Problem-Reaction-Solution (The Hegelian Dialectic)

Problem-solving is an essential human activity, for without it, there can be no innovation, development, or even enrichment in the quality of this experience known as life. There are whole hosts of troubles that exist, ranging from the mundane to the grave; some will be with us always, others simply change names and morph into something somewhat similar. With all of the genuine challenges we face, conjuring artificial difficulties out of whole cloth is clearly not only a great crime, but also dishonestly attempts to reprioritize what truly matters. This propaganda trick is known as the Hegelian Dialectic, which is known vernacularly as Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a 19th century German philosopher who used a 3-valued logical model in order to explain history as well as the nature of reality. Developing upon the original version of Immanuel Kant’s Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, Hegel used Abstract-Negative-Concrete. The difference between the two is that the former does not explain why the Antithesis even needs the Thesis in the first place, whereas the latter postulates that any Thesis is, in fact, too Abstract and lacks the experience of trial and error. Regardless of the semantics and minutiae, the core idea here is that the first 2 components are blended to produce a third entity.

David Icke, a notable British counter-culture figure, took the core essence of these philosophical concepts, simplified the elements by renaming them, and applied it to contemporary history. As this prolific author has said, “What happens in terms of creating wars is a mind manipulation technique that I call in my books, Problem-Reaction-Solution; and it works like this….”

Step 1: The duplicitous bastards in question either take advantage of a pre-existing problem by making it more atrocious (or even worse, they create an artificial problem out of whole cloth).

Step 2: They then present to the public (through their corporate media) the version of the problem they want so as to elicit a particular response from the population (“What are they going to do about it?!)

Step 3: The Establishment offers the pre-packaged “solution,” which was something they wanted to do anyway, even before the “problem” had become manifested!

The whole point of Problem-Reaction-Solution (or, PRS) is to fundamentally alter society with a minimum of popular opposition, weakening any form of resistance automatically from the beginning, in very much the same way the Left-Right Paradigm does. Is this the “change” that liberals wanted when they “elected” Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (or for that matter, when conservatives similarly “elected” Ronald Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II)?

So, what kinds of problems can be either be worsened or wholly created in order to enact PRS? These can range from so-called “terrorist” attacks (usually ascribed to amorphous non-state actors), to imperialistic wars of aggression, to a government collapse, to a run on a currency, to a credit crunch, to hyperinflation, and frankly, anything else at all that can be used to rile up the population’s support for the Establishment’s supposed “fixing” of the chaos. Speaking of which, I’ll add the tidbit that in the 33rd degree of Freemasonry’s Scottish Rite, their motto is Ordo ab chao (“order out of chaos”). Ever notice that PRS never works when things are going pretty well?

Former Commander-in-Chief of the National Socialist Luftwaffe Herman Göring said that, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England; nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood, But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Obviously, substitute “war” for any sort of artificial problem, and the same principles still apply.

Let us not forget the complicity of the corporate mainstream media (or, MSM). Their chief role in PRS is to elicit a response from the populace, which simulates popular support for the Establishment’s later actions in Step 3 (the “Solution”). This is possible when the MSM only functions as “repeaters;” that is, office drones who simply regurgitate whatever the government’s official version of reality happens to be this week. If the MSM had any sort of journalistic integrity (especially by performing actual investigative journalism), then the State’s flavor of propaganda collapses as the ridiculous farce that it is.

Let us now examine two spheres of the human experience to see how PRS is applied to push forward the agenda of those minuscule few who seek to control the many:

Politically, this can be seen when the government (aka, the State) finds a scapegoat for something bad that, in fact, they themselves did. Due to a combination of corporatism and repeaters, the MSM simply presents the government flavor of an event (never the actual truth) so as to elicit a worrisome response from citizens who now fret about their security. Never fear! For the State has a “remedy” for what “ails” the body politic; typically, it’s always a further encroachment into the lives of innocent people (what minarchists call a “police state”). Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together may wonder why it’s impossible to do something as simple as going to the airport and actually getting on a fucking plane without getting mauled by agents of the State.

Economically, this is observable with the so-called “global financial crisis.” Basically, high finance interests gamble with other people’s money, and when they lose it, the State bails them out with even more confiscated wealth. The roller-coaster ride of the so-called “boom and bust cycle” is only possible with the cyclical expansion and contraction of the money supply, which itself only exists due to the mechanism that brings the currency into existence in the first place. So, what is the Establishment’s proposed solution to prevent such financial shenanigans (such as with sub-prime mortgages, credit derivatives, and central banking)? Aiding and abetting the entities that caused the domino effect in the first place, while blaming consumers (as if they were the masterminds) and forcibly transferring their wealth to those very same high finance special interests!

PRS is a devastingly effective method for tricking a population into becoming emotionally invested in something that would otherwise be against their own self-interest.  Only those with an intuitive understanding of cognitive processes can begin to appreciate the magnitude of such social control. Once you analyze the “news” as indicating such fundamental trend shifts, you can apply the formula of PRS to it and decipher where all this activity is really going. How you act upon your realizations of this is up to you.

The Left-Right Paradigm

Imagine, if you will, growing up with everyone in your family supporting a particular football team. Every game, your entire family watches their team perform a tackle, score a touchdown, or otherwise slow the opposition’s advance on the field. Your relatives (even if they aren’t excited by anything else) will jump up and shout with utter enthusiasm for the success of that team, regardless of a quality performance or even relevance to their own lives.

Mainline politics is much the same way; there are Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. It is always presented as a series of binary options. There is never a “Third Way,” or even a glance into the vastness that is infinite possibility. This tiny box reality is anything but real, for the deliberate systematic narrowing of perception is about as heinous an act upon the liberty of human thought as can be conceived. This artificially dichotomous construct is known as the False Left-Right Controlled Paradigm.

Have you never wondered why there is a hegemonic, two-party system in America, or even political parties at all? A history lesson on the development of parties aside, a key reason that they exist in the first place is to actually support each other. If there had been a single party structure instead, the forces of popular resistance would be much more effective at toppling the power structure since those forces would be unified against a singular entity. However, the Democrats and the Republicans prop each other up, much like an archway. This way, resistance to them is significantly diffused and even set against each other.

Notice also that the Left-Right Paradigm is not limited to political parties alone. It also quite observable with political ideologies, or what passes for them. Watch any mainline conservative or liberal pundit and you’ll notice the same litany of talking points, as if from a recipe. Typically, they tend to agree on the important issues (which are seldom, if ever, discussed publicly) yet disagree on the minor ones, which, of course, are mentioned front and center on the public stage. Notice the “society of the spectacle” when it comes to public education, campaign finance, and gay marriage, but the obfuscation on foreign policy (war, diplomacy, and international trade), the deception concerning the domestic surveillance police state apparatus, and especially the stunning silence about the viability of central banking.

It has been assumed that the Left is composed of liberals and Democrats whereas the Right is composed of conservatives and Republicans. When you compare the more consistent ideological positions of say, Communism and Socialism on the Left, then Fascism and National Socialism on the Right, their core premise is the idea that the individual must be subject to the group and sacrificed if necessary for the greater good. The government (or, the State) is held as all-important; common law rights are simply considered only civil liberties granted by the State, and thus are not naturally inalienable. Upon objective scrutiny, the philosophical underpinnings of the Left and Right are, in fact, the same.

The Left-Right Paradigm is taken from the corporate world in the form of duopolies (i.e. Coke and Pepsi, AT&T and Verizon, etc). Customers, like voters, are given the illusion of a choice, since a duopoly looks a lot better than a monopoly. Given that voters are duped between “the lesser of two evils,” they are balkanized against each other alongside partisan lines, which do not represent genuine differences either in terms of philosophy or policy. Voters are literally stuck within this grand political ploy, since they are conditioned to believe that they have consented (by voting) to whatever the parties have done.

Worst of all, voters do not realize that there is a larger power structure sitting on top of the partisan archway, pulling the strings of the puppet parties. This cap on the archway is a conglomeration of special interests; some private, others corporate. So really, it is in fact all one unit that supports itself and is quite an effective apparatus for containing revolution.

If the Left-Right Paradigm (as I have explained it) is a true and accurate concept, then why does the populace continue to acquiesce to it? You must remember, that just as with corporate sports teams and overly priced universities, people have been conditioned to personally identify with one of the two political parties, usually through their family acting as a socialization agent towards an individual member (especially a child). Because of this, people typically grow up to become straight ticket voters, supporting a party because their parents did; this can be observed with the 2008 presidential election when the Republicans “opposed” Barack Obama in just the same way the liberals “attacked” John McCain, especially considering that each figurehead was essentially a “daddy-figure” to their own hapless partisan followers.

Breaking out of the Left-Right Paradigm involves a paradigm shift about the nature of politics itself. For instance, political discourse a century ago was not based around “conservatives” and “liberals,” but about liberty and tyranny. It wasn’t about social engineering schemes, but about how much State intervention was present in the lives of the population. The proper role of government was absolutely paramount to the security and prosperity of its citizens, for without it, democide (death by government) became the most dangerous threat to life, liberty, and property (as was evidenced by the death tolls and property destruction caused by the various wars of the 20th century).

Once you stop being psychologically dependent on the dominant political parties and their corporate media pundits, then the very beginning of your own personal Renaissance can begin.