What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[Ken]

Did you just say ideology and religion are the same thing?

Yes, when it comes to justifying authoritarianism such as in modern Iran. Shia Islam is the Ideology of the authoritarian rulers of Iran. That is why they call it the "Islamic Republic of Iran"

If you want to know how authoritarianism can be justified in purely secular terms, just ask Chairman Xi Jinping.

That is why they call it “The People’s Republic of China.”

Sure. But that doesn't mean that authoritarianism has socialist or Marxist roots.

It merely means that virtually any sort of ideology (religious or secular) can be weaponized in support of authoritarian rule. And that has always been the case from the Bronze Age to the present day.

[Falco Knotwise]

Yes, when it comes to justifying authoritarianism such as in modern Iran. Shia Islam is the Ideology of the authoritarian rulers of Iran. That is why they call it the "Islamic Republic of Iran"

If you want to know how authoritarianism can be justified in purely secular terms, just ask Chairman Xi Jinping.

That is why they call it “The People’s Republic of China.”

Sure. But that doesn't mean that authoritarianism has socialist or Marxist roots.

It merely means that virtually any sort of ideology (religious or secular) can be weaponized in support of authoritarian rule. And that has always been the case from the Bronze Age to the present day.

If I said that, say where. It certainly was no intention of mine. I may not have been clear on it. My point is this new modern style totalitarianism has it roots in Marxism. Fascism had it roots in Marxism, as I have argued, and likewise Mussolini himself. Maybe you’re a better expert on its development than the guy who actually coined the term and had a hand in developing it though.

[Ken]

If you want to know how authoritarianism can be justified in purely secular terms, just ask Chairman Xi Jinping.

That is why they call it “The People’s Republic of China.”

Sure. But that doesn't mean that authoritarianism has socialist or Marxist roots.

It merely means that virtually any sort of ideology (religious or secular) can be weaponized in support of authoritarian rule. And that has always been the case from the Bronze Age to the present day.

If I said that, say where. It certainly was no intention of mine. I may not have been clear on it. My point is this new modern style totalitarianism has it roots in Marxism. Fascism had it roots in Marxism, as I have argued, and likewise Mussolini himself. Maybe you’re a better expert on its development than the guy who actually coined the term and had a hand in developing it though.

It is called propaganda. Sure fascists borrowed and wielded some popular socialist slogans in the aim of promoting fascism. It was part of the bait and switch. Just like Trump claiming that he had a secret plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with something better. When he had absolutely nothing of the sort. All part of the bait and switch.

None of that negates the historical fact that fascism and socialism were polar opposites and bitter enemies. And that authoritarianism is nothing new under the sun, but one of the oldest human impulses in all of history. The Germans, Soviets, and Italians didn't invent the term and concept of "Dictator" The Romans did.

As for what you said, where. Scroll up a page where you wrote:

You both are ignoring the gist of my argument, which is that the whole impulse and idea of a totalitarian state evolved from socialism.

No, it didn't. It has been around since the Bronze Age and before.

[Falco Knotwise]

Sure. But that doesn't mean that authoritarianism has socialist or Marxist roots.

It merely means that virtually any sort of ideology (religious or secular) can be weaponized in support of authoritarian rule. And that has always been the case from the Bronze Age to the present day.

If I said that, say where. It certainly was no intention of mine. I may not have been clear on it. My point is this new modern style totalitarianism has it roots in Marxism. Fascism had it roots in Marxism, as I have argued, and likewise Mussolini himself. Maybe you’re a better expert on its development than the guy who actually coined the term and had a hand in developing it though.

It is called propaganda. Sure fascists borrowed and wielded some popular socialist slogans in the aim of promoting fascism. It was part of the bait and switch. Just like Trump claiming that he had a secret plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with something better. When he had absolutely nothing of the sort. All part of the bait and switch.

None of that negates the historical fact that fascism and socialism were polar opposites and bitter enemies. And that authoritarianism is nothing new under the sun, but one of the oldest human impulses in all of history. The Germans, Soviets, and Italians didn't invent the term and concept of "Dictator" The Romans did.

As for what you said, where. Scroll up a page where you wrote:

You both are ignoring the gist of my argument, which is that the whole impulse and idea of a totalitarian state evolved from socialism.

No, it didn't. It has been around since the Bronze Age and before.

I think would modify that last statement. The two totalitarian impulse evolved into or was channeled through the creation of a gnostic system, of which Hegel was the master. Both Communism and National Socialism were gnostic ideologies developed from Hegel’s system. Yes, at one time they both discussed centrism and revolutionism together but decided to channel those impulses in different directions, both developing their ideologies through the same socialist conversations, the point you keep refusing to concede, though it’s spelled out for you by the fascists themselves, represented by Mussolini.

The fact that they were opposed politically doesn’t change that fact one bit no matter how many times you repeat it.

I’m done with this conversation for a bit as I can see it’s going round in circles and I have a life to live.

Not to be rude but I’ve got things to do and my wife keeps telling me to get off the phone. You know how it is.

[Ken]

If I said that, say where. It certainly was no intention of mine. I may not have been clear on it. My point is this new modern style totalitarianism has it roots in Marxism. Fascism had it roots in Marxism, as I have argued, and likewise Mussolini himself. Maybe you’re a better expert on its development than the guy who actually coined the term and had a hand in developing it though.

It is called propaganda. Sure fascists borrowed and wielded some popular socialist slogans in the aim of promoting fascism. It was part of the bait and switch. Just like Trump claiming that he had a secret plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with something better. When he had absolutely nothing of the sort. All part of the bait and switch.

None of that negates the historical fact that fascism and socialism were polar opposites and bitter enemies. And that authoritarianism is nothing new under the sun, but one of the oldest human impulses in all of history. The Germans, Soviets, and Italians didn't invent the term and concept of "Dictator" The Romans did.

As for what you said, where. Scroll up a page where you wrote:

You both are ignoring the gist of my argument, which is that the whole impulse and idea of a totalitarian state evolved from socialism.

No, it didn't. It has been around since the Bronze Age and before.

I think would modify that last statement. The two totalitarian impulse evolved into or was channeled through the creation of a gnostic system, of which Hegel was the master. Both Communism and National Socialism were gnostic ideologies developed from Hegel’s system. Yes, at one time they both discussed centrism and revolutionism together but decided to channel those impulses in different directions, both developing their ideologies through the same socialist conversations, the point you keep refusing to concede, though it’s spelled out for you by the fascists themselves, represented by Mussolini.

The fact that they were opposed politically doesn’t change that fact one bit no matter how many times you repeat it.

I’m done with this conversation for a bit as I can see it’s going round in circles and I have a life to live.

The difference between us is that you think ideology and especially its origins (Hegel...really?) is determinative of world events. When I don't. I think ideology is simply a tool wielded by authoritarians of all stripes in in the pursuit of power. There is really very little difference between Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Caesar Augustus, Genghis Khan, or Ivan the Terrible. They all wielded various ideologies in support of their authoritarian rule. The differences are only in the details. At their root, Stalin and Hitler were about the pursuit of power, not ideology. And neither of them were sitting around studying Hegel to guide their decision-making.

[Falco Knotwise]

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Neomarxists have developed schools of thought which they consult all the time. Russian Communists had schools and universities teaching all this plus how to destabilize other governments. It’s all very scientific.

The fascists taught behaviorist psychology and scientific racialism. They were all put into scientific forms having been adapted from the Hegelian system.

China continues this.

Tell me more about CRT.

[Ken]

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Neomarxists have developed schools of thought which they consult all the time. Russian Communists had schools and universities teaching all this plus how to destabilize other governments. It’s all very scientific.

The fascists taught behaviorist psychology and scientific racialism. They were all put into scientific forms having been adapted from the Hegelian system.

China continues this.

Tell me more about CRT.

It is quaint that you think universities had anything to do with the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Mao, etc.

The only place where that might have been true is in revolutionary Iran. And there the universities and students were more of tool of the mullahs and not the ideological basis for the regime.

[Falco Knotwise]

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Neomarxists have developed schools of thought which they consult all the time. Russian Communists had schools and universities teaching all this plus how to destabilize other governments. It’s all very scientific.

The fascists taught behaviorist psychology and scientific racialism. They were all put into scientific forms having been adapted from the Hegelian system.

China continues this.

Tell me more about CRT.

It is quaint that you think universities had anything to do with the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Mao, etc.

The only place where that might have been true is in revolutionary Iran. And there the universities and students were more of tool of the mullahs and not the ideological basis for the regime.

I said nothing about how universities had anything to do with the rise of Stalin and Hitler, only that they clearly used them for ideologIcal purposes, but apparently you wish to change the subject. Now, I would have no problem telling the “quaint” story of how the universities were corrupted by ideologies even before the rise of Hitler in Germany. The positivist sciences preceded the rise of both Communism and National Socialism in time. However, if you want to go in that direction, it’s another subject and will take some time, so not now.

As for our current position.

As if we don’t have a similar situation here in America! Marcuse was a college professor. They’ve got all kinds of university positions all over the place. They have colonized the universities. Not that there aren’t at least some still opposing them, but right now, at least, it appears that the Ivy League Colleges have been captured by far leftist ideologues.

[Ken]

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Neomarxists have developed schools of thought which they consult all the time. Russian Communists had schools and universities teaching all this plus how to destabilize other governments. It’s all very scientific.

The fascists taught behaviorist psychology and scientific racialism. They were all put into scientific forms having been adapted from the Hegelian system.

China continues this.

Tell me more about CRT.

It is quaint that you think universities had anything to do with the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Mao, etc.

The only place where that might have been true is in revolutionary Iran. And there the universities and students were more of tool of the mullahs and not the ideological basis for the regime.

I said nothing about how universities had anything to do with the rise of Stalin and Hitler, only that they clearly used them for ideologIcal purposes, but apparently you wish to change the subject. Now, I would have no problem telling the “quaint” story of how the universities were corrupted by ideologies even before the rise of Hitler in Germany. The positivist sciences preceded the rise of both Communism and National Socialism in time. However, if you want to go in that direction, it’s another subject and will take some time, so not now.

As for our current position.

As if we don’t have a similar situation here in America! Marcuse was a college professor. They’ve got all kinds of university positions all over the place. They have colonized the universities. Not that there aren’t at least some still opposing them, but right now, at least, it appears that the Ivy League Colleges have been captured by far leftist ideologues.

Yes there is stupid stuff happening in American universities as well as those abroad. As there has been for basically forever.

Sayre's law states that academic politics are so bitter and vicious because the stakes are so small. That is pretty much the case here in the US. Henry Kissinger commented on it ""I formulated the rule that the intensity of academic politics and the bitterness of it is in inverse proportion to the importance of the subject they're discussing. And I promise you at Harvard, they are passionately intense and the subjects are extremely unimportant."

The same thing applies to all the performative lefty stuff you are seeing today with respect to Gaza. They have exactly ZERO influence on American foreign policy. Which is exactly why it is to strident. Because it is actually meaningless. And yes, the Ivy Leagues are feeder schools for the courts, politics, finance, and other avenues of power in this country. But it isn't the lefty academics. It is the social elite rising up into power and the Ivies are just a stepping stone.

And of course universities were corrupted in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. But you have the cause and effect reversed. University philosophy wasn't driving Nazism or Stalinism. Rather, Universities just became another front for those in power to perpetuate their power.

[Falco Knotwise]

It is quaint that you think universities had anything to do with the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Mao, etc.

The only place where that might have been true is in revolutionary Iran. And there the universities and students were more of tool of the mullahs and not the ideological basis for the regime.

I said nothing about how universities had anything to do with the rise of Stalin and Hitler, only that they clearly used them for ideologIcal purposes, but apparently you wish to change the subject. Now, I would have no problem telling the “quaint” story of how the universities were corrupted by ideologies even before the rise of Hitler in Germany. The positivist sciences preceded the rise of both Communism and National Socialism in time. However, if you want to go in that direction, it’s another subject and will take some time, so not now.

As for our current position.

As if we don’t have a similar situation here in America! Marcuse was a college professor. They’ve got all kinds of university positions all over the place. They have colonized the universities. Not that there aren’t at least some still opposing them, but right now, at least, it appears that the Ivy League Colleges have been captured by far leftist ideologues.

Yes there is stupid stuff happening in American universities as well as those abroad. As there has been for basically forever.

Sayre's law states that academic politics are so bitter and vicious because the stakes are so small. That is pretty much the case here in the US. Henry Kissinger commented on it ""I formulated the rule that the intensity of academic politics and the bitterness of it is in inverse proportion to the importance of the subject they're discussing. And I promise you at Harvard, they are passionately intense and the subjects are extremely unimportant."

The same thing applies to all the performative lefty stuff you are seeing today with respect to Gaza. They have exactly ZERO influence on American foreign policy. Which is exactly why it is to strident. Because it is actually meaningless. And yes, the Ivy Leagues are feeder schools for the courts, politics, finance, and other avenues of power in this country. But it isn't the lefty academics. It is the social elite rising up into power and the Ivies are just a stepping stone.

And of course universities were corrupted in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. But you have the cause and effect reversed. University philosophy wasn't driving Nazism or Stalinism. Rather, Universities just became another front for those in power to perpetuate their power.

Ken, I do not in the least accept your premise that what goes on in universities is inconsequential to real life. That is simply a tactic to keep people uninterested so they won’t try and look into what is going on there. Like anyone in powerful positions they often prefer anonymity so as to be free to act without any interference from busybodies.

The idea that college professors don’t affect real history is exactly the inverse of the truth. Professors teaching new ideas with the press backing them can have enormous social influence.

1. Martin Luther was a university teacher when he nailed his 95 theses to the door at Wittenberg. All the Gutenberg Printing Presses at the time were in Germany. (Not meant to turn this into another topic, just an example.)

2. Georg Hegel was a professor at Jenna University, where Marx attended. Marx would later stand Hegel’s system on its head, as he put it, to come up with Marxism. Are you seriously suggesting this was of no importance to world historic events?

Incidentally, here’s another document by Benito Mussolini, from the Italian Encyclopedia, entry Fascism, 1932.

Read this article about Fascism, written by Mussolini. (Its authorship is apparently being questioned now, but it’s an entry from 1932 under Mussolini’s name.)

It is permeated throughout by Hegelianism.

https://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-fascism ... is%20world.