds in external actuality. These deeds obtain a reality of their own, get entangled by consequences I did not foresee, and leave a mark on reality which began at first as nothing but a desire. Call this reality my physical body, the deed lifting, the mark, adonis body. Call your reality society, the deed writing this article on Hegel, the mark, this comment.
    That being said, Hegel himself never uses the term thesis antithesis synthesis. I know because I’ve studied him for years; my initial interest in him was his ability to describe what I saw in my mushroom and LSD trips.
    His stuff is redpillplus. I started a blog, but havent updated it because of school and my desire to learn physics from the ground up.
    If anyone is ready to go to the next level, check out my blog. Interpretingthephenomenology.blogspot.com
    If you are interested, Roosh, I can move my articles to returnofkings. I will email you in a future date.
    From Canada, best of wishes.

    1. Well done. I particularly like how you resolve into adonis body. It is important that the end goal is a theoretical, unobtainable one in the Hegelian system so the dialectic always moves forward — owl of minerva.
      I have been trying to organize a philosophy of bodybuilding piece for a really long time but my job doesn’t really allow me the time to do the work something as immense as I am thinking about would require.

  29. Another interesting read.
    This attitude is reflected in many places. I took a rhetoric course at OSU, for instance, thinking I’d be reading some ancient Greek and Latin authors on this capstone of the trivium.
    Instead, I met with the “New Rhetoric,” in conscious opposition to the “patriarchal” and “polarizing” rhetoric of the past. The approach was just another spin on the Heglian approach, and amounted to little less than propaganda. In brief, it said “rhetoric” used to be defined as the art of persuading, but that this became patriarchal and combative, polarizing people. Now, the best way to produce agreement was through a process that aimed at creating “consubstantiality” between two persons through any kind of communication, and preferably through those that did not put somebody on the defensive. The trick, was to aim at creating consensus simply by putting two ideas in contact with each other, defining everything as “communication,” and using all this “communication” to create a new synthesis of ideas. Effective rhetoricians – i.e., “good communicators” – will plan the dialectic in such a way as to effect consensus without debate. (These people were remarkably frank about engaging in mere propaganda and manipulation, but always covering over this with sanitized terms).
    To illustrate by example. You want gay marriage, but all these polarized, oppressive patriarchs oppose it and open debate simply shores up the opposition, because they have decency, nature and morals on their side. Fine. Here’s how you manage the Hegelian Dialectic (“process to effect consubstantiality/consensus”).
    1. Thesis: Christian Patriarchy; Antithesis: Wicked Interpretation of “Help-Meet,” “Mutual Submission,” unprincipled assertion of “Competence of the Believer;” Synthesis: Companionate Marriage
    2: Thesis: Companionate Marriage; Antithesis: Protecting vulnerable divorcees; Synthesis: the movement in Victorian law to make divorce a net legal benefit to women, and an handicap to men.
    3: Thesis: Protection of Divorcees; Antithesis: Liberating women from inconvenience imposed by the male (i.e., nature); Synthesis: Hollow Marriage (No-Fault Divorce and deliberate destruction of male seed via contraception/abortion; reduction of marriage to “mutual, quasi-exclusive affection”)
    4: Thesis: Hollow Marriage; Antithesis: “Love is Love;” Synthesis: Gay Marriage
    One could go through this on many points, but the nub is always the same: the Left realized that a sane, educated, Christian patriarchy would never accept their insane, Judaized opposition to the Logos, because reason and reality was on the side of Patriarchy. So, their strength comes from realizing that most people will respond to mere emotion and similarly irrational incentives. They thus use only a pretense of logic, when necessary, but otherwise advance their goals through the constant manufacturing of new syntheses via non-polemical, usually entertainment-driven, propaganda. It is a coward’s way of life, slinking in the shadows and avoiding a confrontation of ideas. Part of why tradition and patriarchy has lost, is because it mistakenly and short-sightedly believed it was dealing with civilized persons, being as the patriarchal civilization was thriving and most people who invoked history and great ideas with a semblance of reasonability were presumed to be part of that society. But, we must realize that our opponents are disingenuous and do not care about truth, reason or real debate. The way of Patriarchy is to respond reasonably to those who are willing to reason, and to strive to persuade if at all possible; but those who are disingenuous lickspittles, and who play and mock at reason while only advancing this Hegelian dialectic, this propaganda campaign to produce serendipitous “consubstantiality,” is to mete out severe discipline and constraint.
    How to do this morally and with due authority of law, is the trick. It would have been easier, if our forefathers had done the job themselves when they still sat in the positions of power; but I suppose that’s the nature of the present crisis – that it lurked and skulked and insinuated at what it really wanted until it was too late, and the crisis emerged with clarity after being almost fully-formed.

    1. The heterogenity and polarization between the sexes creates a differential, an energy potential which drives the species itself. A societal drive, or energy which motivates and drives society also results from the polarizing alignment of the sexes. It is like an angular force created by the spin of a solid object. The angular force has a directional vector. Civilizations don’t pop out of thin air. They need an ‘engine’ driving them. This ‘angular’ force which results from the ‘sex differential’ is ‘mass human-powered’ you can say, and is the force which actually drives the engine of civilization. To blur the sexes, either by reassignment or by redefining of sex roles, actually throttles down or ‘chokes’ the engine of civilization. The species wanes as well and the civilization winds down. Positive spin (accelaration) of civilization’s driving engine recieves torque when patriarchs simply align and stand at attention with a collective unified mindset. The driving forces and the gravity of civilization are what supercede and weather the more chaotic forces of nature within the region. Course or level of action then ups the ‘spin’ and the directional vector becomes powerful. Throttling up of the engine should be done with guidance and clear navigation. The unified mindset is growing as we speak. The foreward motion will be as man’s heart aligns with god.

  30. Roosh, this is your best article yet. You effectively break down a complicated idea, and relate it to real world problems. Nice work. And here is a quick Hegelian narrative for you regarding the US Civil War.
    Thesis: Slavery For Some
    Antithesis: Slavery For None
    Solution: Slavery for All.
    or
    Thesis: States Rights
    Antithesis: Federal Power
    Solution: Corporate Control

  31. What is the psychological term for when a group of elites uses the media to pacify people (who realize the problems of society/govt) by using a media pundit to address the problems and make people feel like something is being done about it?
    For example, the cuckservatives know there are problems in society. Rush Limbaugh boldly and bravely addresses the problem and assigns blame to the guilty party. Then the cucks feel better and are pacified…so they do nothing but talk.
    There is a psychological term for this kind of thing. I forgot it.
    Does anyone know?

  32. This is what I have been trying to tell people vis-a-vis the Islamic immigrant problem. First of all this crisis was created by Western governments. Secondly, they are using it to redirect your attention from the government to others. In this way, they strenthern themselves.
    Do not let them make you slay the wrong pig.
    See Robert Higgs Against Leviathan.

  33. Interesting article.
    But I find it hard to believe that there are certain people who are consciously planning it all. I mean, take Canada’s Prime Minister, the infamous Justin Trudeau. He spent most of his years as a drama teacher – do you think he has a conscious plan using the hegelian dialectic? Or the scores of MPs who are also for the most part normal people?
    In line with this it’s improbable in my eyes for a group to be consciously striving for more government control as an aim in itself.
    The vast majority of people do what they think is right. Why do people go to fight for Islamic State? They think it’s the right thing to do. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany’s failure in WW1 and a host of other problems – he thought the right thing to do for Germany would be to eliminate them. Why do white knights (exhibit 1 Justin Trudeau) and feminists pursue the feminist agenda? They really do believe it’s the right thing to do. Something to think about to prevent demonization of the other side as often happens.
    While it’s true that this seems plausible from a macro approach, but when you examine politicians and people in power individual by individual – well, maybe someone can enlighten me but this doesn’t strike me as somebody’s (or one group’s) conscious master plan with every major event of the last 50 years premeditated.

  34. Roosh, as much as I like your words, when you write “god” in reference to the Creator, it doesn’t make any sense. Historically and philosophically, we capitalize the “G” when we have in mind the God of the monotheistic tradition, even if we deny His existence.
    Just sayin’.

  35. Well, of course, Washington DC wants more gun control:
    A disarmed populace is essentially naked and powerless against whatever programs government wants to implement.

  36. Thanks, Roosh. This particular rabbit hole is deep. I’d like to see more on the monetary system from the Manosphere.

  37. This is a very good topic to discuss and it was discussed well, however, like with most of short discussions of incredibly complex material it winds up short changing the dialectic and robbing it of a lot of its complexity. For instance: while you can look at Ancient Greece, Rome and then then 19th Century German Empire that is only one instantiation of the dialectic. You can also look at classic Greece, Roman Empire and British Empire, American Hegemony, The Catholic Church. Also you can Look at the dialectic without Greece or without Rome. Furthermore, they are all going on at the same time so predictions are nearly impossible.
    Further, one thing that Roosh left out here is that the syntheses will always contain elements of the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. Hegel saw this in how the German Empire took up bits of the Greeks and the Romans in terms of their art, culture, philosophy and politics. These large epoch necessarily eclipse each other in, what I believe is a term I invented in college, an epoch-eclipse where the world is continually ending and being reborn from the ashes with elements brought through.
    Even Hegel himself wasn’t immune from this as British Empiricism and Humean and Cartesean Idealism (big difference in them) lead to my homie Kant and Kant and Hegel in and of themselves were epochs which lead to things like Marxism, Nihlism and when mixed up with Nietzsche to post-modern philosophy, art and culture.
    John Maynard Keynes said it real well that “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than in commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist”
    Be are part of the dialectic (and necessarily in many different ways unknown to us) it is epistemologically impossible for us to ever really understand it.
    The big difference that is in the process of being brought to the table by Hegel but will need Nietzsche before it becomes the way the world actually work, is that where the greeks and the empiricists believed that there was a difference between the lightening that is and the lightening you see, that distinction (right or wrong) has been practically eradicated from our modern way of thinking.
    I think it is great that Roosh is bringing in some of the heavy hitters and he did it in a very astute and intelligent way, but as I warned with Heraclitus before, there is a lot of power in these old books and they are so intensely complicated that they are like fire…necessary and wonderful and life saving but always with the danger of burning your prick off.
    One could read Hegel’s Science of logic for decades and watch it only get more and more complicated. Forget about stuff like the pre-socratics or….the neoplatonic dudes like Plotinus…..You could forget to go out and live a life trying to figure out a guy like him.
    So while I am not saying we should avoid them by any means I would suggest exercising caution and always remember that any explanation of them that can happen in something the size of a blog post will always be somewhat flawed and a bit of a caricature.

  38. I am Ukranian and sadly you are very wrong about Russian Nazi state which uses Genocide to achive its means.

  39. This was by far one of the most interesting, thought provoking and unexpected articles elucidating how the oligarchs – either by natural consequences or clandestine false flags – utilize crisis to further their globalist agenda of increasing the authoritarian power of the controlled political aristocracy at the expense of the people, freedom and liberty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *