I have heard the word “dialectic” thrown around a lot for much of my adult life.
But I never understood what dialects were (and how it affected me).
Confusing words like “thesis” and “antithesis” and “synthesis” are often used to explain it.
But this just confuses me even more.
Philosophers give us this definition of a dialectic:
The dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments.
In simple speak, a dialectic is two seemingly opposite positions used to arrive at an agreement.
In simpler speak, dialectics force upon us a compromise. And this compromise was always part of the original plan.
For example, doctors tell us vaccines safely and effectively prevent disease…
“Antivaccers” take the opposite side and say vaccines are both dangerous and noneffective – especially when getting jabbed many times in a single visit.
Both sides appear to fight against each other, and ultimately seek middle ground: spread out the jabs over time.
The end goal of a dialectic is always a compromise.
And usually this compromise is a false solution.
Dialectics are given to us to think of the black and white… not the gray.
This is commonly referred to as the Hegelian Dialectic. (Although Hegel is wrongfully credited with this).
Take the new form of schooling we are starting to see today:
One view (i.e. the “thesis”) is that mandatory schooling benefits society as the whole.
When people are educated, they are less of a drain on society.
The opposite view (i.e. the “antithesis”) is that school is a prison.
Even worse, it discourages individualism.
To engage the dialectic, controlled opposition enters the fray.
Self appointed leaders arrive out of nowhere and appear to take the other side of the issue.
Finally, the “debate” ends with a compromise.
And as a result, home schooling and cyberschooling becomes the “synthesis.”
Ironically, school at home is still school.
Only the setting has changed.
We see dialectics in marriages…
We are brainwashed into thinking a marriage is strong when there is compromise. (This is a classic logical fallacy.)
The reality is compromise actually destroys marriages.
Strong marriages are those where roles are defined – and compromise is not an option.
Things of faith always make for a great dialectic.
We have religions on the one side.
Then we have non-religious people (i.e. atheists) on the other side.
And the merging of the two gives us “scientism” – the religion of the scientific method:
Today, people wearing white lab coats are the new high priests of our planet.
Dialectics always manipulate us
Recognizing dialectics helps us avoid scams.
This works to our advantage to make better decisions.
In the world of marketing, the Agitation Dialectic triggers us to buy stuff we do not need.
The formula is simple:
– Desired outcome/Solution
The classic example is the computer virus:
Problem – software bugs infect our computer and slows it down to a crawl…
Agitation/Reaction – a letter to the editor screams, “Computer viruses are killing my productivity – I wish someone could fix this!”
Desired outcome/Solution – a company quickly arrives on the scene (like Norton Security) and offers us virus protection for $49.99.
In the vast majority of cases, those offering the solution actually create the problem and agitation.
It is well known in the hacking world that Norton, Mcafee and the like hire known virus creators to unleash viruses on us. This is the worst-kept secret ever to those in the coding world.
In fact, even Bill Gates admits to writing virus code when he first started out!
And get this:
Some virus scanning software secretly loads viruses onto our computers.
As a result, squashing computer viruses created a multi-billion-dollar industry almost overnight.
The climate change dialectic
One of today’s most popular dialectic is global warming.
We are told temperatures are hotter than ever.
Yet the other side claims we are entering a mini ice age.
These Time Magazine covers play the dialectic just 29 years apart.
The synthesis is the compromise.
And in the case of global warming/climate change, the compromise is paying carbon taxes to offset this manufactured problem.
The dialectics of politics
The left wing are Democrats.
The right wing are Republicans.
Both wings come from the same bird.
And both parties “compromise” that move the agenda forward.
We are told there are too many people on the planet.
The desired outcome (i.e. synthesis) is to reduce the amount of people for “sustainability purposes.”
On one side (i.e. thesis) are those that are pro life.
The other side (i.e. antithesis) is pro choice.
On the surface, these two camps seem polar opposite.
But both sides have been convinced to break up the traditional family.
Being a single parent is now considered a virtue. But being a single parent drastically lowers the average family’s procreation rate.
The dialectic example of war and peace
We are all sold on the idea that we live in the freest place on earth.
But to enjoy this privilege, we are given two completely opposite sides that merge into one.
It is freedom we all pursue.
And the dialectic caters to two distinct groups:
Conservative politics overtly sell us on the idea that giving us war is peace.
Liberal politics sells us on the idea of peace while giving us war.
Our security is always threatened. So we always have to be at war with the enemy to gain freedom.
9/11 is a text-book dialectic-based scheme to bring upon drastic changes upon the masses.
Just a few weeks after 9/11, worldwide laws were rushed into action to squash our freedoms to gain security.
So the guise of safety is 9/11’s synthesis. That is, the government saves us from future terrorist attacks.
Obviously, the problem (thesis) was the 9/11 narrative itself… 19 hijackers crashed 4 planes into New York City, Washington, D.C. and a field in Pennsylvania.
Those who question the official 9/11 story make up the antithesis. They scream about a hoax.
And as we approach the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the outcome of the dialectic is firmly in place…
We are told to live in constant fear – with constant monitoring and surveillance.
For those who pull off these dialectics, it is mission accomplished.
Economic system dialectics
Think about all of the “isms”… communism, socialism – even capitalism.
They all seem so radically different.
But through the dialectical process, they have merged into one.
Today, we call it Globalism.
Take a look at this list of the Communist Manifesto – it is eerily similar to Capitalism we have here in the States.
The dialectic of labor
On the one side, we have unionized workers. We are sold on the idea that unions are put in place to protect workers, give them fair wages, and make the workplace safer.
Without unions, there would be no 5-day workdays, breaks or decent benefits.
On the other side, we have non-union workers. They claim the free market rewards hard workers with higher pay, higher benefits and a fast track to bigger success.
For example, technology companies like Google and Microsoft treat workers with high respect. They give them free meals, ping-pong tables… even fully-paid vacations.
But in the end, both union and non-union workers continue to slave away for low wages (compared to their bosses).
Most people live paycheck to paycheck.
And pay raises are usually slim to none.
Unions are becoming less and less relevant as time goes on.
And I am certain this was the plan all along.
For me, cutting through manufactured dialectics helps me make better life decisions.
Shop for related gifts at low prices: