Book Banned by Turkish fascists, author killed by Nazis

[InterestedParticipant]

The book was Number 1 on the ban list of
the fascist regime coup (1980) in Turkey.

The Nazi's killed the author in 1942.


http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/264/elementaryprinciples.jpg


"Written in a clear and didactic manner," author clearly exposes how dialectics are manufactured and implemented in order to control society.

Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0717804690/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)

Barnes & Nobles (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Elementary-Principles-of-Philosophy/Georges-Politzer/p/9780717804696)


Find out what is so important about this book by ordering a copy yourself (PS. you won't find an electronic copy online)

This is essential reading. It provides the foundational understanding for how the system of perception management works.

P.S. Notice the use of Vectors (ie. arrows) on the cover of the book. These represent the various message paths that people follow, and is a key element within the Full Spectrum Simulacrum system.

[paulpwns]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Politzer

[stilltrying]

Excellent find IP. This is really how society is shaped and moulded yet the public does not get it. They are lead along thinking that it is happenstance, coincedence.

Capitalism - Thesis
Communism - Antithesis
World Government or something else - Synthesis

[InterestedParticipant]

Before I get reamed for this on this forum, people should know that the author was a Marxist. I am not a Marxist, nor do I support Marxist philosophies. I agree with Jean Baudrillard on this point, who ultimately understood that Marxism was essentially at the core of our current simulacrum. (see: The Critique of Marxism in Baudrillard's Later Writings (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/610076607-17486225/content~content=a907358647&db=all)).

[Mini-Me]

Before I get reamed for this on this forum, people should know that the author was a Marxist. I am not a Marxist, nor do I support Marxist philosophies. I agree with Jean Baudrillard on this point, who ultimately understood that Marxism was essentially at the core of our current simulacrum. (see: The Critique of Marxism in Baudrillard's Later Writings (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/610076607-17486225/content~content=a907358647&db=all)).

This kind of thing always makes me wonder why any of these otherwise brilliant philosophers ever adhered to Marxism for longer than a few brief [and embarrassing] months in the first place. I mean, the centralization and totalitarianism of Marxism is transparent on its face. Granted, it's obscured in our own society, partially because Marxist elements themselves are obscured. Still, people who call themselves Marxists must necessarily be familiar with Marx's own writings on communism, and he lays it all out in black and white. Do these guys just get swept up into the whole trendiness of Marxism due to its favor in the academic establishment? Do they somehow actually believe that the centralization of power could be neutralized by Marxist/communist/socialist/etc. doctrine (as Bastiat would say, protectionism/socialism/communism are all the same plant in different stages of growth), the education system, social engineering, and other methods to change human nature? Do they fail to recognize that the fundamental political infrastructure is the same between all forms of statist socialism - including national socialism/fascism - despite their different stated aims? Have they never heard of pathological personalities, their attraction to power, and the ease with which they attain such positions?

There are just so many reasons why even modestly intelligent people should recognize, "something is really not right about this Marxism stuff." It just saddens me that so many brilliant people could have so many great insights on the sinister workings of the powerful and grasp some of the finest details, yet simultaneously be so short-sighted and naive about the fundamental nature of centralized power (especially totalitarian power) in general...the bane of humanity's existence for thousands of years, the single greatest threat we have ever faced, and probably the single greatest threat we ever will face.

[InterestedParticipant]

This kind of thing always makes me wonder why any of these otherwise brilliant philosophers ever adhered to Marxism for longer than a few brief [and embarrassing] months in the first place. I mean, the centralization and totalitarianism of Marxism is transparent on its face. Granted, it's obscured in our own society, partially because Marxist elements themselves are obscured. Still, people who call themselves Marxists must necessarily be familiar with Marx's own writings on communism, and he lays it all out in black and white. Do these guys just get swept up into the whole trendiness of Marxism due to its favor in the academic establishment? Do they somehow actually believe that the centralization of power could be neutralized by Marxist/communist/socialist/etc. doctrine (as Bastiat would say, protectionism/socialism/communism are all the same plant in different stages of growth), the education system, social engineering, and other methods to change human nature? Do they fail to recognize that the fundamental political infrastructure is the same between all forms of statist socialism - including national socialism/fascism - despite their different stated aims? Have they never heard of pathological personalities, their attraction to power, and the ease with which they attain such positions?

There are just so many reasons why even modestly intelligent people should recognize, "something is really not right about this Marxism stuff." It just saddens me that so many brilliant people could have so many great insights on the sinister workings of the powerful and grasp some of the finest details, yet simultaneously be so short-sighted and naive about the fundamental nature of centralized power (especially totalitarian power) in general...the bane of humanity's existence for thousands of years, the single greatest threat we have ever faced, and probably the single greatest threat we ever will face.
You expose society's ugly underbelly and raise questions that are very difficult for humanity to address.

While I don't have answers as to why so many intellectually gifted people go along with such a sinister system, I fear that this is the way it has always been. The only thing that seems to have changed are the techniques that are employed in the system of the day. In each case, it appears that the system was able to recruit sufficient resources (human and otherwise) in order to perpetuate their control through deceipt.

Now, we're on to a system of Computer based Networks, Virtual Reality, BioTech... and a myriad of other technological techniques of control. In today's world, it's people like Yochai Benkler, Clay Shirkey, Ray Kurzweil and the developers of Management Cybernetics who are the driving forces (ie technocracy) behind the new systems of control.

[InterestedParticipant]

bump

[WaltM]

bump, I was looking for what people say about Bastiat

[InterestedParticipant]

Maybe I should have posted a thread about Glenn Beck, as that would have gotten read here.

The vast major, at least the vocal majority, here don't seem to be interested in how the system of perception management works, they just want to hear what they think sound good.

Someone please prove me wrong.

[Dunedain]

Leftists (socialists, nazis, and communists) don't seem to thrive by educating their supporters. Any Marxist philosophy I've ever read has been mostly axe-to-grind theories.

[InterestedParticipant]

Leftists (socialists, nazis, and communists) don't seem to thrive by educating their supporters. Any Marxist philosophy I've ever read has been mostly axe-to-grind theories.
Someone prove to me that "Libertarians" educate their supporters more thoroughly and objectively than any of the other political wings within the spectrum?

[FrankRep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Politzer

Georges Politzer (3 May 1903–23 May 1942) was a French philosopher and Marxist theoretician of Hungarian origin

InterestedParticipant, you're obsessed with Marxist authors. huh?

[heavenlyboy34]

Someone prove to me that "Libertarians" educate their supporters more thoroughly and objectively than any of the other political wings within the spectrum?


"Libertarians" don't do that, as they are just another political party (which brings us back to the simulacrum you mentioned before).

"libertarians" do-as they oppose the political system in general (see the works of Hoppe and Molyneux, for example). This type of libertarian tends towards anarchism and sees independent thought/analysis as virtuous.

Sorry for the short answer, but I'm busy at the moment. Please keep up your good work. :cool: Were you looking for a specific book or work as "proof"? You didn't specify the criteria.

[Dunedain]

Someone prove to me that "Libertarians" educate their supporters more thoroughly and objectively than any of the other political wings within the spectrum?

I can't define who these libertarians are you speak about, but this board has given me a pretty good education on libertarianism as I'm sure it has many others. Ron Paul and his speeches awakened quite a few people by educating them about economic realities.

[InterestedParticipant]

Georges Politzer (3 May 1903–23 May 1942) was a French philosopher and Marxist theoretician of Hungarian origin

InterestedParticipant, you're obsessed with Marxist authors. huh?
Perhaps the controllers at JBS have never told you this, and perhaps they have never given you a book by Marx or Hegel or Engels, but we live in a Marxist, Hegelian, Engelistic world. But then there is no reason for JBS to disclose this to its followers, for that would expose the dialectic and their role in that dialectic. Reading this book may just break your programming. I got my copy for only $8 bucks. I don't think you have the guts to read it, for it will crash your world.

Now, if you're going to continue to follow me around like a little brother, taking irrelevant jabs whenever you can, then I'm going to call-it-out. Tell your RPF mother to stop telling you to follow me around, disrupting adult conversation.


"Libertarians" don't do that, as they are just another political party (which brings us back to the simulacrum you mentioned before).

"libertarians" do-as they oppose the political system in general (see the works of Hoppe and Molyneux, for example). This type of libertarian tends towards anarchism and sees independent thought/analysis as virtuous.

Sorry for the short answer, but I'm busy at the moment. Please keep up your good work. :cool: Were you looking for a specific book or work as "proof"? You didn't specify the criteria.
Libertarian leaders are giving libertarian followers a prescribed set of material to read from, as well as a specific set of current and historical leaders to follow. I don't see very many people developing their own reading lists, or reading material outside that which is suggested. So, tell me what the difference is between a libertarian followers and any other follower, as they are still following others while they tell themselves that they are making-up their own mind and are remaining independent thinkers.


I can't define who these libertarians are you speak about, but this board has given me a pretty good education on libertarianism as I'm sure it has many others. Ron Paul and his speeches awakened quite a few people by educating them about economic realities.
I'm going to use your post as an example, so the following comment is not mean to deride you or be a personal affront, so please don't take it that way. Hence, with all due respect, how would someone know that they have been awakened if all they have been exposed to is traditional public schooling in America along with this more recent learning given to them by the Ron Paul campaign. How does one know that they are not merely being given just another set of fiction, a new way of thinking, to replace the old fiction, or the old way of thinking. How can one know that this new way of thinking is truly a path to real liberty, and not just a path to a different kind of deception.

Now, with that said, I agree with much of what RP says, but how does one really know that what they are following is in their best interest, especially given the level of deception in today's world?

[furface]

Given the choice between Marxism, which is authoritarian socialism, and authoritarian capitalism, I'll choose Marxism. Both are wrong, but what we have now is not Marxism, but authoritarian capitalism. In authoritarian capitalism, the system is biased towards maximizing the wealth of a select few. In authoritarian socialism, wealth is distributed by force to the many. I choose the later if I'm forced to choose.

Both use forced collectivism, but in the case of the capitalist version, the benefit is for bankers, corporate elite, and government unions.

The best solution is a non-coercive political-economic system, true libertarianism, which probably looks much different than what a lot of people here have in mind when they spout off about libertarianism and Austrian economics.

[InterestedParticipant]

Given the choice between Marxism, which is authoritarian socialism, and authoritarian capitalism, I'll choose Marxism. Both are wrong, but what we have now is not Marxism, but authoritarian capitalism. In authoritarian capitalism, the system is biased towards maximizing the wealth of a select few. In authoritarian socialism, wealth is distributed by force to the many. I choose the later if I'm forced to choose.

Both use forced collectivism, but in the case of the capitalist version, the benefit is for bankers, corporate elite, and government unions.

The best solution is a non-coercive political-economic system, true libertarianism, which probably looks much different than what a lot of people here have in mind when they spout off about libertarianism and Austrian economics.
Marx was no socialist, he just leveraged it as a means to an end. The end that you're calling "authoritarian capitalism", but which I call tyranny.

[FrankRep]

Perhaps the controllers at JBS have never told you this, and perhaps they have never given you a book by Marx or Hegel or Engels, but we live in a Marxist, Hegelian, Engelistic world. But then there is no reason for JBS to disclose this to its followers, for that would expose the dialectic and their role in that dialectic. Reading this book may just break your programming. I got my copy for only $8 bucks. I don't think you have the guts to read it, for it will crash your world.

How will it crash my world?

[FrankRep]

So far InterestedParticipant has called G. Edward Griffin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195399&page=11&p=2172542), Judge Napolitano (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=225718&page=3&p=2485868), and John Birch Society (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195399&page=11&p=2172542) all Controlled Opposition.

Now he's promoting Marxist authors. IP's true colors are starting to show.

[InterestedParticipant]

So far InterestedParticipant has called G. Edward Griffin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195399&page=11&p=2172542), Judge Napolitano (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=225718&page=3&p=2485868), and John Birch Society (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195399&page=11&p=2172542) all Controlled Opposition.

Now he's promoting Marxist authors. IP's true colors are starting to show.
This author exposes the techniques of Hegel, Socrates, Plato, Marx, et. al and shows the reader how the philosophies have been cultivated (and twisted) to create systems of control.

Until you bother to read anything outside the controlled dialectic that JBS keeps you in, you cannot understand what I'm talking about. If you want to remain ignorant, that is certainly your choice. But do you have to flaunt your ignorance in every single one of my threads?

The book is only 154 pages. Are you afraid to read it?

For example, on page 131 you will learn how social and economic classes developed, and how those economic and social classes were manipulated through the manipulation of the modes of production. You'll learn how Engels discussed this in page 51 of his book, creating the ground work for the changes that were to be implemented.

Actually, perhaps you should start on page 143 where you will learn the importance of Ideologies in the Marxist system. This will shed light on the dialectical segment that JBS occupies, and why it is important in the larger social construct of the Simulacrum that we currently live.

[FrankRep]

Until you bother to read anything outside the controlled dialectic that JBS keeps you in, you cannot understand what I'm talking about.

How and what kind of dialectic does the JBS keep me in?

[InterestedParticipant]

How and what kind of dialectic does the JBS keep me in?
You will have to read the book. But if you want to break this class-based society that uses scientific techniques to manipulate you into servitude, then you will need to understand the material in this book. After years of searching, this is the most comprehensive, concise and simple-to-read book on the subject that I have found. Perhaps that is why the author was murdered by the bourgeoisie class.

[FrankRep]

You will have to read the book. But if you want to break this class-based society that uses scientific techniques to manipulate you into servitude, then you will need to understand the material in this book. After years of searching, this is the most comprehensive, concise and simple-to-read book on the subject that I have found. Perhaps that is why the author was murdered by the bourgeoisie class.
So you honestly think I'm stuck in the Hegel, Socrates, Plato, Marx dialectic mindset? I understand that many of the common people in the world get duped into a controlled mindset, but I personally refer to the Christian bible for guidance and not worldly philosophy. Are you going to call Jesus an agent of Controlled Opposition? I'm not talking about established religion, I'm talking about the simple philosophy of Jesus.

I think you underestimate my understanding of the world and lump me in with the common people duped by a controlled mindset.

[sevin]

You post about this stuff all the time, IP, and I think most of us get it. Like stilltrying said:



Capitalism - Thesis
Communism - Antithesis
World Government or something else - Synthesis

We get it. What do you want us to say?


Perhaps the controllers at JBS have never told you this, and perhaps they have never given you a book by Marx or Hegel or Engels, but we live in a Marxist, Hegelian, Engelistic world. But then there is no reason for JBS to disclose this to its followers, for that would expose the dialectic and their role in that dialectic.

Libertarian leaders are giving libertarian followers a prescribed set of material to read from, as well as a specific set of current and historical leaders to follow. I don't see very many people developing their own reading lists, or reading material outside that which is suggested. So, tell me what the difference is between a libertarian followers and any other follower, as they are still following others while they tell themselves that they are making-up their own mind and are remaining independent thinkers.

So according to you, libertarians are being deceived just as much as statists? So all these books I've read about free market capitalism are part of the dialect? It's all a trick? If that is true, then what the hell are we supposed to do?


Now, with that said, I agree with much of what RP says, but how does one really know that what they are following is in their best interest, especially given the level of deception in today's world?

I don't know, you tell us.

Personally, I try to have an open mind, examine both sides of every issue, and come to the most objective conclusion I can. And I think that's what most of the people here do. It's the best we can manage.

For you to say that most of the RP supporters are being deceived is insulting.

[Aratus]

dialectic = socrates = a way to question

the poor long dead turk was truely banned

for his inate ability to profoundly question

[Aratus]

j.c was more into thinking he knew

some of life's apt answers, hense

the golden rule. confucius, yes...

[theclip]

I think it's a good place to plug

Jacques Ellul. Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31SH2RFHPKL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg)

[InterestedParticipant]

You post about this stuff all the time, IP, and I think most of us get it. Like stilltrying said:
I don't see anyone else discussing dialectics in any detail here, nor do I see anyone discussion techniques of managed pursuasion. What I see is a certain political segment being mindlessly followed without critical questioning.


We get it. What do you want us to say?
I want to see people branch out from these selected segment of thought and question their own assumptions and beliefs.



So according to you, libertarians are being deceived just as much as statists? So all these books I've read about free market capitalism are part of the dialect? It's all a trick? If that is true, then what the hell are we supposed to do?
I'm telling you not to get stuck in anyone vector, no matter how appealing and logical it seems. Don't get stuck in the practice of idolizing other men, for it is a sin and a trap that can make one a lazy thinker and set oneself up for deception.



I don't know, you tell us.

Personally, I try to have an open mind, examine both sides of every issue, and come to the most objective conclusion I can. And I think that's what most of the people here do. It's the best we can manage.

For you to say that most of the RP supporters are being deceived is insulting
How is asking you to question your own belief systems insulting? Isn't that merely challenging oneself in an effort to ensure that ones thought remains independent? Isn't this healthy?

[InterestedParticipant]

Now, I want posts in this thread that refer to this book, and its content. No more diversionary thread or noise making allowed. This material is critical, and I find it more than suspicious that anyone would not read this material or shout someone down who attempts to raise this material to the attention of others. This book was used to teach workers about the techniques of the elite class, so that they could free themselves. This is why the book was banned, and the author murdered.

[FrankRep]

Now, I want posts in this thread that refer to this book, and its content. No more diversionary thread or noise making allowed. This material is critical, and I find it more than suspicious that anyone would not read this material or shout someone down who attempts to raise this material to the attention of others. This book was used to teach workers about the techniques of the elite class, so that they could free themselves. This is why the book was banned, and the author murdered.

You act like only you know the truth and everyone else is sheep. It's annoying.

[InterestedParticipant]

From the book's Introduction...


Why Must We Study Philosophy?

We propose, in the course of this work, to present and explain the elementary principles of materialist philosophy.

Why? Because Marxism is intimately linked with a philosophy and a method: those of dialectical materialism. It is therefore indispensable to study this philosophy and this method in order to fully understand Marxism and to refuse the argument of bourgeois theories as well as to undertake an effective political struggle.

So, by understanding the philosophies, theories, methods and practices of the bourgeois, we can learn how to recognize them and therefore defend against them.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Maybe I should have posted a thread about Glenn Beck, as that would have gotten read here.

The vast major, at least the vocal majority, here don't seem to be interested in how the system of perception management works, they just want to hear what they think sound good.

Someone please prove me wrong.

I will take alook at it.

But i'm still gonna give props to Ron when I feel so inclined :D

[krazy kaju]

Still, people who call themselves Marxists must necessarily be familiar with Marx's own writings on communism, and he lays it all out in black and white.

Marx doesn't actually describe what a communist society looks like. He just says that one is inevitable due to the course of history.


Do they somehow actually believe that the centralization of power could be neutralized by Marxist/communist/socialist/etc. doctrine

Ultimately, Marxists believe that the highest stage of society will be a stateless society (think: anarchocommunism). Besides that, we don't know many of their beliefs, beside the fact that for them, such a society is inevitable. Some Marxists believe we can almost immediately transfer from capitalism to communism, whereas some (e.g. Marxist-Leninists) belief in a transitory period to top-down socialism ("dictatorship of the proletariat") in order to reach communism.

[InterestedParticipant]

I will take alook at it.

But i'm still gonna give props to Ron when I feel so inclined :D
Yup, I give Ron props all the time. His message is an excellent one, but Ron does not, or cannot, give us the entire picture. For that, we must venture out on our own.


Ultimately, Marxists believe that the highest stage of society will be a stateless society (think: anarchocommunism).
Funny, that is where we are heading.

[InterestedParticipant]

What is Materialist Philosophy (from the book)....

"Commonly, we consider a materialist to be someone who only wishes to enjoy material pleasures".....However, "materialism", in the context of this reading, "is nothing other than the scientific explanation of the universe."

[jmdrake]

Yup, I give Ron props all the time. His message is an excellent one, but Ron does not, or cannot, give us the entire picture. For that, we must venture out on our own.


You're right. That would be tactically bad for Dr. Paul. And he's not the only one in that boat.

[johngr]

You're right. That would be tactically bad for Dr. Paul. And he's not the only one in that boat.

What's he missing here?
Ron Paul - The American Power Structure (1988) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4245169480003136735&ei=bl8fStLCAaD8qAPxz_nwBQ#)

[johngr]

You talk about JBS as if it were monolithic. This guy, the head of the JBS at the time and until he died, exposed the dialectic communo-capitalist conspiracy for one world government and was assassinated for it (please watch the video and respond instead of repeating your talking points).

Larry McDonald on the New World Order (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3100752722910819372&ei=apCBS53tF8yr-AahvYmVBA)

[FrankRep]

You talk about JBS as if it were monolithic. This guy, the head of the JBS at the time and until he died, exposed the dialectic communo-capitalist conspiracy for one world government and was assassinated for it (please watch the video and respond instead of repeating your talking points).

To add to your statement, the John Birch Society was kicked out of the (Neo) Conservative/Republican movement by William F. Buckley, Jr. (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457-william-f-buckley-jr-the-establishments-house-conservative) because the JBS refused to play the left/right game.

[InterestedParticipant]

You talk about JBS as if it were monolithic. This guy, the head of the JBS at the time and until he died, exposed the dialectic communo-capitalist conspiracy for one world government and was assassinated for it (please watch the video and respond instead of repeating your talking points).
I'm not pointing at the quoted post in particular, I'm merely trying to use it as an example of many posts in this thread that I believe are off-topic. For example, there are numerous threads in this forum that deal with the JBS as well as Larry McDonald. This thread is attempting to introduce new material. Can we please stay focus on this new material and refrain from rehashing material that is already well-known here. Thanks.

We're trying to move the discussion to another level of understanding, that explores the philosophies/methods/techniques that Marx/Engels actually developed/usurped/manipulated, and how these are being used against the public. This is important material for those who wish to pursue it. I'd like to try and stay focused on it. Again, thanks.

[jmdrake]

What's he missing here?
Ron Paul - The American Power Structure (1988) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4245169480003136735&ei=bl8fStLCAaD8qAPxz_nwBQ#)

Uh-huh. That was 1988. Notice how he said "We libertarians". He's not exactly saying that these days is he? How many libertarians running for congress has he endorsed this year? While he's still the same Ron Paul there's clearly a tactical shift. I don't have a problem with it. But I'm not going to write off everyone else who's made the same tactical shift as "controlled opposition".

[InterestedParticipant]

The word "dialectics" originally meant the art or science of debate.

For Plato, dialectics is
the art of extracting all the positive and negative consequences contained in an idea or principle
the rational movement of the mind which ascends by successive stages, from perceptible data to ideas, the eternal and immutable principles of things
the idea of the Good, which is the primary idea.
Since for Plato ideas are the only reality worthy of the name, dialectics or the science of ideas comprises science itself.

For Hegel, dialectics is the movement of ideas through the successive stages of thesis, antithesis and synthesis until the absolute idea is attained.

For Marx, dialectics is no longer the movement of ideas, but rather the movement of things themselves through contradictions, of which the movement of the mind is but the conscious reflection.

Marx's significant change in the understanding of dialectics maybe one of the most significant changes society has undergone, and understanding this explains much of what we are experiencing in society today and much of what I have posted in these forums to date. I will continue to explore this and expand on this post in this thread, for this is critical.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Yup, I give Ron props all the time. His message is an excellent one, but Ron does not, or cannot, give us the entire picture. For that, we must venture out on our own.


Funny, that is where we are heading.

Indeed :cool:

[johngr]

I'm not pointing at the quoted post in particular, I'm merely trying to use it as an example of many posts in this thread that I believe are off-topic. For example, there are numerous threads in this forum that deal with the JBS as well as Larry McDonald. This thread is attempting to introduce new material. Can we please stay focus on this new material and refrain from rehashing material that is already well-known here. Thanks.

We're trying to move the discussion to another level of understanding, that explores the philosophies/methods/techniques that Marx/Engels actually developed/usurped/manipulated, and how these are being used against the public. This is important material for those who wish to pursue it. I'd like to try and stay focused on it. Again, thanks.

To what end? There's probably not one person in five here who doesn't know about the "problem-reaction-solution" technique. How can we deal with it and/or how can we use their weapons against them are more useful questions to ask.

I disagree with you about JBS being "part of the dialectic" and posted the MacDonald interview as a counterpoint to that. They have been purposefully marginalized and therefore are not one of the "sides". And much of their content actually exposes the dialectic process in a way that their target audience can understand. That said I would guess that JBS is probably a disinfo group. The strategy: tell the truth in a way that is self-discrediting. Some call the disinfo technique poisoning the well.

[InterestedParticipant]

To what end? There's probably not one person in five here who doesn't know about the "problem-reaction-solution" technique. How can we deal with it and/or how can we use their weapons against them are more useful questions to ask.

I disagree with you about JBS being "part of the dialectic" and posted the MacDonald interview as a counterpoint to that. They have been purposefully marginalized and therefore are not one of the "sides". And much of their content actually exposes the dialectic process in a way that their target audience can understand. That said I would guess that JBS is probably a disinfo group. The strategy: tell the truth in a way that is self-discrediting. Some call the disinfo technique poisoning the well.
What's so ironic is that the "problem-reaction-solution" technique, while referred to as being from Hegel (ie "Hegelian dialectic") is not from Hegel at all, but it is from Marx and Engels, who have manipulated Hegel's work into the system that we have today. I'm working my way toward explaining this, but one can't simply stay on the surface layer to understand the subtleties.

As far as JBS is concerned, well, they are just an instrument of the dialectic. But it will take some investment in learning on your part to see that. Perhaps if people would not be so quick to rebuff out-of-hand what is being put forth, and actually research the matter, or simply discuss it objectively, one may gain tremendously. This technique of attempting to shut one down for mere discussion of alternate-views works against self-inspection, personal growth and knowledge development.

If it is your objective to maintain your status quo of understanding, the put me on your ignore list and don't view my threads. But what I see here are overt attempts to disrupt, and that means that the disruptor are attempting to prevent others from gaining the insights discussed here. Now, the important question then becomes, why would someone so overtly and obnoxiously try to disrupt an others discussion? Given that the people who seem to be disrupting come from groups, I don't think it is a great leap to conclude that those who are disrupting understand that these discussion with lead to a reductions in recruitment, and therefore attempt to squash the discussion to protect the group's own survival. So, is group survival more important than knowledge, is that what we have here?

[johngr]

What's so ironic is that the "problem-reaction-solution" technique, while referred to as being from Hegel (ie "Hegelian dialectic") is not from Hegel at all, but it is from Marx and Engels, who have manipulated Hegel's work into the system that we have today. I'm working my way toward explaining this, but one can't simply stay on the surface layer to understand the subtleties.

As far as JBS is concerned, well, they are just an instrument of the dialectic. But it will take some investment in learning on your part to see that. Perhaps if people would not be so quick to rebuff out-of-hand what is being put forth, and actually research the matter, or simply discuss it objectively, one may gain tremendously.


Philosophical hypostases don't wield instruments. Men do.

The only one disrupting the discussion is you (overtly and obnoxiously, I might add). This technique of attempting to shut oneself down for mere objections or disagreements works against self-inspection, personal growth and knowledge development. You are attempting to disrupt, and that means that the you are attempting to prevent others from gaining the insights from people who disagree with you. If it is your objective to maintain your status quo of understanding, then put me on your ignore list and don't view my posts.

Better yet, the pickins for communist converts are pretty slim here. You might want to try the democratic underground.

[Deborah K]

Philosophical hypostases don't wield instruments. Men do.

The only one disrupting the discussion is you (overtly and obnoxiously, I might add). This technique of attempting to shut oneself down for mere objections or disagreements works against self-inspection, personal growth and knowledge development. You are attempting to disrupt, and that means that the you are attempting to prevent others from gaining the insights from people who disagree with you. If it is your objective to maintain your status quo of understanding, then put me on your ignore list and don't view my posts.

Better yet, the pickins for communist converts are pretty slim here. You might want to try the democratic underground.

http://i49.tinypic.com/316xmap.jpg

[InterestedParticipant]

Philosophical hypostases don't wield instruments. Men do.

The only one disrupting the discussion is you (overtly and obnoxiously, I might add). This technique of attempting to shut oneself down for mere objections or disagreements works against self-inspection, personal growth and knowledge development. You are attempting to disrupt, and that means that the you are attempting to prevent others from gaining the insights from people who disagree with you. If it is your objective to maintain your status quo of understanding, then put me on your ignore list and don't view my posts.

Better yet, the pickins for communist converts are pretty slim here. You might want to try the democratic underground.
Communism is simply another elite form of control. I'm against ALL elite forms of control, even those that use front groups like JBS to limit people's understanding. Obviously, these groups have been very effective on you, as you won't even engage in discussion that is outside acceptable parameters, nor will you let anyone else.

With the hundreds of JBS, Glenn Beck, Medina, Peter Schiff threads here, I'd think people would be able to find plenty of other threads to play in. So, why keep bumping this thread?

To not want to understand dialectics, philosophical materialism, the formation of thought as described by Kant, and other important matters is certainly ones choice. But I don't know how one can gain a real understanding by ignoring these important matters.

Now, will the moderators please moderate this thread in accordance with the rules set forth in this forum, as these off-topic posts should be split-off to another thread.

[FrankRep]

Communism is simply another elite form of control. I'm against ALL elite forms of control, even those that use front groups like JBS to limit people's understanding. Obviously, these groups have been very effective on you, as you won't even engage in discussion that is outside acceptable parameters, nor will you let anyone else.

If you're going to attack the John Birch Society, give some facts. Front group for what?

[InterestedParticipant]

If you're going to attack the John Birch Society, give some facts. Front group for what?
I've been given you facts, I've been laying-out the frame work for how this system works, and who are the thinkers in our society who have created the system that JBS fits into. But you and your gang are so busy attacking every post that I make, that few are able to learn in this environment.

One of the key points is how Marx & Engels altered Hegel's work. Now, I am planning to work-up to that. But, if you, your gang, and the moderators would at least try to create a reasonable atmosphere here, we can continue to move forward through the learning curve. I will take some learning, and it will take you being willing to read material NOT sanctioned by JBS. If you're willing to do that, then you might just break-out of your programming. If not, then I suggest you stay within the threads that you are comfortable with and just leave this thread alone and let others read it if they so desire.

Finally, the most funny thing here from the anthem of detractors, is that so much of what is supported here is actually a form of Marxism, and people don't even know it. Where do people think so much of our current system of production, consumption and exchange came from anyway? And why were these systems introduced and pushed into society? The Declaration of Independence didn't promote this system we're under now. C'mon people, stop believing your own rhetoric and start to uncover the system that you so strongly support. Start asking some tough questions and stop abusing people who are.

[jmdrake]

Following the WikiLinks about the Turkish coup that banned the book I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_military_coup,_1980
The 1970s were marked by right-wing and left-wing armed conflicts—proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively.[1] In order to create a pretext for a decisive intervention, the Turkish military allowed the conflicts to escalate;[2][3] some say they actively adopted a strategy of tension.[4][5] The violence abruptly stopped afterwards,[6] and the coup was welcomed by some for restoring order.[2]

Following the link about the "strategy of tension" I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension
The strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) is a theory that describes how world powers divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist actions.[1]

The theory began with allegations that the United States and the then-fascist Greek government supported far-right terrorist groups in Italy and Turkey – whose institutions appeared to be threatened by communism – to spread panic among the population who would in turn demand stronger and more dictatorial governments. The theory is not universally accepted, as disputes continue over alleged evidence of the involvement of the U.S. government in support of terrorist activities[

I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the OP, but it's interesting.

[FrankRep]

I've been given you facts, I've been laying-out the frame work for how this system works, and who are the thinkers in our society who have created the system that JBS fits into. But you and your gang are so busy attacking every post that I make, that few are able to learn in this environment.

Fluff. Give me some facts. You don't actually know what the goals of the John Birch Society are.



One of the key points is how Marx & Engels altered Hegel's work. Now, I am planning to work-up to that. But, if you, your gang, and the moderators would at least try to create a reasonable atmosphere here, we can continue to move forward through the learning curve. I will take some learning, and it will take you being willing to read material NOT sanctioned by JBS. If you're willing to do that, then you might just break-out of your programming. If not, then I suggest you stay within the threads that you are comfortable with and just leave this thread alone and let others read it if they so desire.

You can't go around and call everyone brainwashed and expect them to take you seriously. I read "unsanctioned JBS" material so you're stereotyping me like some 1984 character who can't think for myself. You treat everyone here like that acting were common sheeple following the herd. Go preach "you're all brainwashed" crap on the street corner and stop treating us like little children.

It's interesting to note you think everyone is brainwashed except you and we all just need to be deprogrammed.



Finally, the most funny thing here from the anthem of detractors, is that so much of what is supported here is actually a form of Marxism, and people don't even know it. Where do people think so much of our current system of production, consumption and exchange came from anyway? And why were these systems introduced and pushed into society? The Declaration of Independence didn't promote this system we're under now. C'mon people, stop believing your own rhetoric and start to uncover the system that you so strongly support. Start asking some tough questions and stop abusing people who are.

Good work captain obvious! We know the current system isn't the original system the founding fathers created. We want it..... BACK!

[InterestedParticipant]

Following the WikiLinks about the Turkish coup that banned the book I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_military_coup,_1980
The 1970s were marked by right-wing and left-wing armed conflicts—proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively.[1] In order to create a pretext for a decisive intervention, the Turkish military allowed the conflicts to escalate;[2][3] some say they actively adopted a strategy of tension.[4][5] The violence abruptly stopped afterwards,[6] and the coup was welcomed by some for restoring order.[2]

Following the link about the "strategy of tension" I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension
The strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) is a theory that describes how world powers divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist actions.[1]

The theory began with allegations that the United States and the then-fascist Greek government supported far-right terrorist groups in Italy and Turkey – whose institutions appeared to be threatened by communism – to spread panic among the population who would in turn demand stronger and more dictatorial governments. The theory is not universally accepted, as disputes continue over alleged evidence of the involvement of the U.S. government in support of terrorist activities[

I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the OP, but it's interesting.
Good post.

A few key-points of interpretation:

"actively adopted a strategy of tension" means the gov'ts formulated the tension
"supported far-right terrorist groups" means that they were created and funded by the USA.
"institutions appeared to be threatened by communism" means that society was threatened by grassroots rule (rule by the public), which was labeled "communism" in order to ensure domestic support for the funding of USA involvement.
"spread panic among the population" was the role and the goal of the "far-right terrorist groups" created and funded by the USA.

The information in the quoted post sounds eerily similar to what we're experiencing now inside the USA, but people refuse to believe that the front organizations and front actors are paid to do what they do, especially when those organizations and actors are inside their own vector (i.e inside the "Patriot movement")....
"world powers divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist actions."

This manufactured and sponsored tension that we are seeing now in the USA is, in part, the use of sophisticated dialectics. These are similar methods that Lenin used to help get the Bolsheviks in, then purged them. Its the same plot used to bump-off the old French order and turn it over to the first Fascist dictator, Napoleon. It's the same thing Mao did by using the youth to kill off the guys who got him in during the 'cultural revolution'.

It's critically important to see the techniques and the false actors for what they are, for this is our primary defense. The tension being developed is being used to create and manipulate various segments of the public (people like A.J. & Beck are being used to help setup one side, the Patriot side, of the tension, with Leftist leaders being used to create the "other side"). The ONLY way NOT to be manipulated is to understand the forces and techniques.

This is precisely why I invest so much time here attempting to explain the techniques that are used. It's NOT about one particular political viewpoint, its about understanding how all the political viewpoints are used to group-the-public, and foment tension between these groups, allowing the a pre-planned solution to be implemented that will be supported in order to ease the tension.

Does this make sense, and do people understand the significance and importance of this? It's happening right now, and people all over this forum are bought-in to the techniques. Why do you think there are so many Glenn Beck & Medina threads?

[MN Patriot]

It's critically important to see the techniques and the false actors for what they are, for this is our primary defense. The tension being developed is being used to create and manipulate various segments of the public (people like A.J. & Beck are being used to help setup one side, the Patriot side, of the tension, with Leftist leaders being used to create the "other side"). The ONLY way NOT to be manipulated is to understand the forces and techniques.

This is precisely why I invest so much time here attempting to explain the techniques that are used. It's NOT about one particular political viewpoint, its about understanding how all the political viewpoints are used to group-the-public, and foment tension between these groups, allowing the a pre-planned solution to be implemented that will be supported in order to ease the tension.

Does this make sense, and do people understand the significance and importance of this? It's happening right now, and people all over this forum are bought-in to the techniques. Why do you think there are so many Glenn Beck & Medina threads?

The Tea Party takeover by the neo-cons is a contemporary example of how the Establishment operates. Push Palin into the Tea Party limelight, and declare to an unwitting American public that the Tea Party is just a few really radical Republicans to counter balance the really radical Democrats.

[johngr]

JBS might have been set up by Rockefeller as a controlled opposition group but the fact that they assassinated MacDonald proves to me that they considered him and his movement a potential threat.

In the interview, I posted, MacDonald demonstrated that he was an unflappable debater and that he could (as he had considerable political clout) blow the lid off the cold war scam.

He made a tactical error doing that interview, however, as he showed his nut hand to his all-in opponent who was playing for keeps and who brought a gun to the game.

I sure do miss Dixiecrats.

[InterestedParticipant]

The Tea Party takeover by the neo-cons is a contemporary example of how the Establishment operates. Push Palin into the Tea Party limelight, and declare to an unwitting American public that the Tea Party is just a few really radical Republicans to counter balance the really radical Democrats.
I will admit upfront that I have not studied the formation of the Tea Party movement, but is it possible that it was "created" in order to be "usurped"? Seems if you want to destroy a diverse group of people, at least in the eyes of the public, then you create a large easy-to-cover media event that is clearly branded and identified with said movement, then you steer it into the gutter with your own front people doing the steering by manipulating dupes who think they are working for the greater good.


JBS might have been set up by Rockefeller as a controlled opposition group but the fact that they assassinated MacDonald proves to me that they considered him and his movement a potential threat.

In the interview, I posted, MacDonald demonstrated that he was an unflappable debater and that he could (as he had considerable political clout) blow the lid off the cold war scam.

He made a tactical error doing that interview, however, as he showed his nut hand to his all-in opponent who was playing for keeps and who brought a gun to the game.

I sure do miss Dixiecrats.
We don't really know what happened to Larry, or what really happened to that plane and who did what. All we have are media reports, and those are irrelevant. In fact, they are almost always totally fabricated.

The fact of the matter is that this group, like so many others, play an instrumental
role in segmenting people so that those segments can be turned against each other and thereby manipulated into a preplanned solution (Marx's "synthesis"). Marx's dialectical techniques don't work unless people are shuttled into groups designed to serve as the antithesis and thesis roles. JBS role is self-evident when one understands the system and its roots, that is why I try to spend so much time trying to explain it. By the way, this approach is a-political.

[FrankRep]

JBS might have been set up by Rockefeller as a controlled opposition group but the fact that they assassinated MacDonald proves to me that they considered him and his movement a potential threat.

This is a silly rumor started by Revilo P. Oliver.


Robert Welch is the founder of the John Birch Society.

Robert Welch's brother sold his candy company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O._Welch_Co.) to Nabisco (Rockefeller owned). Robert Welch's brother didn't share his brother's views at all.

The John Birch Society isn't funded or controlled by the Rockefellers.

[literatim]

So a book written to expose dialectics is written by someone who himself falls into the Marxist dialectic. Sounds like the guy had some connection with the Frankfurt School as it sounds like a piece of work based in Critical Theory in which their first goal is to break down Western society's fundamental beliefs so they can install their own social programming.

[InterestedParticipant]

This is a silly rumor started by Revilo P. Oliver.


Robert Welch is the founder of the John Birch Society.

Robert Welch's brother sold his candy company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O._Welch_Co.) to Nabisco (Rockefeller owned). Robert Welch's brother didn't share his brother's views at all.

The John Birch Society isn't funded or controlled by the Rockefellers.
Where are your loyalties, with JBS or with the ideals as written in the Declaration of Independence? One has really got to wonder. What, exactly, is the goal here?


So a book written to expose dialectics is written by someone who himself falls into the Marxist dialectic. Sounds like the guy had some connection with the Frankfurt School as it sounds like a piece of work based in Critical Theory in which their first goal is to break down Western society's fundamental beliefs so they can install their own social programming.
There is no evidence that I can find that the author, Politzer, was linked to Frankfurt School. If you are aware of any, please share.

The work discusses and exposes Critical Theory, to a point. It is not an end point, but a starting point for understanding. I offer the book as the best explanation of the techniques that are being used on our society. It is the best summary I have found to date, as nothing else compacts so much into so little (158 pages) with such clarity. A careful reader can gain much understanding from this material, which will help one see the techniques and how they are applied in society today. Again, this is a starting point.

I will continue my high level discussion, of the concepts discussed in the book, in this thread, and hopefully people will begin to see how the system has unfolded and impacted their current lives. I believe the material, its relevance and importance, will speak for itself.

Is everyone done tearing down this thread now, because we haven't even gotten to the meat of the matter yet. Funny how thread like this, threads that expose the system for what it is, without any tinfoil, are so distracted and filled with noise. It's amazing that any real learning can be gained here, especially when the moderators are so obviously absent.

[johngr]

Where are your loyalties, with JBS or with the ideals as written in the Declaration of Independence? One has really got to wonder. What, exactly, is the goal here?

Mighty dialectic of you.



There is no evidence that I can find that the author, Politzer, was linked to Frankfurt School. If you are aware of any, please share.

The work discusses and exposes Critical Theory, to a point. It is not an end point, but a starting point for understanding. I offer the book as the best explanation of the techniques that are being used on our society. It is the best summary I have found to date, as nothing else compacts so much into so little (158 pages) with such clarity. A careful reader can gain much understanding from this material, which will help one see the techniques and how they are applied in society today. Again, this is a starting point.

I will continue my high level discussion, of the concepts discussed in the book, in this thread, and hopefully people will begin to see how the system has unfolded and impacted their current lives. I believe the material, its relevance and importance, will speak for itself.

Is everyone done tearing down this thread now, because we haven't even gotten to the meat of the matter yet. Funny how thread like this, threads that expose the system for what it is, without any tinfoil, are so distracted and filled with noise. It's amazing that any real learning can be gained here, especially when the moderators are so obviously absent.

Just a suggestion that might mitigate the woeful lack of moderation: drop the self-important and pedantic tone.

[FrankRep]

Where are your loyalties, with JBS or with the ideals as written in the Declaration of Independence? One has really got to wonder. What, exactly, is the goal here?

What kind of weird question is that?

It's like saying: Are your loyalties with Ron Paul or the Declaration of Independence? I support Ron Paul and the John Birch Society as long as they focus on restoring the Constitution. If they slip away from the Constitution, I'll leave them.

[InterestedParticipant]

Mighty dialectic of you.
I point-out the dialectics, how they are designed, and their intent. I don't follow them or create them. If those who spend their time attacking this thread would actually listen, then they might just figure out how the techniques of manipulation work.

However, the more I see here, the more it becomes apparent that the attacks and obfuscations are a deliberate attempt to keep this knowledge from reaching others, who very well might be interested in the subject matter.

Now, why would anyone want to prevent this information from reaching others?


Just a suggestion that might mitigate the woeful lack of moderation: drop the self-important and pedantic tone.
Oh, so the rules and their enforcement only apply to those who act in some "acceptable manner"? Tell me, who defines and interprets this "acceptable manner" that you allude to? And, how does this "acceptable manner" of behavior reconcile with the spirit of Individual Liberty.

No, I'll bloody well act as I wish to. People can make choices on how they participate. If the moderators are going to continue to ignore the attacks and obfuscations posted in this thread, well then they and this forum are being pretty damn hypocritical then, aren't they?

[InterestedParticipant]

For people looking for this book, you may search at BookFinder (link below), as there appear to be quite a few copies around for still affordable prices.

Georges Politzer
Title is Elementary Principles of Philosophy

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=yQHvfyfxT5CtKmB7Wfu5482jIyU_0013306395_1:34:143&bq=author%3Dgeorges%2520politzer%26title%3Delement ary%2520principles%2520of%2520philosophy&ps=bp