See other Religion Articles
Title: THE THREAT OF DIALECTICAL TERRORISM
Source:
http://newswithviews.com
URL Source: http://newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki9.htm
Published: Oct 30, 2006
Author: Niki Raapana
Post Date: 2006-10-30 06:15:08 by Kamala
Keywords: None
Views: 78
Comments: 1
THE THREAT OF DIALECTICAL TERRORISM By Niki Raapana October 15, 2006 The biggest threat to the United States of America in the 21st century is dialectical terrorism. Dialectics is an ancient philosophy of circular, academic arguments between scholars with extremely different opinions, ideas, theories, and religions. The final goal of dialectical terrorism is national transformation into a quasi-religious one-world government, based in a dialectical synthesis called communitarianism. The logic of dialectical philosophy has remained above the reach of the common man since the beginning of recorded human history. There are two levels of dialectical reasoning. The elite, top level students, teachers, and practitioners completely understand the final synthesis of dialectical ideologies. Lower-level philosophical education does not include the synthesis. This omission is the defining line between freedom and slavery. Modern public education (which excludes the synthesis) furthers the separation of citizens into classes. The elites, by virtue of their ancestors adopting the principles for achieving a final dialectical solution, put themselves in the ruling class. They are guaranteed freedom, immunity, power, and often glory. Everyone else is condemned to a life of stupidity as one of the vulgar masses. Elite academics call academic books produced for average commoners and mass markets, "high vulgarity" (Cantor 1991). Dialectical terrorism is an elitist theory which puts into practice continual ideological and religious conflicts and resolutions (that lead into new conflicts and new resolutions). Elitist academics assure us this is the predestined, inevitable path to human perfection. The more extreme and violent the physical conflicts become, the more powerful a tool the opponents are in the hands of the supra-national elitists. Elitism could be defined as: rule by a small minority of special people who base their global solutions on dialectical reasoning. The deadliest attacks on individual citizens of the United States come directly from the elected and appointed partisan elites who maintain the ongoing, false dialectical conflicts between the left and the right. What makes the Hegelian dialectic such an elitist theory is the fact that nobody knows what it is; not even overeducated academics can understand the theory. It's supposed to be so perfect that nobody will ever challenge it nor attempt to dispute it. I think it's been left undisputed, not because it's so perfect, but rather because it's so confusing. How many common born people understand the dialectical theory behind all planned global conflicts? How many Americans educated in public schools were taught the Hegelian principles for imperialism and communism? How many know that the 21st century political resolution between the two ideas is called communitarianism? I was recently informed by a German academic in Frankfurt that there may only be 24 academics in the entire world who understand the Hegelian dialectic (and that the founder of American Hegelian Communitarianism is not one of them). Dialectical terrorism leading to communitarianism is the formula behind every religious, political, social, and legal conflict in the world today. Dialectical terrorists are people who design and promote dialectical conflicts. The same academic, elitist theory that fueled imperialism and Marx's theory of communism is used today to justify the Bush-Republican's War on Terror and the Democratic "opposition." The Greens and the Libertarians use the same Hegelian theory. The end result of all U.S. partisan conflicts is the same, no matter who "wins" the elections. All primary parties play dialectical head games that will lead America into a vague new supra-state governed by a dialectical legal and social order. The 21st century is not unique. For most of recorded human history some part of the world lived under the threat of dominion by a bigger ruler. Empires and nations came and went. Theories came and stayed. Today the world is under attack from the biggest theoretical empire ever created, the imperial community government of the United Nations. The world is experiencing the manifestation of an ancient political theory called statism. Statism relies entirely on the concept of elitism. It requires a class of people with "superior" bloodlines who are "naturally" the best equipped to rule over the majority of uneducated, ill-bred, common people. With complex theoretical and philosophical roots that stretch back over two millenia, the practice of upper-class rule is well established in the history of Western Civilization. Both Eastern and Western empires breed their emerging ruling class into perfection. The brightest children are identified, educated and trained to become state change agents and facilitators. Their progeny are raised to carry on the family/religious belief that they are born better suited to govern. Required to protect the family wealth and further their position (through marriage if necessary), each succeeding generation of elites is expected to uphold the aristocratic, religious, academic, financial, or military traditions of their fathers. Expanding the role of the elites is often marketed as the best way to bring order and civilization to heathens. Professional elites teach the moral and civic value of submission and compliance to imperial law. European and early American colonial society included barons, lords, knights, sirs, dukes and of course many major and minor kings and queens. The imperial military was well adorned with titles, and there were also ruling church officials, many of whom were more powerful than the monarch sitting on the throne. With their bestowed titles came the associated land grants and benefits {like castles, farms, forests, and the power to charge rents and levy taxes). Not all empires remained content with expanding their "protectorate" locally, some imperials decided that whoever stepped first on far away, foreign lands not claimed by another empire, could claim it for their personal monarch or church. By the seventeenth century it was a mad dash around the world with imperialist and church representatives claiming everything they could get their hands on. It was open season on large portions of Africa, the Middle East, the Americas, Asia, and across the Pacific. In the 18th century the imperial governments most interested in the Americas were the British, Dutch, Prussian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. Their specific mantras varied, but each imperial court (and its attendant families) was fairly convinced they were ordained by God to rule over the imperial subjects placed under their "care." The religious and financial advisers closest to the throne became the most powerful elites in the kingdom. (Historical truths, such as the fact that many financial advisers to European rulers were Jewish and the fact that the Catholic Church fashioned itself as The Holy Roman Empire, can all be reduced to ignorant vulgarity by using dialectical reasoning.) The empires of the world were global "free" traders. As imperial rulers became increasingly aware of the vast unconquered areas and untouched resources and populations across the planet, many decided to get in on the action by funding great expeditions and conquests. Often bringing a church member, eighteenth century imperialists cloaked their naked aggression behind the dialectical ideology of exporting Christian civilization to the heathens. The imperialist's merchant seamen would often first try to establish some sort of trade relations with the local indigenous populations. Depending on their mission (spice, fur, whales, gold, or colonialization), the next step was often to begin saving souls, assess the strength of the local resistance, test the soil, map the harbors, catalogue the natural resources, and categorize the local people into low-level managers, servants, and slaves. The most ferocious local resisters were usually murdered for noncompliance; sometimes this meant the entire tribe. The British Imperial system (fifty nations including sixteen colonies, now called a Commonwealth) breeds cadres of aristocrats who are destined to manage their expanding global empire, on which "the sun never sets." According to the American colonials, the British imperialist system was fundamentally flawed. If the issue of elitism was not important to the constitutional framers, why would the United States Constitution bother to forbid the U.S. from granting Titles of Nobility (Article One, Section 9)? If the issue of state churches were also not important, would the first of the first Ten Amendments "allow for no law respecting an establishment of religion?" When "Americanized" German merchants returned to Germany and began incorporating American economics into their local political affairs (which were dominated by British affiliated merchants), the founders of dialectical materialism called them "Yankee Apes." * When Friedrich List published the "National System of Political Economy" in 1841, the founders of dialectical materialism called him a "phillistine." When Fredric Bastiat wrote his anti-socialist "Letters to the Youth of France," the founders of dialectical materialism called him a "French toad." And when Nordica Friedrich and I first wrote about the dialectical communitarian synthesis, American proponents of dialectical solutions and laws dismissed us as "tin-foil hats." I'm beginning to see elitism as the intellectual meeting place between the far-right and the far-left. But come on, nobody cares what I think. I'm nothing more than poor-white-trash whose parents came from the "wrong side of the tracks." (They were German Lutherans in a German Catholic community in rural Wisconsin.) Neither of our parents came from college educated families; our parent's parents and grandparents were horse and spud farmers, cafe owners, factory and state workers, janitors, policemen, and tailors. My vulgar German immigrant ancestors did not trust or like snobby people who thought they were better or smarter than the average working man. If anyone ever made the mistake of calling my father "Sir," they were quickly and sternly told, "Don't call me Sir, I work for a living." He was an career Army NCO who told us kids the local sewage plant was "the officer's swimming pool." We were a typical large, poor U.S. Army family ordered to hold our heads high, because, "We might not have much, but we make damn sure everyone else can keep what they have." I grew up in an America that still believed in the infinite possibility of individual achievements, with the law to support it. Our system of government was the foundation for my return to school in 1982, after nearly ten years of "ruining my life" by working in nightclubs and partying every night. And by that I don't mean the grants or the loans. It was We the regular People of these United States, my working-class owners and customers at the Boatel Bar in Fairbanks, Alaska. It was Sep', Everett, Jon, Jerry and the rest who encouraged and supported my plans to get my GED and go to college. Many Americans still believe a higher education guarantees the recipient more opportunities for a better life. They don't necessarily understand that the "better life" is more and more often achieved at the expense of someone else's quality of life. I think my dad always instinctively understood that part of the Marxist dialectic. In 2002 I was invited to meet with a Ph.D. Crime Mapping consultant to discuss my anti-communitarian research on the COMPASS database. I called my dad beforehand and asked him if I should be wary of the meeting. He told me that he wouldn't trust anyone who had a college education. I was way too curious to reject an opportunity to discuss COMPASS, so I went anyway (taking necessary precautions). What a blow to learn the exact same premises that justified a European ruling elite for the past 2000 years are still in use today. There is an argument that there must be a trained, aristocratic minority that rules the majority. This argument isn't debated in front of the majority they plan to rule. It was the first (and only) time I was made privy to the personal thought processes and the detailed planning that went into the dialectical communitarian solutions. Professor Granados didn't want to discuss my theory of opposition to the foundation for communitarian solutions. He spent the entire time explaining to me why the new programs and laws are justified, inevitable, and likely to eventually be modified by American pragmatism. It's an ancient, academic discussion, and it continues into the present moment. The oldest recorded forms of dialectical applications to the formation of new ideas for achieving strict social control are found in the Hebrew-Talmud/Torah/Old Testament/Holy Bible, and in Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle's works. The Talmud was originally a series of oral arguments between Rabbis. The leaders of the Catholic Church endorse the dialectical communitarian synthesis. The World Council of Churches (which includes Lutherans and most Protestants) fully endorses the dialectical synthesis. Since the final dialectical solution includes "ideas" from all sides, some (anti-Semitism/racism/eugenics/national socialism/etc.) appear to have been created to pose extreme "far-right" religious-justice theories. Modern interpretations of Islam also include the dialectical conflict ideology; they are promoted and taught as "Jihad." Dialectical leaders study and teach from at least one (if not all) of the above religious sources. It's entirely possible that many religious texts were written and edited by elite scholars influenced by dialectical reasoning. Does my theory of communitarianism mean that I am mentally ill, anti-religious, pro-crime, anti-community, pro-domestic violence, anti-social, egotistical, or any other such nonsense? No. It does not. But I am a member of the vulgar masses, and, as the true elitist will never explain for us vulgar masses, these descriptors are the pre-programmed common man's reaction to challenges that touch on core beliefs based in dialectical reasoning. The goal of my research is not to inflame the dialectical conflicts between the various dialectical religions and political beliefs. I cannot say that I honor and respect all religious and political beliefs, but I do honor and respect the people who practice kindness as a way of life. Please do not try to defend your religion or political party to me, unless you can produce documents that show they are non-dialectical based entities (and in that case I will lend my full support and loyalty). * Redefining words is an acceptable academic norm. I went ahead and expanded this term to mean anti-communitarian researchers. The kind and dignified editor at http://NewsWithViews.com didn't like the "ape" part of my self-description, so that's why I'm called a "Proud Yankee" instead of a "Proud Yankee Ape." Notes: Cantor, Norman F. (1991) "Inventing the Middle Ages, the Lives, Works, and Ideas of the Great Medivalists of the Twentith Century." (William Morrow and Company, New York) "What is the Hegelian Dialectic?" by Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich (It may seem odd to cite our own published paper, but as long as the Anti-Communitarian Manifesto stands undisputed, it remains an undisputed source. Almost 1600 visitors have acknowledged their awareness of our online anti-communitarian thesis, including over 400 students and faculty.) © 2006 Niki Raapana- All Rights Reserved Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale Niki Raapana is the co-founder of the Anti-Communitarian League (ACL), an online research center for studying outside the box.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Good article bump - and thanks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest