Every regime has two basic rhetorical responsibilities to its loyal subjects. It must define what it is for, and it must define what it is against. This sets the tone and marching order for the bureaucracy and the security establishment.
We want to thank Greg Krill for this Op-Ed. If you have an Op-Ed or LTE
you want us to consider, please submit it to skip@ or steve@granitegrok.com.
It also ‘unites’ the people for common goals, and against common enemies.
In our Republic, these two points are typically set out for the people to hear in the President’s inaugural address. In Biden’s inaugural address, he slapped it on thick about ‘unity’ with a call to unite against the ‘common foes’ of ‘anger, resentment, hatred, extremism, lawlessness, violence, disease, joblessness, hopelessness’ and the enemies of ‘political extremism, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism’.
We can all get on board against these ‘common foes’ right?
He assured us that the ‘battle is perennial’ and that ‘victory is never assured’. Surely this ‘perennial’ struggle against the ‘common foes’ is warranted given our dark times. At first glance, I felt that I might agree with much of Biden’s address. After all, he said ‘Let us listen to one another’. Does that mean our concerns about election integrity and Biden’s financial connections to the Chinese Community Party will be addressed instead of censored?
The Dialectic Method
Biden defines the three sources of the ‘common foes’ of our time as ‘political extremism, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism’. He states that ‘we must confront’ them and that ‘we will defeat’ them.
Please, go ahead and rid our society of Antifa, the KKK, and Neo-Nazis. Although this seems like something the American people will readily agree with, I am skeptical that Biden was actually referring to these traditionally understood and universally condemned sources of ‘extremism’ during his inaugural address.
We all know he doesn’t even believe Antifa is real.
I alluded to the need for this regime to have a ‘pervasive right-wing domestic enemy’ in my previous op-ed on the ‘Collusive Oligarchy’. Biden’s inauguration is the capstone event of a long effort within the Oligarchy to force a re-definition of who the ‘enemy’ is to suit the current needs of the regime using the ‘dialectic method’.
The dialectic method was championed by German philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and forms the philosophical basis for Marxism. It is also quite popular with the Democrat party. It can be defined as ‘the art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments’.
In the traditional sense, this exchange of arguments might take place between two people or within your own thoughts. Today, this exchange of arguments plays out in media as the intelligentsia and former regime officials use the dialectic method in front of the American people.
Through a salvo of interviews, articles, and academic papers they seek to use this dialectic process to direct the national discussion and redefine terms such as ‘white supremacy’, ‘domestic terrorism’, and ‘political extremism’ to suit their present-day political needs. It allows for a constant leftward drift of all national discussion because the actual words that the American people use are redefined with a changed meaning and deployed through the media to provide justification for regime actions.
The majority of Americans do not fully understand the changed meaning, but they recognize the words and are therefore susceptible to the propaganda.
Security Threats
In Hegelian terms, this would be a linear evolution from ‘less’ sophisticated views to ‘more’ sophisticated ones later. These more ‘sophisticated’ views, derived from the dialectic process, are supposed to resolve contradictions that seem to point to a faulty argument.
Once the words are redefined, this then allows for the exchanging of familiar arguments that have been logically made in the past within the vastly different context of today. Many Americans accept these arguments without understanding fully the dialectic process that has been used to change the meaning of the words that constitute the arguments.
The Biden regime thinks they can convince the public to ignore obvious contradictions and arrive at a more convenient definition of ‘enemy’ that supports their goal – complete destruction of any effective political opposition. When this dialectic switch is thrown, the tools of war and state security can be deployed against American citizens whose political beliefs are now considered a threat to state security.
This may include your 72-year-old grandmother who has a pink ‘Women For Trump’ flag hanging on her front porch or the combat Veteran who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times in service of his Country that now works in construction wearing the dreaded red MAGA hat.
To ensnare 48% of the American public in this fascist campaign of retribution and destruction, the Oligarchy must cast a wide net. The dialectic method allows such a net to be cast.
Among members of the Collusive Oligarchy, the dialectic method is a well-practiced art.
Just as it served the Soviet Union, giving them the ability to justify an endless expansion of the enemies of the State to include aristocrats, bourgeois reactionaries, Jews, Kulaks, Americans, Armenians, other socialist parties, capitalists, and Trotskyites, it now serves our Oligarchy well.
We can turn to the recent wisdom cast down to us from the altar of truth, MSNBC, by one of the Oligarchy’s favorites, former CIA director John Brennan. Brennan provided clarifying remarks after the inaugural address, expanding on the threats represented by ‘political extremists’. Brennan assured us that ‘members of the Biden team, who have been nominated or have been appointed, are now moving in a laser-like fashion to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we have seen overseas’.
This is the first part of the dialectic switch, substituting the context of our current domestic situation for the context of ‘insurgency movements that we have seen overseas’.
Brennan continues on using the dialectic method stating ‘they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength, and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even Libertarians’.
He introduces a contradiction – ‘Libertarians’ are part of the ‘insurgency movement’ which he has ‘seen overseas’.
Are we sure the ‘Libertarian’ party has chapters overseas involved in insurgencies? This contradiction aims to broaden the definition of who is an ‘insurgent’.
In Hegel’s Footsteps
He leaves the final task of dialectic translation for what entails the ‘unholy alliance’ within the substituted context of the Global War on Terror as a mental exercise for the listener, just like any master of propaganda would. Let’s play along with John Brennan.
What specific opposition groups ‘germinating’ throughout our hinterland are referred to by his reference to ‘religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists’.
Religious Extremists? Evangelical Christians. Check. Authoritarians? Those interested in equal protection under the law and due process. Check.
Fascists, bigots, racists, nativists? Those who believe in America First policies like the 18% of Black men who voted for President Trump. Check.
Libertarians? Even the Libertarians are part of this insurgency! Alright, we get it, political extremism really means all domestic political opposition to the Oligarchy. Thanks, John, you walk in the footsteps of Hegel.
Some members of the Oligarchy preceded the inauguration in revealing the contorted nature of this ‘unholy alliance’ to deliver some dialectic thought furniture that can help us in understanding Biden’s speech.
General Stanley McChrystal redefined ‘domestic terrorism’ in statements to Yahoo! News on 1/16/21 saying ‘I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, where a whole generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology that justified their violence. This is now happening in America’.
Only through this dialectic introduction of contradictions, can the political opposition, which includes Veterans who likely served under McChrystal, become reborn as domestic Al-Qaeda and be synonymous with ‘a whole generation of angry Arab youth’.
This is an obvious contradiction, and it serves to once again import familiar terms from the Global War on Terror and broaden them to be applicable in a totally different domestic context. It serves to cancel out the notion that the opposition has any legitimate political concerns at all. It is a nullification of political power by a false equivalence made possible through his dialectic switch.
It is no surprise that McChrystal is at the leading edge of this redefinition of the ‘enemy’. He was instrumental in bringing military technology developed to be used abroad against ISIS right back here to be deployed against citizens under the moniker of ‘Defeat Disinfo’. This project has the stated goals of creating a ‘digital frontline’ that combats ‘disinformation about Covid-19’.
The Washington Post spills the beans about the real goal of this information operation, stating that ‘the initiative reflects fears within the Democratic Party that Trump’s unwavering digital army may help sustain him through the pandemic, as it has through past controversies, even as the economy craters’. ‘
Defeat Disinfo’ coined the phrase ‘Trump Lied, People Died’. On the surface it is marketed as some effort for the ‘public good’, but in reality it was a political operation.
At this point in time, it is worthwhile to ask the timeless question, Cui Bono? Could there be a fat check in the future for McChrystal and his consulting group as a result of his participation in confronting this new ‘Al-Qaeda’ offshoot for which he himself possesses the weapon to confront?
If a fired General who runs a government focused consulting group attempting to redefine 48% of the American public as the next Al-Qaeda while selling weapons to fight them doesn’t remind you of the warnings contained in Eisenhower’s farewell address, you might need to listen to it again.
Multi-Racial Whiteness
I saved the best dialectic switch for the end. To understand this one, you must take a deep breath and prepare for some mental gymnastics.
The American public until recently has had a relatively static definition of what ‘white supremacy’ looks like. To be a ‘white supremacist’, you would think that you must be white. Further, no credible person wants ‘white supremacist’ people or movements to exist let alone have any influence in our society.
This agreed upon and universally condemned understanding of ‘white supremacy’ as emanating from ‘white’ people does not currently suit the needs of the Oligarchy, so it must be recast and redefined to be more ‘inclusive’. Yes, they seek a more ‘inclusive’ definition of who might be a ‘white supremacist’.
They have done this by redefining ‘white supremacy’ using a dialectic switch to open up the universe of possible ‘white supremacists’ to include non-white people. This contradiction allows them to use the familiar term ‘white supremacy’ to include anyone who might be a current or future member of the political opposition, regardless of their skin color.
The Oligarchy is leaning on one of their favorite and most trusted propaganda outlets, the Washington Post to introduce this concept to the American people. In a op-ed published on 1/15/21 Cristina Beltran, an associate professor at NYU, wrote a piece on ‘multi-racial whiteness’.
This concept of ‘multi-racial whiteness’ seeks to give the Oligarchy an ideological foundation to condemn all of the minorities who are members of the political opposition using the false charge of ‘white supremacy’. Beltran explains that ‘Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others’.
Beltran seeks to ground this concept of ‘multi-racial whiteness’ in ‘the politics of conservative multiculturalism’ which focuses on ‘emphasizing conservative approaches to faith, patriotism and the traditional family’. Flipping this dialectic switch allows the Oligarchy to discredit the legitimate political beliefs and grievances of millions of conservative-minded minority Americans who voted for America First policies while casting them aside with the label of ‘white supremacist’.
It is this new definition of ‘white supremacy’ arrived at through the dialectic method that Biden and his speechwriters were referring to in his inauguration address, not the one that has been traditionally agreed upon by Americans.
Given that we now acknowledge the dialectic method in play, we can see the Oligarchy using it to clarify the real meaning of Biden’s inaugural address.
John Brennan, Stanley McChrystal, and Cristina Beltran are only three of many to provide theory and commentary regarding what the Biden regime considers the ‘common foes’.
Biden’s concern with regards to a ‘perennial battle’ is not with ‘political extremism, white supremacy, or domestic terrorism’. The regime’s real concern is with the rise in conservative values, American exceptionalism, and an effective domestic political opposition.
Maybe the real concern is with the America First policies that are extremely popular with at least half of the population of the United States of America? You know you are on target when you are taking flak.
To better understand Biden’s call for ‘unity’, I am going to employ the dialectic method to arrive at the definition of what ‘unity’ might actually mean to the regime.
Unity means not only a state of harmony but also the quality of being ‘one’. When two visions exist for a Nation, one must be criminalized and destroyed because this type of ‘political extremism’ leads to a rise in ‘domestic terrorism’ rooted in ‘white supremacy’ rather than a better quality of life through the competition of ideas.
There can be no room for dissent when the goal is ‘unity’. Unity means ‘one’. One opinion. One idea. One vision. One party. That is the Oligarchy’s ‘unity’, and therefore this is Biden’s ‘dialectic unity’.
It is rumored that Huey Long, a Democrat politician from the 1930s, said ‘Fascism will come to the United States under the guise of anti-fascism’. Biden’s disingenuous call for ‘unity’ during his inauguration amid a backdrop of an armed camp with more National Guardsmen than attendees shows that history might be proving the old ‘Kingfish’ from Louisiana correct.
It should be noted while Biden was speaking to his armed camp, another type of inaugural event was going on.
Brian Jenkins of RAND warned us of a ‘counter inauguration’ from ‘right-wing extremists’. He was half right, there actually was a ‘counter inauguration’ called J20. Only it was staged by ‘left-wing extremists’ who have been coddled by the Democrat party.
Unity feels great, doesn’t it?
