Deception
There is a lot of deception going on right now in front of our faces. It’s everywhere we look and is far more prevalent than the average person realizes. It’s difficult to receive accurate information.
The media plays a huge role in promoting the deception. Those narrative brokers that control the media push their desired ideas on the rest of us, creating layers of obscurity to mask reality from our gaze. It makes it extremely frustrating to understand what is going on and who to trust. Analyzing information becomes so difficult that the truth of what is going on in our world eludes many of us to a large degree and eludes all of us to at least some degree. It’s impossible to have a fully accurate picture of what’s going on in the world. This is by design. Those who want to achieve an oligarchy over the world want it that way.
As a general rule, there is an inverse relationship between mainstream media consumption and awareness. In other words, the more mainstream news you consume, the less informed you'll be.
The Media
The mainstream media is not going to make you aware of what's going on either in the world or here in the homeland. While it’s true that there's no such thing as unbiased news sources, the deception at play is deeper than mere bias. The media pushes an agenda. Sometimes this is done by acting in lockstep to promote the exact same talking points, and at other times this is done by different factions within the mainstream media deliberately promoting opposite sides of an issue. If these media outlets are pushing an agenda, then who determines that agenda and who gives it to these media outlets?
It's not that the media outlets are necessarily controlled directly by the government. It's that the media is controlled by the same people who control the government. Our general awareness is not their concern. In fact, their objective is to keep us disinformed.
When we understand that the media's given role is to increase the amount of the system's control over us, it will change the way in which we consume news. For me, I never rely on the mainstream news. If I come into contact with any mainstream media at all, it's through other people or because I'm in a public place where the news happens to be playing.
Whenever the mainstream media pushes a story, our first reaction should be skepticism. The main factor in determining what the media broadcasts has little to do with the truth. It's all about what the controllers want us to believe and what they want to achieve by having us believe it.
Truth
Sure, they may provide us with “information” and it may even sound legitimate. But often it will be untrue. However, that is not always the case. Interestingly enough, the narrative brokers — operating on behalf of the globalist leaders wishing to achieve oligarchic control — will sometimes find that the truth itself may further their agenda of control under certain circumstances. Therefore, it is not a foregone conclusion that all information coming from the media will be lies. Occasionally the information may include elements of truth. On rare occasions it may be entirely true. But in each case, whether it's falsehoods, partial truths, or complete truths, that information is being passed to us with the objective of increasing the control that the system has over us.
This is actually quite interesting because it suggests a rather insidious proposition: the use of the truth to lie. It's the manipulation of something pure into an instrument that will be used in a way totally opposite its very being. If there's truth pushed out in any form it's because the truth, at that time, is what most benefits their agenda. The truth is not being pushed for its own sake but because of the way in which the truth in that moment may be weaponized. This use of the truth is therefore highly selective.
In a way, this is more sinister than using outright falsehoods.
An interesting survey to conduct would be one on deception. What could we learn from “successful” spies, fraudsters (to include politicians), and serial cheaters? I'm sure that if we were to ask them to explain their successes, they would tell us that truly skillful deception involves lying as little as possible.
This isn't ultra revealing to anyone who has an awareness to how the world works. I'm sure intelligence operatives, police detectives, and other investigators know this. So does anyone else with common sense. It's only natural to understand that deviating as little from the truth as possible is the way to create a more cohesive and credible cover story regardless of the need for that story.
Truth and Worldview Warfare
I think most people are well intentioned and don't mean to mislead people, but even when they avoid untrue narratives, they often seem to fall for alternative narratives that are also false. So much is made today of what is referred to as “controlled opposition.” Controlled opposition is a real phenomenon. We exist in a world of competing narratives that are specifically promulgated to promote confusion, fear, and hesitancy. This is part of what it means to exist in a world in which complex strategies of worldview warfare are used against us.
However, the term “controlled opposition” is often used so broadly that it can lose some of its intended meaning. Controlled opposition can encompass those who don’t know they are controlled as well as those who knowingly deceive. Many people that perhaps promote certain narratives are not deliberately seeking to mislead even if their information is somewhat incorrect. They may be operating according to their understanding, which could be incomplete. In these cases, these individuals are guilty of misinformation not disinformation. In other words, they aren’t deliberately spreading information they know to be false.
Many people who are often criticized as being controlled opposition probably have no idea that they are adhering to, and perhaps promoting, false information. That means there is often no reason to completely discard a source because of some of their affiliations or because they promote certain points that you deem as inaccurate. Plenty of what they say may be truthful even if not all of it is. After all, it’s an unfortunate reality, but we all believe something that isn’t true.
Naturally, there are others who knowingly deceive and do so by pretending to offer the truth. They may share accurate information with the intent of gaining followership but also sprinkle just enough falsehood amid the truth to keep followers from understanding certain critical things. With these sources, it’s important to understand that not everything they say will be false. A discerning eye can pick out the truth even when it comes from these deliberately deceptive sources. (I don’t purport to always have that discerning eye though I’d like to think that I often do).
They also tend to promote undue fear and panic. Whereas we all live in perilous times and therefore need to understand the grave reality of our situation, spreading unnecessary panic helps no one. It only promotes further chaos. There are still plenty of reasons to be optimistic.
This is admittedly complex precisely because it involves layers of deception and partial truths. Even certain fake conspiracy theories are pushed, so that when ridiculed, they serve to discredit all conspiracy theories.
This means that we need to be cautious regardless of wherever we receive our information.
Dialectics
In conversation about these topics I find myself often using a term that I think too few people understand. That term is dialectic (also called dialectics).
Before I critique anyone for not understanding the term, I confess that for a long time I also had only a superficial understanding of the term. (I’m by no means an expert now). I first encountered it probably fifteen years ago. If I had encountered it before then in school, which is perhaps possible, it didn’t stick with me.
If you do know what the word means, your first question might be: what kind of conversations are you having that you often feel the need to use the term dialectic?
Fair question, dear reader.
You may or may not be satisfied with the answer, but it’s because I think so much of our world can be (and must be) understood dialectically. Let me explain, because dialectics can be very useful but also quite problematic.
This deserves more treatment than I can give to it in this post so we’ll only be able to achieve a basic familiarity here. That will be sufficient for our purposes. This is a concept that can be understood at a variety of levels. It can be understood strategically, historically, philosophically, and even theologically. It even has deep esoteric roots that can be explored within a Hermetic context.[See Note #4 below].
The Dialectic
The term and its meaning are bound to be new for many, so we should start with a very broad description. If we look up the term we’ll get a pretty basic definition that will allow us to initially wrap our minds around some of the most fundamental philosophical elements of the concept.
“(philosophy) a method of discovering the truth of ideas by discussion and logical argument and by considering ideas that are opposed to each other”
This definition gives us two major ideas to consider. The dialectic is
a methodical approach to truth
it involves the opposition of competing ideas
While this is actually a very helpful starting point, we’ll need to explore the concept further to achieve a fuller grasp of what it really means in our world.
This process requires some sort of deliberate opposition so that truth might emerge. It often involves some type of binary construct, frequently depicted as an either/or set of options.[1] This means that dialectic inherently includes some form of opposition between competing individuals, groups, ideas, or themes, etc. In a sense, a courtroom trial operates in a dialectical fashion. The objective is that the interaction between the two competing sides, the prosecution and defense, will result in the emergence of the truth. (Whether each attorney uses dialectics in the construction of their own arguments is another matter altogether; I’m referring to the overall setting of the trial and the two competing sides).
This back-and-forth “challenge and response" style of argumentation permits the incremental refinement of an originally held position so that the weaker points of the stance may either be strengthened or shed altogether. The dialectic can be a helpful method for parsing out truth by clearing away the weaker or logically unsound elements of a particular position. This method is entirely legitimate and often produces the intended effect of sharpening ideas and disabusing the thinker of the more logically indefensible components of his position.
The dialectic has been around a long time. It has long been recognized as a vital part of logic, reasoning, and argumentation. We read about the use of dialectics at least as far back as Plato though it is quite possible the idea has been around longer than that (potentially originating with Pythagoras though the history is murky).[2] In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates employs dialectical techniques to challenge certain aspects of his interlocutors' positions which results in a gradual approximation towards truth. These techniques have come to be known as Socratic reasoning or the Socratic method.[3]
The Hegelian Dialectic
There are various ways in which one might come across the concept of dialectics. One might encounter the concept in philosophy, history, or law. One of the more common forms is the process named for the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, though the exact ideas and names for the parts of the process precede Hegel.
Hegel built on the existing tradition of dialectic. However, rather than utilize the method by pitting persons against one another in dialogue as Plato did, the Hegelian method often consisted of competing concepts or ideas. Here, Hegel was adding to the work done by other roughly contemporary philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottlieb Ficte. While the process is typically known by Hegel’s name, the naming used for the parts of the process were those used by Fichte. The process posits that a specific proposal (thesis) would be put into direct opposition with an antagonist (antithesis) to then produce a new concept or idea (synthesis).[4] This synthesis then becomes a new thesis that can be placed into opposition against a new antithesis, leading to a new synthesis. Accordingly, this process could continue ad infinitum. (This short video explains this simply).
The Hegelian Dialectic in our World
Dialectics can certainly occur organically. They can also occur deliberately but with a sincere goal of enabling the emergence of truth rather than obfuscation. However, when we typically speak of the Hegelian Dialectic today, it's in reference to an engineered construct created for the purposes of manipulation, often on mass scale. In other words, instead of a match consisting of two chess players in competition with one another (as with an organic dialectic), there is one grand player manipulating the actions of both sides. Continuing with the analogy, the targets of the manipulation are like the chess pieces on both sides on the board. They find themselves pitted against the opposing team without realizing that at the top someone is responsible for the maneuvers that each side performs. The more prominent pieces on the board may know they answer to someone else, but the other pieces may have no idea that their side as well as the other are both controlled.
One well known manifestation of the Hegelian Dialectic is in the “Problem > Reaction > Solution” construct. By way of example, this can easily be seen in the covid op:
Problem: Narrative of Deadly Virus
Reaction: Extreme Panic and Fear
Solution: Lockdowns, Masks, Testing, Injections, and Mandates
We also see dialectics at play in domestic and international politics. The American political system is dominated by two parties. The Republicans and Democrats agree far more than they disagree though much attention is focused on the areas in which they appear to aggressively disagree. In theory, focusing everyone’s attention on the disputed ideas makes sense, but it also creates the illusion that these parties represent wildly divergent political philosophies. They each react to the other side's policies which then causes the further entrenchment of each side's supporters.
This Hegelian Dialectic can also be used to pit different countries or regions against one another. In this case, the respective populations of each side will mobilize against the other and believe they have good reasons for doing so. In extreme cases, this can be used to create war.
Since the tension must be maintained between the two sides, we see that the truth is often weaponized by each side against the other. This means that each side will often rightly attack the wayward positions that the other side holds. This can easily fool people. Their support becomes galvanized on their side because they feel a desire to crusade against the “wrongness” of the other side.
This strategy works because it's quite natural for us to feel a greater sense of belonging to one side over another when presented with a given dichotomy. The danger in this comes when both sides are controlled by those central controllers who have fabricated the dialectical division in the first place. In this case, our identification with one side over the other may only feed the dialectical beast rather than bringing about the outcome we desire.
Light vs. Dark
Imagery using the juxtaposition of light and dark can sometimes be used as a dialectical trick masquerading as an analogy for good vs. evil. The war we find ourselves in presently is fundamentally a spiritual war, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone knows we’re at war. And for those who do recognize that we’re at war, they may not necessarily know who the enemy is or where he may be.
I'm not a dualistic thinker when it comes to light and dark (or good and evil, or truth and lies). I've explained this before (here and here). Within science, we don't grant ontological equality to light and darkness. More fundamentally, we should not grant them ontological equality in our theology or philosophy either.
Light and dark aren’t exactly opposites though we often refer to them as such in everyday parlance. Strictly speaking, darkness is the absence of light rather than its polar opposite. At some point in a physical science class in middle school, we all learned this.
Many times when I hear people refer to our situation as moving from “dark to light,” I can't help but think that the “light” being referenced is a fake light.[5] Therefore, what I often think is being described is a shift from darkness to false light, much in the same way we are warned in the Bible of the concept of an “angel of light.” People can easily become confused about the idea or concept of light. Light is rightly associated with God (its ultimate source) but this idea can easily become confusing. A false light can easily be mistaken for the true light. (A good description of this dark to light phenomenon is located here. I don’t agree with all the claims, but I am in general accord with the author’s conclusions).
Within this view, both sides (light and dark) are controlled by the evil global leaders (though not every member of the two sides may even realize that and therefore their opposition toward the other side may be genuine). After all, the light side doesn’t represent real light or truth. The division between the light and dark sides is fabricated and meant to fool the masses in the same way that our notional chessmaster in the analogy above controlled both sides of the game. This is right in line with the occult principles on which the globalist leaders operate.
As there are massive levels of deception currently at work, the propaganda is so pervasive that everyone is affected. There's no real way to get away from it all. Without a willingness to question one's own paradigms and assumptions, there's no way to combat the onslaught of manipulation. The best that one can do is limit exposure to it while grounding oneself in truth.
The biggest problem today is that some people still believe that there are clearly drawn lines of good guys and bad guys. Unfortunately, it's typically not that simple. Just like in the world of espionage, there are people operating within multiple layers of deception. Many of the supposed “good guys” are as evil as the bad guys. They're managed at the top by the same players but have different roles to play in managing the public.
That doesn't mean that there aren't good guys. It does mean that these good guys are those who have typically transcended the dialectic so as to find themselves no longer a part of either side. To use an obvious example, we can't state that all Democrats (or Republicans) are bad, just as we also can't state that all Republicans (or Democrats) are good. If there are candidates worth supporting at any given level of government, it's going to be despite their party affiliation not because of it. Or perhaps they’re affiliated with no party. An example from politics is admittedly limited because the system is so thoroughly controlled.
In fact, I believe that the proper dialectical way to view what is going on now in our world is through the light vs dark lens while understanding that the light referenced is a false, deceptive light. It is inaccurate to subscribe to more limited dialectical views such as Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal, or (in my view) even the West vs. Russia and China. A more accurate description, in my view, is to try to see the players that are on Team Dark and those that are on Team (False) Light. We should note however, that not all players know to which team they have been assigned though the ones at the top probably do.
Sadly, this dialectical confusion works. The imagery of the light and dark also works. It becomes highly useful precisely because it takes the truth behind the phenomenon of light and distorts it. Rather than point people to the true light, it offers an artificial light and many people can't tell the difference.
We should be skeptical about the way that the winds are currently blowing. I often wonder if we're being set up for a potential takeover by the false light side. If so, this could look a lot like a victory. It will certainly be touted as such. The dark side will appear to be defeated. Ostensibly, the republic will have been saved. Freedom will be re-secured. In reality, however, this could be a ruse because, after all, the two sides are controlled by the same masters.
One of my concerns is that the covid op has been deployed as a maneuver which will facilitate the transfer of power from the dark side to the false light side. The destruction of many of our institutions may have been “baked into the cake” per se. Once people realize the government, Big Pharma, and the medical establishment conspired against them, they may lose faith in many of these institutions and cry for their destruction. The destruction of these corrupt institutions (that are really criminal cartels) will be presented as the victory of the light side over the dark side that controlled these “cartels.” However, this could be a planned Hegelian reaction that will usher in something new…and potentially worse.
We need to be watchful, discerning, and perceptive.
By all means, we should clamor for accountability for those who have committed massive crimes. By all means, we should cry out for restitution for those harmed.
By all means, we should demand massive reform of some institutions and the wholesale abolition of others.
However, in doing so, we need to be careful that we're not permitting ourselves to be baited into a “victory” that turns out to be further enslavement.
If you like this content, please consider subscription and/or a tip. Any support is highly appreciated.
Notes & Citations:
[1]. Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2010), 213.
[2]. Arthur Herman, The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2014), 435.
[3]. Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2010), 211-4.
[4]. As can be seen in the Stanford Encyclopedia entry that I linked to above in the text, there are various applications of dialectics. Though the Hegelian Dialectic is well known, it should be noted that it is not the only application. Also, a full explanation of something as complex as Hegel’s Dialectic can not be rendered in this short post. Fortunately, it is not necessary to do so for my purposes here. Hegel is difficult enough to understand as it is, but for those who would like to explore the Hermetic origins of some of his thoughts, a great resource is Glenn Alexander Magee’s Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition.
[5]. QAnon is certainly “baseless” but that’s not merely because the article from Business Insider (that I cited above) says it is. I cited this particular article because it sheds light (see what I did there) on the exact dialectic I’m referring to. It highlights the engineered, dialectical tension between the light and dark sides. QAnon represents the false light side and touts itself as such. In my mind, this is deliberate. Many of those who attack QAnon are either part of, or are influenced knowingly or unknowingly, by the dark side of the dialectic.
In this case, the critiques against QAnon are correct but that doesn’t make all of QAnon’s opponents the “good guys.” The two sides are supposed to attack one another to keep the dialectical tension. The best course of action is to step outside the dialectic and see the two sides for what they are two components of the same dialectical engine.
Personally, I think QAnon is a psyop similar to Operation Trust which was used in the early days of the Soviet Union. Good information on Operation Trust can be found in Anatoliy Golitsyn’s New Lies for Old, an invaluable resource even if one disagrees with the central claim that the Soviet Union faked its own demise to fool the West. Again, even if the book is propaganda (as some believe, perhaps rightly- I offer no opinion here), much can be gleaned from it as long as it is read critically (cautiously and skeptically).
Brad, you are spot on as to the desired outcome. I think they want to discredit government so much as to have us demand its dismantling, to be replaced with a scientific dictatorship, aka Technocracy. This video goes deeper into the dialectic, showing it not as simply static, but in a vacuum. By the time we figure it out, they are light years ahead of us. https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/how-the-marxist-dialectic-is-attacking-you-an-introduction-to-the-dialectic/