Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Understanding How The Hegelian Dialectic Is Transforming The World To Bring In The New World Order

Friday, March 22, 2013 6:18
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Womens Group -

The purpose of this newsletter is to bring to you an interview with Dean Gotcher, President, Institution for Authority Research.

In the last four years while covering the United Nations, I have come face to face, on a regular basis with communism, fascism, and socialism. I found, as a result of my own ignorance, that I could not identify them and therefore not identify the true meaning of what was being put forth in all of the documents I was reading. While I understood the goal of world government to be behind everything the United Nations was doing, I did not know how — what modus operandi — they would use to convert people from a capitalistic system where the individual is the master and molder of his own destiny undergirded by personal property rights reinforced his claim to that destiny, to one of complete control where man did what the State directed, when the State directed, and in the process gave up his freedoms and private property so the State could better direct its use. I then found that the “modus operandi” being used for this transition was called the “Hegelian Dialectic” which is comprised of three parts: the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

I immediately understood that the concepts being espoused at the UN were not concepts which I had grown up with or had been taught. I saw that everything at the UN was constantly changing. There were constant problems. It appeared that the UN could not fix for they were always “refixing.” Little did I know “the fixing” was part of the real agenda. I first heard the word “consensus” in Cairo when I attended my first UN Conference in September, 1994. When a journalist asked for a definition, he was provided with a ten minute answer which didn’t make sense but included the phrase, “everyone agreed on something in the document and therefore that was consensus.” Another word I heard at these meetings was “diversity.”

When I covered the United Nations Social Summit in Copenhagen in March, 1995, then Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali said that change had three steps, “Profound change, cosmetic change, and status quo” but he was offering an alternative, “Constant change.” He said, “you need continuous change…to act…you must maintain a mobilization between all three for continuous change.” It was at that conference that I first heard the phrase, “paradigm shift.”

According to Dean Gotcher, an expert in philosophies, the Hegelian Dialectic is used with diverse groups to “dialogue to consensus.” According to Dean, Hegel’s process, which was revolutionary in his day, has now become the basic tool for developing and supporting the universal worldview of the New World Order. All forms of socialism (fascism, communism, existentialism, positivism, pragmatism….globalism) are unthinkable without the aspects of Hegels formula. ”

In the book, Spiritual Politics by Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson, (Ballantine Books, New York, 1994) the Dalai Lama writes in the Forward, “Narrow-mindedness and self-centered thinking may have served us well in the past, but today will only lead to disaster. We can overcome such attitudes through a combination of education and training.” The authors write that spiritual politics is tied to “the Ageless Wisdom which is the “golden thread” that connects the esoteric or hidden teachings that underlie the ancient Chaldean, Egyptian, Hebrew, Hindu, Greek, Chinese, Buddhist, Christian and Islamic traditions. These truths were handed down through certain disciple or religious groups such as the Kabbalists, Druids, Essenes, Sufis, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians and Freemasons.” (p.15)

Furthermore, they cite the synthesis in the Hegelian Dialectic as being the process whereby “we have to go to a higher level and transcend the polarities. It was Hegel’s view that all things unfold in a continuing evolutionary process whereby each idea or quality (the thesis) inevitably brings forth its opposite (the antithesis). From that interaction, a third state emerges in which the opposites are integrated, overcome, and fulfilled in a richer and higher synthesis. This synthesis then becomes the basis for another dialectical process of opposition and synthesis. Hegel believed that the creative stress of opposing positions was essential for developing higher states of consciousness. In the moment of synthesis, the opposites are both preserved and transcended, negated and fulfilled.” (p.88)(emphasis added)

I believe that in order to counter-act the evil which is taking place around us, that we must understand the process– modus operandi–which is being used on us.

The following excerpt from The Worldly Philosophers by Robert L. Heilbroner, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953, 134-139, is provided for your further understanding of how the Hegelian Dialectic was used in Marxism and Communism. You will see that the dialectic is economic, political, spiritual, and social in scope.

“Marx found himself swept up in the great philosophical debate of the day. The philosopher Hegel had propounded a revolutionary scheme and the conservative German universities found themselves split wide over it. Change, according to Hegel, was the rule of life. Every idea irrepressibly bred its opposite and the two merged into a synthesis which in turn produced its own contradiction. And history, said Hegel, was nothing but the expression of this flux of conflicting and resolving ideas as they fired now this and then that nation. Change–dialectical change–was immanent in human affairs. The philosophy of Marx and Engels, “was to take the name of dialectical materialism: dialectical because it incorporated Hegel’s idea of inherent change, and materialism because it grounded itself not in the world of ideas, but on the terrain of social and physical environment. ‘The materialist conception of history,’ wrote Engels many years later “starts from the principle that production, and with production the exchange of its products, is the basis of every social order; that in every society which has appeared in history the distribution of the products, and with it the division of society into classes or estates, is determined by what is produced and how it is produced and how the product is exchanged. According to this conception, the ultimate causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in the minds of men, in their increasing insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought not in the philosophy but in the economic of the epoch concerned.”

“Materialism by itself would reduce ideas to mere passive accompaniments of economic activity. That was not Marx’s contention. For the new theory was dialectical as well as materialist: it envisaged change, constant and inherent change; and in that never-ending flux the ideas emanating from one period would help to shape another. “men make their own history,” wrote Marx. But the dialectical–the changing–aspect of this theory of history did not depend merely on the interplay of ideas and social structures. There was another and far more powerful agent at work. The economic world itself was changing; the ultimate reality on which the structure of ideas was built was itself constantly in flux.

For example, the isolated markets of the Middle Ages began to lock fingers under the impetus of exploration and political unification, and a new commercial world was born. The old hand mill was replaced by the steam mill under the impetus of invention, and a new form of social organization called the factory came into being. In both cases, the ultimate reality of economic life itself changed its form, and as it did, it forced a new social adaptation from the community in which it was imbedded. But the process of social change was not merely a matter of new inventions pressing on old institutions: it was a matter of new classes displacing old ones, for each society is organized into a class structure, into aggregates of men who stand in some common relationship–to the existing form of production. And social change threatens all of that. As the technical conditions of production change–the old classes find that their accustomed situation is changing too; those on top may find the ground cut from under them, while those who were on the bottom may be carried higher….Hence conflict develops. The classes whose position is jeopardized fight the classes whose position is enhanced: the feudal lord fights the rising merchant, and the guild master despises the young capitalist. And what did this theory augur for the present? It pointed to revolution–inevitable revolution. For capitalism, according to this analysis, must also consist of a technical base of economic reality and a superstructure of ideas. And if its technical base was evolving then necessarily, its superstructure must be just to increasing strain. And that is exactly what Marx and Engels saw in 1848. The technical base of capitalism–and its anchor in reality–was industrial production. Its superstructure was the system of private property. The conflict lay in the fact that the two were incompatible. Why? Because industrial production–the actual making of goods–was a highly organized, integrated, interdependent process, whereas private property was the most highly individualist of concepts. Hence the superstructure and the base clashed: factories demanded social planning and private property abhorred it; capitalism had become so complex that it needed direction… The result was that capitalism must destroy itself. Secondly, capitalism would unknowingly breed its own successor. Within its great factories it would not only create the technical base for socialism–mass production–but it would create as well a trained and disciplined class who would be the agents of socialism–the embittered proletariat. By its own inner dynamic, capitalism would produce its own downfall, and in the process, it would nourish its own enemy…For Marx and Engles, the dialectic led to the future and that future, as revealed by the Communist Manifesto, pointed to an inevitable communist revolution which this same dialect would produce….”

The conflict between the needs of the individual and the philosophy of the community over the individual (socialism) is seen in the statement by former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali at the UN Conference on Human Rights in 1993 in Vienna. Referring to human rights, he said, “[it] brings us face to face with the most challenging dialectical conflict ever, between ‘identity’ and otherness, between the ‘myself’ and ‘others.’ Thus the human rights that we proclaim…can be brought about only if we transcend ourselves….to find our common essence beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary differences, our ideological and cultural barriers.” It is the dialectic process which leads to the philosophical changes we are seeing in society and which are evident by the following.

The Hegelian Dialectic is being used and is part of Goals 2000 and Outcome Based Education. It is being used by corporations, churches, seminaries, Christian groups, our government, environmental and pro-abortion non- governmental organizations, the military, and the media. Where does it come from? It originated in the Garden of Eden. The following is taken from an interview with Dean Gotcher. Note: I have freely highlighted the following text.

INTERVIEW

Joan Veon: Dean, you have been going around the country talking about a process which all Americans need to understand. Could you first tell me a little bit about your background and how you stumbled into what you’re doing now?

Dean Gotcher: Well, I went to college at Christian College to earn a teacher’s degree, not knowing that I was going to be trained in the dialectic process. I was thought I was going to have a traditional education, but in the late 60s there was big movement with Maslow and Rogers and others to move education to the Transformational Dialectic Structure. So, by my senior year I realized that I had to either return to my faith, or go with the process. (Abraham Maslow is the creator of “Maslow’s Hierarchy” which I remember from Psychology 101. Maslow was pro-UN, a World Federalist, a one worlder as he believed the world would not be at peace until nations give up their sovereignty.)

I made that decision to go with the Word of God which meant I not only had to repent of my sin and my rebellion, which is a process I thought had justified for me, but I also had to repent on my teacher training. I then realized I couldn’t teach, I was damaged goods and so I went off to seminary thinking that I would get my head straightened out and my relationship with the Lord was restored. I enjoyed the Greek New Testament. but then we got into higher thinking skills. I studied men like Roff (?) and Wellhousen–intelligent men who decided the Word of God was the result of the dialectic process. Wellhousen’s dying words were “I’ve lost my faith.” So, I realized that ministry was going the way of the Dialectic and I didn’t want to be a part of it. I left, went into construction, and raised my family for several years. I ended up going back to the University where I focused on European history and philosophy. I had one professor who earned his doctorate on how the youth in Germany were restructured for Hitler’s purposes. From him I took every Russian, German, European history class I could. Then I took several classes from a professor that had earned his doctor’s degree on the French Revolution. Did you know contemporary education is built on the dialectic, [which is] the foundation of the French Revolution. Then I took a law class when at Oral Roberts University where John Whitehead taught a constitutional class. We went through 1600 pages of Supreme Court decisions which helped me to understand the foundation our nation was built on. Another class was from a professor who had earned his doctor’s degree from Harvard. We studied the Politburo System in Communist Yugoslavia.

It was not until educational reform came to Oklahoma ten years ago that I realized these classes were not in vain. I saw everything that I was trained in happening before my eyes!

I went back to the university and have read over 600 social psychology books in five years trying to find out for myself what kind of procedure was being used to change our kids and how it was being applied. I reintroduce myself to the dialectic process and its application. Since then I’ve been crossing the country, explaining the procedure of behavior change, how it’s done in the classroom, the workplace, and the political realm including transformational outcome based education, total quality management, and school to work.

Veon: Dean, help me understand what the process is and where you are seeing it in society today?

Gotcher: Well, the process is built on three stages which are more complex than this. There is thesis, which is simple, that’s you and your position and facts based on what you believe. Antithesis is somebody who’s different than you. The moment the two of you who are different are in the same room, there’s a potential relationship there. However, the only way you can get to it is synthesis [agreement in the relationship]. You and the other person have to put aside your differences for the sake of a relationship and try to find facts or elements of your belief systems that are in harmony. That’s socialism. Eventually if that becomes your agenda– the dialectic way of thinking–you have a socialist cosmic mind which puts aside anything that gets in the way of the relationship. That, by the way, means any information that’s introduced that breaks up human relationship is impractical and is irrational. This then is John Dewey’s instrumentalism approach to this process.

[When we look at] the organizations across this nation — it’s more like who’s not involved. It’s so pervasive. [It was] John Dewey who introduced this to our nation to deliver it from its traditional way of thinking back in the 20s and 30s.

Veon: Traditional way of being . . .

Gotcher: Right. Accountability to a higher authority. The patriarchal way means children are to obey their parents. That’s being rejected –its an old fashioned way of thinking. Now it’s partnership and dialoging to consensus. Finding common ground through the use of consensus– that’s synthesis By the way, in a meeting we find that we are to focus in on what we can accept for sake of a relationship. The church is really more troubling to me as far as its involvement in it. The state and the government has been in this process for some time, but the religious community is being pulled into it. I really don’t know if there’s going to be a turn around without God’s direct intervention.

Veon: Give me an example of how the church is being pulled in. What is the church doing that reflects this new type of thinking, the dialectic?

Gotcher: Well, this whole process is built on relationships and the building of relationships. Scripture talks about unity and loving one another. But you need to realize that the Gospel is the Good News. It is not unity, it is not hope, it’s Jesus Christ. And so, the hope of the Gospel is found in Christ. The unity of the Gospel is found in Christ. So, we must look to Christ as the source of our relationship. And so relationship is based upon Him.

Well, what’s happened is that if unity is the objective, with all the different interpretations of who Christ is, you then have to go into the Word of God and find what Scripture has in common with Buddhism, Moslem, and all the other religions of the world. Once you find what you have in common, you then redefine Christ for the sake of a relationship. And so, we’ve turned it around. We have learned to redefine the Gospel for the sale of unity, for the sake of hope, for the sake of peace. God’s not going there. God knows who He is, where He came from, and where He’s going. He’s clearly explained that to us in His Word, the Bible. Let it change us, we can’t go in and change it. And so, that’s what the religious organizations have been pulled into. People go to seminary not knowing that when they go there and take counseling strategies that its not “Adam’s Counseling,” which is Biblical but psychology, sociology, and anthropology. They are learning how to read the Word in order to define God’s Word in changing times. Redefining it for the sake of meeting the felt needs within the community and drawing people in [God does not change].

Well, if you use felt needs, which is our fallen human nature, as your agenda, you have changed your belief system. If your agenda is to bring people to the Lord Jesus Christ, you’re going to proclaim the Law which brings them to realization that they are a sinner. The only way they can have their sins covered is through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ the Messiah. You don’t come to God through feelings, you come to God through facts, through the truth of his Word, the thesis. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” He didn’t say, “I am the feeling.” And so, what ministry and seminaries have done is to teach ministers how to learn the dialectic process for the sake of relationship within the church who then bring it to the church. In their ignorance, the ministers are processing the church using the Hegelian Dialectic.

Veon: Give me an example of what falls under thesis and synthesis and antithesis and how it’s being used in society.

Gotcher: Well, the thesis is the traditional “Thou shalt not” structure. You tell your child, this is right, that’s wrong. And if they do what’s wrong, they’re punished. If they do what’s right, there’s reward. You have taught the difference between evil and good. This is dualism. In other words, if a person behaves incorrectly, they are wrong and if they behave correctly, then they are good. Now, the behavior is based upon God’s standards, His Laws.

Human standards is what psychology and sociology have done in the ministry. It’s not built upon God’s standards. We all fall short of the Glory of God. We’ve all broken those laws. They are not changeable. We can’t justify the changing of them to make them user friendly for the continuation of relationship with mankind and God. We realize the hopelessness of saving ourselves and so we realize that it’s in Christ that we receive our salvation. That’s contrition and that is what is being left out today. Now it’s social sin. It’s bad behavior based upon how we relate with one another. You’re not loving, you’re not tolerant. The primary agenda of Christianity is that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ means you might stand alone. The fact that you and the other person disagree has to be determined by your relationship with Jesus and the Word of God. That is the ground you stand on. You don’t change His law to save a relationship with anyone. That’s compromise, the dialectic process.

Read More: womensgroup.org

2013-03-22 06:14:42

Source: http://www.oneworldchronicle.com/?p=12431



Source:

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.