How dialectical manipulation actually works

Ignore this analysis at your own peril.

“Most” people assume Hegelian dialectic follows the problem-reaction-solution (PRS) model in literal terms: thesis = problem, antithesis = reaction, synthesis = solution. This then is applied to literalized sides/parties in the real world.

Such a simplistic explanation is, however, highly imprecise.

I: two forms of dialectical relationship

Pt. I: direct—convergence of policy

The plain/direct form of dialectical synthesis is very simple: two parties converge on a common agenda from opposite ends; for example, Nazis and Zionists in the 1930s mutually favored the mass emigration of European Jews to Palestine, Nazis for openly antisemitic reasons of seeking to expel Jews from Europe and Zionists for the faux “philosemitic” one of rescuing Jews from antisemitism.

Or, take the example of black separatists and white supremacists in America both agreeing on a proposal of racial segregation, Freemasonic KKKers promoting separatism for white supremacist reasons thinking ill of ethnic minorities and black nationalists supporting the exact same policy on the basis of “living away from the presence of white supremacists.”

Pt. II: inverted—convergence of narrative

It’s this “inverted” form of dialectic luring most people into psyop pitfalls. For instance, neo-Nazis and Zionists reinforce the exact same narrative that “anti-Zionism is antisemitic,” neo-Nazis claiming their own hatred of Jews is the same as anti-Zionism, and Zionists in turn claiming opposition towards Zionism is tantamount to “Jew-hatred.”¹ Or, even more cynically, neo-Nazis portraying themselves as supporters of the Palestinian cause and Zionists in turn claiming supporters of Palestine are supposedly “neo-Nazi antisemites.”

The reason this “inverted” form of dialectic is infinitely more deceptive than the “direct” variant is because the two controlled opposition parties’ apparatuses are sent into the public sphere portrayed as so “genuinely” opposed one another, it becomes difficult for most people to even consider the possibility they are two sides to the same coin. Take, for instance, neo-Marxist liberals and the alt-right—every time est. liberals pander themselves the main enemies of the neo-Nazis to exalt their own agenda as “anti-fascist” and “anti-racist,” in turn the neo-Nazis claim they are the biggest enemies of “Cultural Marxism” to lend credence for themselves. To the outside world most people would believe the two sides are “genuine” polar opposites, yet they are two sides to the same coin. Liberals claim “the pro-life movement is racist,” and in turn actual white supremacists cynically disguise their white natalist racism as “pro-life” or “anti-abortion,” falsely reinforcing that very liberal trope slandering all opponents of abortion as racist. Liberals claim “the word ‘globalist’ is an antisemitic codeword for ‘Jew,’” and neo-Nazi antisemites in turn directly and in ill faith interchangeably use the word “Jew” for “globalist” to argue they are one and the same to push their bogus “Jewish world conspiracy” trope, thereby falsely reinforcing this very liberal argument that “criticism of globalism is antisemitic.”

Spoiler: most people fail to see past this “inverted” form of dialectical manipulation because it necessitates first and foremost acknowledgment that “all” sides are controlled opposition and that one give up dualist fantasies i.e. “right-wingers are all bad, my side of progressive socialist leftists can absolutely zero wrong whatsoever!”

II: why the ‘inverted’ dialectic?

It’s very simple: the “direct” form of dialectical convergence is not sustainable by itself alone, because it is too obvious: consider the relationship between Zionism and Nazism, for starters. If Zionism post-WWII continued to openly seek collaboration with Nazi entities, it would easily discredit itself and never sufficiently push back against opposition. In order for Zionism to continue its operations at the pragmatic level without formidable opposition undermining its genocidally Holocaustic goals, its reputation must be sanitized in perception, and so neo-Nazis are deployed by the global conspirators to pander their neo-Nazi antisemitism as (a false form of) “anti-Zionism,” thereby making Zionism look good because outwardly it appears that “Zionism is the [supposed] sworn enemy of racist neo-Nazi terrorists so therefore it’s good [by comparison].” This way, Zionism is easily shielded from criticism because legitimate anti-Zionist human rights activists can be slandered and discredited in the duped public eye via conflation with neo-Nazi racist antisemites.

The problem-reaction-solution (PRS) explanation posits there is a pendulum swinging motion whereby society is pushed so far to one extreme end so it “organically” will move in the opposite direction towards where the conspirators intended all along. Although this is absolutely true, the actual “ends” the pendulum swings from aren’t literal ideologies/parties i.e. left vs. right: instead, they are the two forms of dialectic explained in the previous section.

Any final culmination of the “New World Order” agenda obviously entails all parties agreeing upon the one-world global hegemony, IOWs a synthesis in the “direct” dialectic because i.e. both left and right must support the common one-world agenda but for different reasons. In order for the pendulum to arrive at this extreme “direct dialectic” end a.k.a. the actual final culmination of the NWO, that obviously implies first the pendulum must be pushed so far to the opposite “inverted dialectic” side, far enough until it is let loose to “organically” swing to the “direct dialectic” end. That is why in our present age mainstream perceptions nonstop invert definitions of right and wrong, unendingly whitewashing evil as good and slandering good as evil.

Bonus: trialecticalism?

Most interesting, one can argue there’s actually a trialectical relationship: picture parties A1, A2, and A3:

• the relationship between A1 and A2 is the direct dialectic

• the relationship between A2 and A3 is the inverted dialectic

What then is the relationship between A1 and A3? Well, it may not constitute a “fully” dialectical relationship, but there is a link nonetheless—typically in this manner of circumstance, A1 and A3 are two components of a singular ideological umbrella appealing to the same audience but for different reasons.

Take, for example, Zionism, Nazism, and Communism, respectively as A1, A2, A3:

• the A1-A2 relationship between Zionism and Nazism follows the “direct” dialectic (for reasons already clarified way above)

• the A2-A3 relationship between Nazism and Communism follows the “inverted” dialectic whereby both claim to be each other’s sworn enemies and use this to legitimize themselves, Nazis purporting to “save humanity from Communism” and Communists purporting to “save humanity from Nazism”

• the A1-A3 relationship between Zionism and Communism is the interesting one here: both appeal to a common secular left-wing Jewish audience so listeners will be drawn into one camp or the other of controlled opposition, believing either way their “benefactors” will protect them from antisemitism, whether it’s Zionism on a nationalist basis or Communism on an internationalist basis

Or, consider the relationship between black separatists, white supremacists, and “mainstream civil rights activists,” again respectively A1, A2, A3:

• the A1-A2 relationship between black separatists and white supremacists is a direct dialectical convergence on common support for segregation

• the A2-A3 relationship between white supremacists and “civil rights activists” is an inverted dialectical “convergence” of cycling this false narrative of genuine opposition when both are puppets of singular Jesuit-Masonic stringpullers

• the A1-A3 “dialectical” relationship between black separatists and “civil rights activists” is their separate appeals to the black community for a proclaimed “practical end to racist subjugation,” the former on the basis of segregated self-salvation and the latter on the basis of artificially mandated “integration”²

Now, just because there’s a “trialectic” doesn’t necessarily mean the three connections between the three parties follows this exact pattern of exactly one type of dialectic for each relationship—sometimes all three are the “inverted dialectic,” i.e. the modern three-way outward “mutual hatred” between Communists, Zionists, and neo-Nazis.

This “trialectical” theoretical model of explanation might need WIP pondering for the meantime, as of typing. Additional insights exposing dialectical manipulation may be elaborated in the near future…

1. Yes, in a number of previous Stack columns I already explained this, but I’m ever-so-slightly too lazy by now to repost those links over and over since here I elaborate all over anyways.

2. Please don’t even think about accusing me of “racism” here—outside perchance parental responsibility over preadolescents, no person has a “right” to be respected and/or catered to by another. Before you start freaking out, “what if a black customer is refused service by a white restaurant owner,” consider the potential opposite scenario: does a black business owner have the right to refuse service to an unabashed racist agitator wearing a KKK hood? To assert any person has the right to the services of another is to subjugate professions into de facto slavery, plain and simple.

Also, the “civil rights movement” did not improve race relations if you briefly recheck the riotous culmination in the late 1960s after civil rights protections were federally granted.