image_pdfimage_print

The Dialectic and The Real World
The reading done over the break showed me a bigger picture of how dialectics work. The philosophy was obscure to my thinking, in that the monopoly capitalist was some distance from the (supposedly) conservative thinkers. This was my fatal mistake.

The London School of Economics, and other significant institutions (Stanford, Harvard etc.), support ‘both’ abstractionist thinkings – Marxism and Liberal-Democracy (libertariansim – lassie-faire-capitalism). By supporting both thinkings, the dialectic is reinforced. Marxism (supposedly representing the best interests of labour) and Liberal-Democracy (again supposedly representing the best interest of capital), are in constant conflict.
The movie ‘North and South’, depicted this historic tension between labour and capital and was never resolved.
The significant point to make about this dialectic is that they: the abstract thinkers, are both in favour of dismantling society to create a utopia.
Another unfortunate truth to come to grips with is that most seminaries are also supporting this same dialectical narrative. Whether it is ‘end times’ or ‘liberal-democracy and marxism’, the dialectic is there as a false reality.

When the rubber hits the road, all these utopias are a tyranny. Marxism and Liberal-Democracy are both totalitarian. The dominance hierarchy, as referred by Prof Jordan Peterson many times, is ‘this’ slave empire.
So, in order to come out of this with a way of thinking to respond to these tyrannies, you’ve got to visualise, at least I have to, the graph: on the left is totalitarianism in all its many forms, on the right is freedom, further to the right is anarchy. This area of freedom which is where I wish to concentrate on, reinforces to me, that freedom is not a free for all. It requires personal responsibility and morality. Otherwise we have anarchy or totalitarianism.

Labour and Capital need to find resolution to the conflict – both and – as Iain McGilchrist has written and also other Christian thinkers. Douglas resolved this conflict in the most significant way, by going to the seat of power and placing that power at the foot of the individual with the National Dividend. Balancing money – (spending power) as an accurate “form of measurement” of the productive capacity of the Nation.

So What of the Bushfires?
Again, the dialectic is there if you look for it. Green (Communism) policy has been one of returning land management to its natural state, with the significant buildup of fuel on the ground. This has produced the environment for wildfires.
Liberalism, on the other hand, responds to the outworking of these wildfires with the promise of implementation of Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development to respond to climate change. This means world government exercised through the UN.
The conflict produces the desired result, totalitarianism.

What is the correct response?
The National Parks have historically been managed by controlled burns (cold – out of season – burning) and also allowing cattle in to reduce the fuel load. There has also been fire breaks and other strategies. Local knowledge is paramount. So the locals know best how to manage their environment. By allowing a central authority to plan remotely, producers the disaster as we see. A new tax and world government won’t provide any solution at all.

Decentralising administration, local knowledge, and the opportunity to exercise that knowledge to prevent wildfires is the answer. But you have to clearly understand the purpose, or policy, of both, liberal democracy and Marxism. It is to hand more power to higher and higher authorities. Making all decision making remote from the locals who understand what’s going on. Totalitarianism. Now do you see?

Power Generation and Water Supply
I was sent a link the other day which carried the headline “De-Kulakisation in Australia”. Now the history of the Stalinist era kulaks was one of genocide directed towards the (supposedly) middle-class. In fact by today’s standards those people were self-reliant but close to subsistence living. Millions perished as a consequence of the policy. The key to the kulaks was their self-reliance. Starvation was the tool to control the population. We see the same in Venezuela today.
Now in Australia we are looking at the out working of policy that causes water price to increase 500% in a very short time. We also see huge rises in the price of electricity. The effect to individuals, communities and small business is that any profit previously realised is soon skimmed away to pay these higher charges. As pressure mounts viability comes into question. Debts increase, and finally businesses close.
In Victoria, the channel country, has now seen some of those channels filled in to signify they will never again hold water. Dairy, as an industry, is coming to a close in Australia.
The same can be said of manufacturing due to the instability and unreliability of electricity. The massive increases in pricing, again skimming any potential profits off of the top of industry. Viability quickly comes into question and then industries close.
This is the result of policy – purpose behind the agreements and legislation.
So it is by design, and deliberate – Malevolent.
I guess what I’m saying, is that I should not be surprised had I done my homework.

‘Remember the peasantry’: A study of genocide, famine, and the Stalinist Holodomor in Soviet Ukraine, 1932-33, as it was remembered by post-war immigrants in Western Australia who experienced it
– Lesa Melnyczuk Morgan University of Notre Dame Australia

https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=theses

 

Was the (Irish-ed) Famine genocide by the British?
https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/was-the-famine-genocide-by-the-british-28954929.html

Share the Broadcast