ALLIANCE FOR
CITIZENS RIGHTS 
ALLIANCE FOR
CITIZENS RIGHTS
THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC
A method being used throughout the world today to change men's attitudes about what they believe.Joan Veon is a Christian woman, a business woman, an author and the most knowledgeable person we have ever read when it comes to some of what's happening in America today. She has a very lengthy page dealing with the "Hegelian Dialectic," a method being used throughout the world today to change men's attitudes about what they believe, and to convince them to accept beliefs and attitudes they would never otherwise accept. We see it in schools, in businesses, even in churches almost daily and usually do not recognize it for what it is.The "Visioning Sessions" we see being conducted all across our nation and which Birminghamians can best relate to the "Region 2020 Initiative" are a prime example of the Hegelian Dialectic. The sessions held some years ago to debate the government's "Goals 2000" for our public schools also employed this technique.
Mrs. Veon's discussion is far more complete than this one and includes an interview with Dean Gotcher, who has studied the technique for many years. We urge anyone wishing a more thorough understanding of the topic to visit her web site by clicking here. The effort here is to attempt to put into layman's terms just how the process works.
We each come to a meeting with our own preconceived ideas and a belief system we have developed over a lifetime of experience and exposure. For Christians this belief system is, or should be, primarily developed around the Holy Bible, which is filled with absolutes. We know that there is one God. That's an absolute. We know He made all things, another absolute. We know He is a righteous and a just God who has given us certain rules we are expected to try to follow. Some of these rules are absolutes, the Ten Commandments, for example. We also know from His Word that we are a fallen race and in need of a Savior, which He has provided in the person of Jesus the Christ. That Word tells us that it is ONLY through Jesus that man may come to salvation, another absolute.
The essence of the Hegelian Dialectic is to assume opposing views (the thesis and the antithesis) and to work toward a resolution that both sides can accept (the synthesis). This sounds like a very reasonable approach (which it is in some situations). In any situation where there are two sides to an issue (a dispute between neighbors for example), compromise is often the best solution. The problem arises, however, when belief systems become involved. You see, the Hegelian Dialectic does not provide for absolutes. It demands that participants be willing to compromise. One cannot compromise an absolute.
What this means is that Christians, Jews and followers of Islam must discard some of their beliefs if they are to be party to such visioning sessions. You are not told this, and if you bring it up you will be told it isn't true, that you simply have to withhold judgment until all the "facts" are in.
Another thing you aren't told about these visioning sessions is that the synthesis has already been established and the purpose of the session is to generate a "consensus" that will support it. If you suggest such an idea you will be told that it is absolutely nonsense. (Note the use of an absolute by a system that denies the existence of absolutes.)
The "facilitator" or leader of the session will offer a number of topics that should be discussed and will generally try to limit discussion to those topics. If a participant tries to include a topic not on the list it will probably be added but will be omitted from the final group report as if it did not generate enough interest to warrant inclusion. If a participant begins to push a conclusion that is not acceptable to the final outcome his remarks will be generally denigrated and that participant belittled if possible. The facilitator will move to another topic and from then on will more-or-less ignore the trouble maker.
The general practice is to open the meeting up to the public at large and to then break the group that accumulates into smaller groups for the conduct of the sessions. This makes it impossible for an individual to know the thinking of the total assembly. The result of individual sessions is not published, only the result of the combined sessions will be put forth for public inspection. In this way, a result that disagrees with what you may have decided in your session is presumed to be because the other groups' decisions were in the majority. Everyone comes away with a feeling of having had a chance to have his voice heard. Everyone assumes the published decision was actually a majority decision when it may or may not have been.
Tolerance becomes a big issue in the conduct of such sessions. The idea that we must have tolerance for the other person's views and beliefs is paramount, even if that means we have to lay aside some of our own beliefs to accommodate those of the other. We see this daily in the media, which has actually been involving all of us in a form of the Hegelian Dialectic for some time. The debate over whether or not the gay lifestyle is wrong (as Christians believe) or is just an alternative life style (as the humanists believe) is a prime example of how the technique works. As you might observe, there can be no real synthesis of these two opposing views, one must prevail, there is no half-way meeting ground for such issues.
We see the government schools using these techniques to brainwash our children into accepting a belief system that is antithetical to Christianity and the heritage of our Republic. A globalist world view and tolerance for alternate lifestyles is being instilled at an early age, and parents are often oblivious to what is happening.
If the subject should be whether the ownership of private property is permissible or whether the state should own everything we might see the synthesis conclusion that individuals may own property but the state has the right to tell them how they may use it, which is really a conclusion that the state owns it. FREEDOM CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY!
The average American finds himself at a loss to defend himself when confronted with the techniques employed in the Hegelian Dialectic. He has been conditioned over many decades to believe that tolerance for other views is a primary virtue of Christianity. When confronted with a question such as, "Would you deny these children their right to choose?" he is at a loss for a good response.
Would you deny this woman her right of choice? Is a good example of how truth and justice can be twisted and how good men can make bad decisions when confronted with the half-truths manufactured in the Devil's workshop.
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE HOME PAGE