The True Dialectic v the False Dialectic

The American Heritage defintion of dialectic

It is "the art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments"

So I decided to write a post about this. The reason is that I see the same thing over and over again. People on the "conservative" side keep using the term "right" in reference to themselves. It so happens that the dictionary's third definition listed also states that... "the Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces". Therefore, the common usage of the term "right wing" as opposed to "left wing" is of a dialectic process of the Marxian kind. My argument has always been that this is a mistake, and those on the conservative side should never use it in reference to themselves. It's a mistake because it accepts the Marxian model. Why accept it all, if truth is your goal?

Note that the original defintion was a means at arriving at truth. But the Marxists are not committed to truth, but to POWER. Therefore, it is a hijacking of the original meaning of the word, and it NOT used to get at the truth, but for some other reason not intended for it originally.

Ronald Reagan understood this, but it seems that almost nobody else on the "conservative" side seems to. Hence, we had a Renaissance of sorts while Reagan was President. Once he was gone, we have gone back to the Dark Ages of unreason and untruth.

Take anything under the sun, and the political left is for what is false and against what is true. Just name it. The latest shiny thing? Ukraine? It seems that NATO is in violation of its treaty on many counts, but we are to believe that they are somehow in the right for interfering in Ukraine. The link shows that we are not in the spirit of the treaty, and that if we get a major war, the NATO side may be more at fault than the Russians. Why? The NATO arrangement was originally defensive in nature. NATO isn't in defensive mode. Ukraine is not in NATO, is not a member state. To aid them in any way is in violation of the treaty.

Other examples abound. The COVID lockdowns were supposedly meant for only two weeks, but lasted for two years. The tyrants would like them to stay forever. The point is that it was the latest shiny thing meant to DIVERT the public FROM the truth--- as opposed to leading the public TO the truth. In a sense, it is a perversion of the true meaning of the word to say that it was "science". There was nothing scientific about it at all. It was a political act. Therefore, it was falsity masquerading as truth, for ulterior motives. The same structure as the perversion of the word "dialectic", which was originally meant as a means to TRUTH, but in practice, is being used to do something entirely different. It is the continual promotion of false things.

Perhaps the greatest of the deceits is to call men "women", and vice versa. In the "good old days", that was the basic test of sanity. If you couldn't tell the difference, you were crazy. But the opposite is supposedly true today. But why? For the same reason that the word "dialectic" was hijacked in the first place. It is to promoted a political outcome. It is the Marxist perversion of the dialectic---which was to get at the truth.

The bright and shiny things are the primary tactics. We now have a Ministry of Truth. Never mind that it is totally illegal. The First Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law." There is no legal basis for the move. These people are not devoted to truth nor to the law, but the exact opposite. A "Ministry of Truth" is the exact opposite. Whatever they say should be questioned as to its veracity on a continual basis, since the truth is not on their side. Nor are they on the side of truth, because it does not favor them.

So many on the "conservative" side seem to practice the dialectic, but they use the word incorrectly when they refer to themselves as being on the "right". It is self-defeating to try to argue a point with people who aren't the least bit interested in the truth, but are after something else quite different. You have to wonder why "conservatives", who should be in favor of the original meanings of words, such as dialectic, would join up with those who so often are trying to lead us away to some other strange place where nothing makes sense anymore. How can anything make sense when everything is a lie?

The True Dialectic is what it originally meant--a way to arrive at truth. The way the Marxists use it is for something false. When you use their tactics, you are part of the problem. The False Dialectic is being used as a weapon against our country. It would be nice if we would stop helping our adversaries in our quest for truth. The truth would be the True Dialectic, which is what we inherited. It is a matter of freedom versus tyranny, just as Reagan said. It is not a matter of right v. left. That is what the deceivers want you to say. Then why the hell would anybody on the side of truth go along with those who deceive? It is a perplexing thing. Or they just stupid, or are they lying to us too?