Have you heard us or others write or speak about an “Hegelian Dialectic”?
We can’t recall if we’ve given a definition of it before, but now is a good time as this video with Chris Duane discusses it without actually defining what it is.
So here’s our understanding of Hegelian Dialectic…
Named after a 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, it is a theory whereby an initial idea (later on coined thesis by another philosopher) is then overcome by an opposing idea, (also later coined the antithesis), which then results in a “synthesis” of the 2 opposing ideas.
The idea being that this is used to control and direct societies opinions by always having 2 opposing points of view being propagated. With the result being that society will then “choose” a particular pre-ordained path.
This excerpt might also help simplify it:
“To put it simply, the basis of Hegelianism dictates that the human mind can’t understand anything unless it can be split into two polar opposites. Good / Evil, Right / Wrong, Left / Right.
For example when people are talking about 2 political parties, Labor or Liberal, what they’re actually referring to, without realising it, is the thesis and the antithesis based off the Hegelian Dialectic. The only real debate that occurs is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the issues that neither left or right is discussing. “
See the full post here for some examples of it in use. Source.
Anglo-America versus China/Russia: For real or not?
In some of our recent weekly newsletters we’ve discussed the point that it is nigh on impossible to know whether what is perceived as Anglo-America versus China/Russia is for real. Or whether in fact this is merely smoke and mirrors and the real money masters/puppet masters behind the scenes are merely using this “fight” as a means to play out their desired aims of more centralised global control.
In this video Chris Duane discusses how in this case the Hegelian Dialectic theory may not be true and that it really might be a battle of West vs East.
He outlines 3 scenarios:
Scenario 1: NWO = BRICS in new Hegelian Dialectic
– i.e. the BRICs also are controlled by Rockefellers and Rothschilds
Scenario 2: NWO + BRICS integration with SDR
– i.e. the system is still controlled by the Anglo-American elite but the East is allowed to be included in a new global currency.
Scenario 3: NWO Collectivists vs Anti Hegemon Collectivists
– They’re all evil (Anglo-American and Chinese/Russian leaders) and the whole system is going to go down anyway.
His contention is scenario 3 where there is a battle of East vs West, but that they’re all evil and we shouldn’t choose the lessor of two evils.
However he believes regardless of which scenario plays out, the only logical solution for any individual is to have “real tangible wealth” as that is what these global players are all vying for control of anyway. He believes it will be silver that rises as the new currency as all fiat currencies eventually fail.
And this time will be no different regardless of which scenario above plays out.
We hope for the later too whereby individual choice and decentralisation of power and control is the new paradigm.
But certainly having a good chunk of your wealth out of the system makes sense regardless of which scenario plays out.