Hegelian Dialectics – Powerful Instrument – An Analogy

Deutsch

The Hegelian dialectic is a term that hardly ever appears in everyday life. However, this principle is ubiquitous, almost all-encompassing and extremely powerful. With Hegelian dialectics, entire population groups can be pushed into different camps in order to achieve specific goals. This also with the consent of the “convinced” majority.

Hegel’s principle of splitting

If you hear or read something about the so-called Hegelian dialectic, this term is very abstract. The intellectual author of this dialectic is Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel ( August 27, 1770, Stuttgart – November 14, 1831, Berlin). Hegel was a philosopher and is considered one of the most influential of his profession. In Wikipedia, however, the principle of division, according to the motto “divide et impera”, is not very much to read. Only one connection mentioned could be traced back to the principle of his developed dialectics and this is even particularly interesting.

After Hegel’s death, two groups of people with different ideologies formed, the so-called “Old Hegelians” and the so-called “Young Hegelians”. Old Hegelians were considered “right-wing” and these included Karl Rosenkranz and Eduard Gans. The Young Hegelians were classified as “left” and among them were Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx. This fact as the origin of the political “right-left division” sounds much more plausible than the thesis about the original seating arrangement in the Reichstag in the Weimar era.

Practical examples can make an abstract concept tangible. The following is a hypothesis for the representation of the principle according to Hegel’s dialectic. Parallels and correspondences to possibly actual circumstances are purely coincidental.

Analogy for Principle Hegelian Dialectics – A Hypothesis:

Let’s assume that a certain group of people is a thorn in the side of an institution and would like to erase them, make them disappear from the face of the earth. Simply declaring war on this group as an enemy is no longer promising in today’s society. The reasons for this could not be conveyed to the public because of their own “peacefulness” that they flaunted. What worked centuries ago, albeit without reaching the final goal, is simply hopeless today.

Therefore a new strategy is needed. This also includes the slow but constant reshaping of public thought, the creation of (fictitious) values ​​within a world order predominantly defined by fictions. The formation of the worldview begins already during education , from kindergarten to university. The majority of people are happy to accept this order, as they see many advantages in it. Tolerance is one of these defined values. This majority would refuse to pounce on the small group that the institution would happily send to the afterlife.

Creation of ideological groups

That is why this institution creates and supports a group with extreme views. At the same time, this institution is founding another group with also extreme but opposing views. Since this institution has long held the media, corporations and especially finance in its hands, it is child’s play to “inform” the public majority accordingly. Involving responsible politicians works just as easily with financial incentives or “reminders” of their past misconduct.

Cost doesn’t matter. That’s why the media spectacle can also resemble a tsunami from all directions. Where the money is very loose, there are “naturally” many people who want to grab it with both hands. It doesn’t matter at all whether this affects science, editorial offices or politics. Now that the media work is doing a great job, if necessary, one group and another group can be dosed, pushed or slowed down. After all, it is important to steer public opinion and, in particular, to polarize it.

Majority is polarized

The following of the first formed group is growing as well as that of the second group. There is a migration from the once neutral majority public to one of these two cultured ideology groups.

Created ideologies are initiated

These two groups, with extremely divergent ideologies, are now at odds with each other. The institution takes it to the top. The completely hostile groups slowly begin to bang their heads. The spectacle can take place at the regulars’ table as well as on an international level.

Creating miserable circumstances

In parallel with inciting the two groups, this institution creates adverse circumstances through its extensive sphere of influence. These include media-wide fear, impoverishment, food shortages, expropriation, war and other catastrophes. The evil affects both opposing groups equally.

Initiator also offers the solution

In this way, this institution increasingly panders as a possible solution to all problems. In the meantime, she has declared herself to be the “moral authority”. Mankind must finally come to their senses. But the way there has been prepared for a long time. If the circumstances are miserable enough, the “golden mean” will be gladly and gratefully accepted by all parties.

United humanity declares common adversary

Only the small group of people who would have liked to get rid of the institution oppose it. This group has not joined either one or the other ideological group. However, the institution now has the majority of the public on its side and the new “enemy” is thus quickly defined. Based on the media, this “circumstance” is quickly explained to the public united in peace. “Dangers to the common good, enemies of peace, troublemakers, disruptors and terrorists,” it will say about the defamation. Now this unpopular little group of people has everything and everyone against them. The struggle against this small group will be seen as a necessity for the peace that is desired, and everyone who participates believes that their actions are doing something good for the common good.

Hegelian dialectics are a tried and tested means

Since major social upheavals, which are actually directed against humanity, cannot be implemented without considerable resistance, the circumstances must be created for the plans to be accepted with approval. People literally have to want it. However, this is only a means to an end and “the end justifies the means”. The real but surreptitious aim of this institution is the elimination of this “small recalcitrant group”. In order for this to be possible in today’s “enlightened age”, people have to want it that way.

The principle of Hegelian dialectics has always worked well up to now and has also been a tried and tested means of unleashing many revolutions and even tangible wars.