Moving the social Overton Window
Our society is so polarized that it is almost impossible to have reasoned, give-and-take conversations about politics or current events without contentious argument. We have gone past the social threshold of tolerance. Listening to and tolerating the opinions of others – we might actually learn something from other people! – is not acceptable anymore. Fighting the “other side” is the correct approach. However, the complete polarization of society is a relatively new phenomenon in the post-World War 2 era.
The Law of Three and the Classical Dialectic
The process of listening to others – the exchange of ideas – has been called a dialectic. The American Heritage Dictionary defines dialectic as
1. The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.
2. The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.
3. The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces...” (the rest of the definition is incomprehensible).American Heritage dictionary, 5th edition
The classical dialectical method is a conversation between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation.
The process of thesis – antithesis –> synthesis is a dynamic process based on the Law of Three, which has been understood for thousands of years. Gurdjieff said,
Everything in the world obeys the Law of Three, everything existing came into being in accordance with this law. Combinations of positive and negative principles can produce new results, different from the first and the second, only if a third force comes in.”“The Law of Three” at https://ggurdjieff.com/law-of-three/
Geometrically, the Law of Three can be represented by an equilateral triangle. The equilateral triangle is the fundamental and simplest regular polygon (a two dimensional figure). The equilateral triangle is a triangle with 3 sides that are equal in length, and 3 internal angles (60 degrees) that are also equal.
The Law of Three is based mathematically in harmony and equality, not conflict. However, there is always a dark side to human concepts based in harmony. Or, more accurately, dark minds pervert and twist the truth.
The Perverted Dialectic
Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels used the Law of Three and the classical dialectic in an eristic manner. The word eristic comes from Eris, the Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord, and refers to assertions that aim to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. An eristic discourse is aimed at defeating the other side by getting an opponent to agree to negate something he or she believes. The eristic “dialogue” manifests itself in the struggle session, wherein forceful criticism is used to change a person’s beliefs. This tactic was adopted by Mao Tse-tung’s fanatical followers, the Red Guard, during China’s Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976). In China during that time, a mob might surround your house, drag you into the street, and begin to criticize you. You were expected to agree and criticize yourself. This is the essence of the struggle session, as you decide whether to hold onto your beliefs or give in to the mob. Very often physical violence (as well as verbal violence) was used in order to forcefully get a person to change their beliefs.
(George Orwell wrote about this in his book, 1984.) This process is, of course, a perversion of the classical dialectic, which was a harmonious method of exchanging ideas and searching for the truth.
Modernly, materialists and secular activists use a perverted version of the classical dialectic to move a society to a desired social goal. I call this social engineering. The first step in this process is to destroy the culture and traditions of a society. The old society must be broken in order to create a new one.
This is done through unrelenting and unremitting criticism of a society’s cultural norms. A politicized version of Critical Theory is the engine social engineers use to move a society toward a “new normal.” It uses what I call a perverted dialectic to move people off the old cultural norms and into new ones.
The perverted dialectic can be used to successfully take down the structural elements of a culture you want to destroy. Here, the thesis is the established cultural norms the social engineer wants to change. The antithesis is a “revolutionary” concept (a perversion) that strategically redefines the key terms involved, and the synthesis is the negation of cultural norms so that they are understood by the society in terms of the social engineer’s desired result.
This is what Mao Tse-tung did in China to create authoritarian control over 1.4 billion people. Using the perverted dialectic, he set children on their parents for not having “correct” ideas, he destroyed classical Chinese culture and religion and spirituality, and replaced it with a materialist, fascist, authoritarian control system. Modernly, the Chinese Communist Party is the primary example of a collectivist, totalitarian, technocratic surveillance state that stifles different opinions and demands obedience. It is the kind of State our elites want to create, and are attempting to create now.
Here is an example provided by James Lindsay that I got from his appearance a couple years ago on the Joe Rogan Experience.
You are a shopkeeper. Two people enter your store, one is black and the other white. Whom do you serve first? If you serve the white person first you are a racist by definition. What happens if you serve the black person first? You are STILL a racist! Why? Because by serving the black person first you are trying to get them out of the store faster.
In a perverted dialectic, the shopkeeper (or substitute any targeted person in society) is guilty no matter what they do. Here, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #12 is employed: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Thesis: “Shopkeepers want to be nice to their customers so they can sell more products and make more money.”
Antithesis: “That shopkeeper is a racist.”
Synthesis: “Racist shopkeepers should be shut down. Boycott the store!”
Here the social engineer, using a politicized Critical Theory, insistently holds to their position (does not compromise one inch) no matter how unreasonable or irrational their demands are, and constantly repeats their criticisms. The synthesis then moves to the antithesis. This tactic is highly effective because human beings want harmony and agreement, and people don’t like to be criticized. It essentially uses the lower emotions, fear, anger, and hatred, to move opinions.
(Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals outlines this process. #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” #10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” #12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”)
A politicized Critical Theory and the perverted dialectic essentially use Orwellian methods of redefining language, and violence, to force harmony into conflict. It is perverted, but highly effective.
Example: Let’s say you want to redefine what “justice” is. How would you go about this?
Well, first you would shift the meaning of justice – the classical idea that individuals have the right to fair treatment under the law in an impartial way, regardless of race, color, or creed – to an eristic concept of “social justice” based on the idea that the law is not and can never be impartial and so inevitably favors certain social groups over others. Therefore, certain classes in society are automatically “oppressors” and other social classes are “victims.” And so (the social engineer says) the law and its application must be tilted in favor of certain groups in order to level the playing field. Of course, the definition of who is the victim of injustice is defined to reflect the goals of the social engineer. The goals of the social engineer are always “social justice” goals (and thus cannot be criticized), and the traditional concept of justice is always racist and unfair.
It’s a brilliant and effective way to move the Overton Window toward the desired social goal.
Thesis: “Individuals have the right to fair treatment under the law in an impartial way, regardless of race, color, or creed.”
Antithesis: “The law always favors certain social groups over others.”
Synthesis: “The law is inherently racist and must be changed to favor disadvantaged social groups.”
Constant criticism of the accepted idea of justice is the mechanism the perverted dialectic uses to shift perspectives. By constantly hammering the society you want to destroy, the social engineer provides the energy or momentum that drives its goals in the intended direction. Like a rock poised on the edge of a hill, it is first necessary to overcome the social inertia of present belief systems. This is done through social media and mass media with unrelenting, repetitive criticism. (Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister: “It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”)
Once social criticism becomes established, momentum swings to the side of the social critic, and societal “readjustment” gets easier and easier. This is done by NEVER compromising, or being reasonable. Fear and hatred are the energetic drivers of the perverted dialectic. Persistent opponents, of course, are simply censored, thrown in jail, or raided, and their documents, health records, phones, computers, and passports are seized.
This can be done over and over. For example, the word “merit” can be redefined if the social engineer can promote the idea that the structural basis of society itself is corrupt and unjust against marginalized communities. All that is necessary is to redefine the term “marginalized community.” In this way you can move the marginalized to the center and stigmatize the majority. You can marginalize those who believe in ideas like family, fairness, spirituality and religion, and meritocracy, into subordinate positions (because they are “racists,” “fascists,” or whatever your favorite critical term is).
The clever social engineer can redefine “merit” to mean an indoctrinated, politicized view that merit itself doesn’t exist because it is actually societal privilege; and therefore, those who can’t demonstrate competence are discriminated against. Constructive ideas like merit are twisted, denigrated, and redefined using critical labels such as “ableist.” In other words, if you are good at what you do you and are paid accordingly, you are “ableist” because so many marginalized and deserving people are not. Rather than promoting a system where everyone is given equal opportunity, the social engineer – whose goal is societal destruction – replaces those who can competently do things with politicized incompetents who follow the Party Line. However, it is also a brilliant way to place a very small vocal minority in positions of power.
The perverted dialectic works because the social engineer’s arguments ALWAYS have some basis in fact. Societal privilege and injustice DO exist in society, and they probably always will. However, the purpose and intent of the social engineer is the key. The classical dialectic is constructed to work toward positive and harmonious solutions. The intent of the social engineer with a perverted dialectic is social destruction.
It’s dark versus light. We are in a spiritual war for the hearts, minds, and souls of 7 billion human beings.
The goal of the dark is to destroy the light, to destroy a society, not to build it up. This is what the “new normal,” Transhumanism, and the Great Reset are all about, and it is precisely what is happening in society today. The people doing this are undertaking a massive “reordering” of U.S. society.
The dark is afraid of the light and must attack it. However, if you understand the Law of Three and the perverted dialectic you can understand what our society is going through today, and not succumb to the antithetical fear porn and hatred of the social engineer.