I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our third meeting.
Synopsis of Week 3 Meeting:
1. In 1836, at 18 years of age, Karl Marx became engaged to a Prussian baroness (whom he married in 1843). This relationship broke several taboos of the time: (1) Gentile aristocrat/Jew, (2) upper class/middle class, (3) older woman/younger man. Likely, his knowing involvement in breaking such barriers caused his revolutionary blood to bubble.
2. Marx soon thereafter became involved in a group known as Young Hegelians. These studied German philosopher Hegel, especially the concept of the “dialectic” (radical social change through synthesis of competing ideas, that is, by revolutionary means, whether natural or man-caused) but were critical of his metaphysical approach. Simply, they liked Hegel’s ideas but detested his approach. One might say that the Young Hegelian utilization of Hegel’s dialectic permitted them to circumvent its founder (their actions perhaps even based on “Do as thou wilt,” the motto of Satanism [see Synopsis - Week 2]).
The Hegelian dialectic is not only normative for communist pabulum but is also used in other types of mind control, everything from office politics to world domination. In large part, the common use of the dialectic rests on a principle of blame, but with specious, confusing, and often contradictory arguments. It is a shifting of responsibility for events. It is conscious passive-aggressiveness.
It is also the basis for the Overton Window, which changes mass paradigm to accept something formerly unacceptable, usually by offering a choice between terrible and not-so-bad, without ever acknowledging as viable third and fourth choices.
This is the seed of communist revolutionary strategy.
Try this link for more on Hegel:
http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html
and/or,
http://broodsphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/10/29/simple-explanation-of-hegelian-dialectic-method/
3. In 1841, Marx wrote his doctoral thesis, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. This piece is described as “a daring and original piece of work in which he set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom of philosophy.” This reveals a major effect of Hegel on Marx: That religion is of the past and that man’s intellect must rule in the present. The Hegelian dialectic deemed to Marx that such transpiration of events is not only necessary but natural (even if Hegel himself did not espouse such practical end). In one manner, all of German philosophy (read Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, even Luther) is dangerous, deriving from particularly nihilistic cultural, even ethnic, roots. That Marx misconstrued Hegel from the Russian view (though Marx was by birth Jewish) is evidenced by Hitler’s ethnic slant on the Teutonic superman (master racist) mythos and resulting ethos.
For more on Hitler’s connection to Hegel, see (for example):
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb970219.htm
and
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Hegel.htm
In modern times, the application of this Overton Window offensive can be seen in the Internet film sensation Zeitgeist. While purporting to be a “new” way to combat the forces of evil, it is really just another world domination scheme (couched in other cloth). As a matter of fact, “zeitgeist” (though this term was coined in the 1700’s) is most associated with Hegel’s philosophy (dialectic) on history. See, for example, here:
Another anti-theist use of Overton Window via Hegelian dialectic is through cultural characters like Bill Maher, whose constant attacks on religion cause some to view authoritarianism (as compared to religious liberty) to be comical. It is also by this dialectic that Maher, in order to ostensibly appear fair, pits one religion against another while simultaneously bashing that “victim” (more peaceful) religion against the wall. By strangling and manipulating vocabulary and language cues, clever dialectics can be built that do not cause doubt (which in reality is good) as much as malfeasance. For it is not the cause of freedom that one like Maher espouses, but that of rigid control.
4. “Marx moved to the city of Cologne, Germany in 1842, where he began writing for the radical newspaper Rheinische Zeitung, expressing his increasingly socialist views on politics. He criticized the governments of Europe and their policies, but also liberals and other members of the socialist movement whose ideas he thought were ineffective or outright anti-socialist. The paper eventually attracted the attention of the Prussian government censors, who checked every issue for potentially seditious material before it could be printed. Marx said, ‘Our newspaper has to be presented to the police to be sniffed at, and if the police nose smells anything un-Christian or un-Prussian, the newspaper is not allowed to appear.’ After the paper published an article strongly criticizing the monarchy in Russia, the Russian Tsar Nicholas I, an ally of the Prussian monarchy, requested that the Rheinische Zeitung be banned. The Prussian government shut down the paper in 1843. Marx wrote for the Young Hegelian journal, the Deutsche Jahrbücher, in which he criticized the censorship instructions issued by Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV. His article was censored and the newspaper closed down by the authorities shortly after.” (source: Wikipedia)
Historically, Prussia had been involved in the French Revolutionary period, specifically aligning with the monarchies against the peasant citizenry (not that it worked). Naturally, French mob rule cannot be equated with our own American Revolution, but one can see that Marx’s affections lay with that oppressed group of proletariat. Prussia was the dominant power in Marx’s time, which fits the schematic that revolutionaries should target such dominance. This is evidenced in current times by their persistent attacks on free nations such as the United States or Israel.
Note that Karl Marx’s chosen environment, the Christian Prussian Empire, was almost a theocracy. Nevertheless, if we understand the Hegelian dialectic employed, it is apparent that religious persecution was never of interest to these radicals – it was only the ploy to distract one class and attract another. It was a game of power. This Hegelian energy is still today the primary driver of communist and other radical (including Islamic) movements.
5. The first goal of the Marxist is to set up, even before organizing, opposition to tyranny. Since tyranny has always been prevalent in human society, this is an easy foundation to lay. Basically, find a large enough group to call “victim” and blame the government (or other authority, such as “management”) for such oppression, even if the government has been compassionate beyond all bounds. Since society cannot accommodate every group with equality of results, there is always a faction looking for a savior.
The second goal is to create a network of compassion which exceeds the oppressive nature of the current living conditions. The 1960’s Black Panthers achieved their thankful base by providing food, legal services, and other necessities to an impoverished black community. They were pseudo-government (handouts are handouts). This radical organization learned well the Marxist-Hegelian philosophy, but failed for their overzealous aspirations (the Panthers lost their bearings and community support when they became common criminals).
The third goal is mass uprising. This can take the form of protest or strike, preferably the latter in order to proliferate a blame game. If, for example, the longshoremen’s union can be persuaded to lock up the docks, or the Teamsters can be sufficiently riled to block food transport, there is a real crisis for which “the bosses” can be blamed . General strikes of this nature have notably occurred in Seattle (1919) and San Francisco (1934), but also recently in Spain and Italy. The discomfort of garbage strikes, mail strikes, and the like is a constant reminder that workers need to be treated fairly, if for no other reason than Marxists lie in wait for every opportunity to exploit the exploited.
Protests are effective also. The recent (2011) Wisconsin public employees tumult is evidence that dissatisfaction is eternally with us, even among the fortunate who own contract jobs, relative high wages, and taxpayer-funded health benefits. Do not for a moment think these were all Marxists, but do not be deceived that Marxists did not agitate every second, hoping for some escalation on which to pin police brutality.
Once the Hegelian dialectic is fully understood (and it’s not as difficult as some say), every protest, every revolt, every riot can be understood from two perspectives: (1) there is true oppression in this world, (2) Marxists have, through infiltration into various segments of society, a sensitive network which hears and anticipates, if not instigates, every rumble of dissent. For this reason, Marxism always has the upper hand. It is not that Marxists are more caring, but that their opportunities lay in dark places usually not investigated by true problem-solvers until too late. By the time the public is aware of a potential fiery conflict, it has been exaggerated, mistranslated, and transformed into a grandiose power play by the communist.
6. It used to be in America that communism was almost universally viewed as evil; and that if a communist gave a public speech, a patriotic crowd pulled the plug on the offending microphone. Freedom-lovers used to recognize communism as treason against liberty. But today, our children are “educated” by the communist dialectic, our media utilizes this method to destroy dissent, our elected officials are embroiled in it at every turn, and our religious freedom is assailed by it (for example, Christmas carols are verboten but Wiccan rituals embraced). Even radical Islam uses the Hegelian dialectic to blame, claim, and inflame. Shall we now allow our entire nation to be swallowed by Marxism while proudly flying the flag of all-inclusiveness?
Some have interpreted this downward spiral as an opportunity to embrace a choice between liberty and security, but Benjamin Franklin wisely noted, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” However, the Prussian model of crackdown on radicals is not desirable for a free society. First, the idea that Christianity (or any religion) should be upheld by governmental force is neither constitutional nor godly. Second, criticism of government is both a good thing and protected free speech. Ironically, these guaranteed freedoms are utilized by communists to spread their filth by print, airwave, and bandwidth. We are thus nearly trapped by our own goodness, and prisoners to our ideals as defined by our enemies.
Yet, there is a solution. It is “We, the people” who must by vigilance and personal action stem the rising tide of master racism. We cannot and should not depend on government for this. It is our responsibility to learn and teach liberty, through God’s Law and Constitution, to our family, friends, and neighbors; to take positions on local school boards and other important posts; to bend the media (including the Internet) as much as possible to the message of individuality over collectivism.
7. In 1843, Marx published On the Jewish Question. In this important treatise, fellow Hegelians argued over the nature of capitalism, property rights and religion. The document’s gist is that Judaism is to blame for most or all societal and/or economic woes, and is the obstacle to the communist’s ultimate goal, the utopian state. Marx took the position that the religion of Judaism had strangled “the state” by its supposed focus on all things monetary. In fact, Marx called the “Jewish god” money:
“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”
The “secret of his religion” also happens to be the target of Marx’s frustration: capitalism (self-interest and practical need). Taking the position of the Catholic Church (!), Marx regarded usury (charging interest) as sinful. In medieval times, the Church did not allow Christians into the money-lending occupations, but Jews were not forbidden and in fact encouraged. That Jews took these opportunities speaks more for their marginalization than for any natural or religious inclination to become usurers. Yet, when economic hard times inevitably came (the Church was notorious for profiteering on fiat money), the Jews were in unenviable positions of blame. This led to expulsions and pogroms against them. Marx gathered this history, as well as philosophical planks of questionable validity, and produced a modern-day superstition against Judaism (promotion of “evil capitalism”), and therefore the Jews.
According to On The Jewish Question, it is Judaism which causes the Jew to be a Jew, and which “pollutes” the Christian to also be a Jew, that is, capitalistic:
“The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.”
The charge is that Christians must oppose Judaism on two grounds: (1) capitalism is evil, (2) Christianity is superior to Judaism:
“In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into the corporal egoism of the Jew, heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest.”
Naturally, Marx was not blind to his own manipulations. The goal was obviously to incite Christians against Jews, in the same manner that the Catholic Church permitted the Jews to take the blame for currency crashes and banking debacles during the Middle Ages*. Marx’s claim was, however, original in that its core principle rested on the Jew’s nature. There is no doubt that Marx believed the Jew incapable of separating himself from his religion, and, insofar as he caricatured Judaism as “huckstering,” Marx laid the groundwork for a new level of blame, to the DNA of the Jew. In this case, it would be not only the collapse of regional banking or currencies, but also the failure of societal evolution, which would be placed directly at the feet of Judaism and Jews, including all non-Jews who participated in capitalism.
* This information is widely available, even in (seriously) Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies (For Dummies).
The key to this scheme is, of course, the destruction of capitalism. Historically, this has been attempted or accomplished by three major avenues: (1) direct opposition (strikes, riots, et al), (2) establishment of a socialist society (Scandinavia, Canada, et al), (3) establishment of communist tyranny (Russia, et al). However, we currently face newer, sophisticated “inside job” techniques within China (capitalism? - I don’t think so) and the United States (“we’re all socialists now”). The abolition of religion is the cornerstone to the plot. Theoretically, once Judaism and “polluted” Christianity are rendered an anachronism, capitalism is dead (Marx’s view of Islam is of special interest and will be studied at a later time).
8. As a product of Hegelian dialectic, the responsibility for economic turmoil is not initially rested on persons taking part in the credit system, only on the Jew (or pseudo-Jew). This is the worst type of syllogism. Imagine a merchant being blamed for the habit of smoking, that the ill effects of cigarettes exist only because someone sells them. This is madness and the worst type of irresponsible behavior.
Let us widen this net. The Marxist dialectic pushes that the current recession (2007-on) is to blame on the banking industry (Marxist code: the Jews). However, no responsibility is placed upon unworthy applicants who received loans for which there was no personal historical basis of credit, wages, or even community morality. Even the government is by the communist mostly exonerated, although various federal agencies (working through Marxist petitioning) pressured banks to show “compassion” for certain potential borrowers. The motivation for the politician to participate was a mixture of phony glory (essentially, self-aggrandizement for a continued career in politics) and real payoffs (“campaign contributions” and “ground forces”). The loan recipient did not become a transformed human being by this handout. His or her bad credit and/or poor wages were not magically improved.
In reality, the banks were responsible only for caving to monstrous government pressure. Nevertheless, the incessant Marxist squealing is directed towards these entities rather than at the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), FNMA, or Congressional oversight committees (among many villains). And the political class, eager to retain power, is satisfied to allow such misguided missiles. And the American people, as dupes, cry in solidarity for those whose lives were shattered. This all feeds the Hegelian dialectic, and pushes the Marxist concept of “blame the Jews” to newer heights, the ultimate goal being the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of “a better system.”
This mortgage debacle is in fact an extension of the communist-laden “public housing” concept. Before the “projects” became big business in the 1960’s, impoverished individuals were expected to pull themselves up by hard work and the grace of God. That some groups were targeted and excluded from various avenues is not disputed, but it is likewise that blacks (for example) were able to find self-respect by achievement. True, many failed but we can imagine more from their circumstances than from free choices. With public housing, many succumbed to the “gimme” attitude and simply stopped trying. Public housing therefore became a failure and a disgrace. The CRA only moved this public housing mentality to the next level, the McMansion phenomenon (“You deserve a house, not just a free apartment!”). It is not difficult to see how government-driven lax banking structures and aggressive marketing suckered even the responsible to abandon the affordable American dream for distended utopia. This is a prime (or sub-prime – ha ha) example of Marxism and the administration of the Overton Window, here at work in the housing industry.
9. On the Jewish Question not only invokes old lies and superstitions against the Jews, it also propagates a scientific argument that they are genetically predisposed to capitalism. This establishes Marxist foundation for eugenics and genocide. An “inferior” race which cannot help being evil must be eradicated out of mercy, not malice! Communism is therefore not liable for murder!! The Nazis adopted this exact mindset.
But On the Jewish Question is not scientific in the least. Marx accords a mystical influence to that Judaism and money which he claims “poisons” non-Jews.
If anything, On the Jewish Question is a clarion call to all religions. The message is work together or perish together. For if religions do not band together peacefully against communism, it will be divide and conquer. Remember, “first they came for the Jews, and I said nothing...”
Finally, On the Jewish Question places a wall between Christians and Torah, that is God’s Law. God is invisible, and therefore He cannot be defined, and so can be called a mere superstition. But the Law of God is written, as they say, in stone. This is a problem for the materialist communist. He cannot say the Law is not written. He cannot say collectivism or the dialectic philosophy existed before the Law, and if he does (invoking, for example, Nimrod), he cannot say that it is good or effective. Having thus lost the materialist argument, the communist must begin with dialectic: “The Jew is to blame for our anxiety. The Jew is genetically predisposed to capitalism, which has caused our anxiety. The Jew is an animal, in that he cannot escape his nature to destroy society.” This is the Overton Window regarding religion: Just reject Torah because it is Jewish. No, the truth is that Marxists want you to reject Torah because it is from God. Reject Torah, and they will establish themselves as God. Guess how that turns out?
******************************************************************
Comments welcome. Keep it civil.
You may distribute the above material in any manner you like.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.