"Hegel's dialectic often appears broken up for convenience into three moments called "thesis" (in the French historical example, the revolution), "antithesis" (the terror which followed), and "synthesis" (the constitutional state of free citizens). ... Much Hegel scholarship does not recognize the usefulness of this triadic classification for shedding light on Hegel's thought. Although Hegel refers to "the two elemental considerations: first, the idea of freedom as the absolute and final aim; secondly, the means for realising it, i.e. the subjective side of knowledge and will, with its life, movement, and activity" (thesis and antithesis) he doesn't use "synthesis" but instead speaks of the "Whole": "We then recognised the State as the moral Whole and the Reality of Freedom, and consequently as the objective unity of these two elements." ...
"Hegel used this system of dialectics to explain the whole of the history of philosophy, science, art, politics and religion, but many modern critics point out that Hegel often seems to gloss over the realities of history in order to fit it into his dialectical mold....
In the 20th century, Hegel's philosophy underwent a major renaissance. This was due partly to the rediscovery and reevaluation of him as the philosophical progenitor of Marxism by philosophically oriented Marxists, partly through a resurgence of the historical perspective that Hegel brought to everything, and partly through increasing recognition of the importance of his dialectical method. The book that did the most to reintroduce Hegel into the Marxist canon was perhaps Georg Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness. This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Ernst Bloch....
If the ideas, interpretations of experiences, and the sources are all wrong, can a conclusion based on all these wrong premises be sound? The answer is no. Two false premises do not make a sound conclusion even if the argument follows the formula. Three, four, five, or six false premises do not all combine to make a conclusion sound. You must have at least one sound premise to reach a sound conclusion. Logical mathematical formulas are only the basis for deductive reasoning. Equally important is knowledge of semantics, or considering the meanings of the words used in the argument. Just because an argument fits the formula, it does not necessarily make the conclusion sound. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel knew this when he designed his dialectic.
Hegel is an imperialist con artist who established the principles of dialectical "no-reason." Hegel's dialectic has allowed globalists to lead simple, capable, freeborn men and women back into the superstitious, racist and unreasonable age of imperial global dominance. National governments represent people who are free from imperial controls over private property, trade and production. National governments protect their workers from imperial slavery by protecting the worker's markets. But if you use Hegel's logical Marxism, the only way to protect people from slavery is to become the slave trader, just for a while. Twisted logic is why cons are so successful, and Hegel twisted it in such a way as to be "impenetrable." Like Hegel and Marx, the best street con knows his spiel has to use logic to bend and distort the story, and good cons weave their lies on logical mathematical progression. The fallacy is in the language, not in the math. Detective Phillip Worts' 2001 article Communist Oriented Policing is a nice explanation of Dialectical Materialism's influence on America.
(This article may be somewhat of an oversimplification but gets the basic points across.)Hegelian dialectic includes the--Let's define the terms for the game--
You can't guide people toward synthesis (compromise) unless there are opposing views -- both "thesis and antithesis." That's why the consensus process must include all these elements:
Maybe it is possible for a person to ignorantly use the Hegelian dialectic, but from what I read, there are those who know exactly what they are doing.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Destruction through a series of compromises" (our name for the Hegelian dialectic) is a game that certain sectors play--but the little people do not know it.
The Hegelian dialectic presupposes the factual basis for the theory of social evolutionary principles, which coincidentally backed up Marx. Marx's Darwinian theory of the "social evolution of the species," (even though it has been used for a century to create a vast new scientific community, including eugenics and socio-economics), does not adhere to the basis for all good scientific research, and appears to exist mainly to advance itself, and all its sub-socio-scientific arms, as the more moral human science. To the ACL this means the entire basis for the communitarian solution is based on a false premise, because there is no FACTUAL basis that "social evolution of the species" exists, based as it is only on Darwinian and Marxist ideology of man's "natural" evolution towards a British version of utopia.
The London-Marxist platform in 1847 was "to abolish private property." The American Revolution was based in private property rights. Marxist societies confiscate wealth and promise to "re-distribute it equally." America promised everyone they could keep and control what was the product of their own labor. Modern Marxist adherents openly claim they will "rebuild the world," and they train activist "change agents" to openly support overthrowing the legitimate governments of the world. Since their inception, Marxist agent provocateurs can be linked to every anarchist assassination and student uprising that caused chaos to the established European civilization throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Modern Americans have succumbed to the conspiracy theory label and will only listen to what the propaganda machines tell them. Now our people don't believe anyone other than maybe the Arab world "hates our freedom." Most modern Americans will never know what went wrong with their "great experiment in democracy."
While the Marxist-communitarian argument has not provided a shred of evidence to prove their utopian vision, and their synthesis does not match their own projected conclusions of world justice, we are convinced their argument does in fact substantiate our conclusion, that the entire philosophical dialectical argument is nothing but a brilliant ruse. We used to call it "a cheap parlor trick" until a responder to this page wondered how we could call it "cheap" when it's been so successful. And he was right. The dialectical arguments for human rights, social equity, and world peace and justice are a perfectly designed diversion in the defeated British Empire's Hegelian-Fabian-Metaphysical-Theosophical Monopoly game. It's the most successful con job in the history of the modern world. (For a well presented Christian overview of the con, see American Babylon: Part Five-the Triumph of the Merchants by Peter Goodgame.)
The communitarian synthesis is the final silent move in a well-designed, quietly implemented plot to re-make the world into colonies. To us it doesn't matter if there is some form of ancient religion that propels the plotters, nor does it really matter if it turns out they're aliens (as some suggest). The bottom line is the Hegelian dialectic sets up the scene for state intervention, confiscation, and redistribution in the U.S., and this is against our ENTIRE constitutional based society. The Hegelian dialectic is not a conspiracy theory because the Conspiracy Theory is a fraud. We've all been duped by global elitists who plan to take totalitarian control of all nation's people, property, and produce. Communitarian Plans exist in every corner of the world, and nobody at the local level will explain why there's no national legal avenue to withdraw from the U.N.'s "community" development plans.
Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis).
Both of these scenarios, admittedly, still appear problematic, as they accommodate an"end" to history in a somewhat subjective or parochial fashion. Nonetheless,they provide an answer which would best satisfy the Hegelian system. Moreover, they pointout the essential facet of Hegel that often is overlooked: namely, that Hegel himself madedistinctions about what the meaning of the term "history" or an "end"to history could be. "History" to Hegel was not all-determinate orall-encompassing; as discussed earlier, Hegel recognized that not all historical events orfacts would be identifiable through the dialectic. Indeed, as we shall see, contingency isa necessary component of Hegel's world-view, for without contingency, the Absolute couldnot continue the self-realization of Freedom.