The purpose of confusion
in laws and regulations is to cause cognitive dissonance. This is
a state of mind where conflicts remain unresolved. It weakens the subjects
with its prolonged uncertainty. People are then subject to breaking down
and having paradoxical conversions. This can be found in researching the
phenomenon of brain washing. It is a potent device for control. Some references
on this can be found in the following article. DIALECTICS (and the Fate of Medicine) By Thomas Dorman, M.D. ©2000 By DORMAN PUBLISHING |
Introduction
In this
article, I shall attempt to survey the use of an intellectual process,
the dialectic. I will survey a broad perspective of the subject, concentrating
on the failure of philosophy and its harm to our civilization. I will then
finish the article with a look at the special case of medicine in the context
of the dialectical tool - how medicine is being destroyed, how the dialectical
tool is used increasingly for the purpose, and I will hint yet again at
my increasing conviction that there is a plan behind this evil.1
If we, who are savvy, can recognize its purpose and identify its means
of operation, there is a chance that we can preserve the wonders of our
civilization.
As I
happen to practice medicine (full time), as I am dedicated to my work and
love helping people (and yet have to make a living), it is not mysterious
that I am striving to preserve this freedom for my patients, for myself,
for my progeny, and for humanity. No man and no family live in isolation
form society. Therefore, the welfare of society is essential to our own
welfare, let alone the need for exchange through the generations for the
other members of our species.
We exchange
produce, manufactured goods, know-how, and ultimately the sharing of a
genetic pool. Ayn Rand expressed this concept well with her brief aphorism
There is no conflict between rational men. As we can see, conflict abounds.
So what is wrong? The lack of rationality amongst most men.
If I, through
this newsletter, can contribute one drop of rationality to the ocean of
irrationality, my efforts will be rewarded. A rational society is one in
which individuals respect each other, exchange with each other for mutual
benefit, strive together for essential inherent joint interests (such as
national defense) and care for each other based on respect and self-interest.
This is the Republican form of government that the founders of this
country gave us in 1776.2 The more I study
the matter, the more I come to realize that that Republican gift was unique.3
It is the first instance in history where these laissez faire precepts
of rationality were made the foundation of a country, a society, a nation;
although fragments of them were available from the history of Western Civilization
before beginning with the Magna Carta (1215).
The Dialectic
As many terms and concept
in our civilization do, this hails to the Greeks. Dialectic (also called
dialectics) was originally a form of logical argumentation where two or
more sides of a subject were reviewed before conclusions were drawn. Nowadays,
it is a philosophical concept of evolution applied to diverse fields including
thought, nature and history.
Among
the classical Greek thinkers, the meanings of dialectic ranged from a technique
of refutation and debate, through a method for systematic evaluation of
definitions, to the investigation and classification of the relationships
between specific and general concepts. From the time of the Stoic philosophers
until the end of the European Middle Ages, dialectic was more or less closely
identified with the discipline of formal logic.
Immanuel
Kant (1724 - 1804) denoted by Transcendental Dialectic, the endeavor of
exposing the illusion involved in attempting to use the categories and
the principals of understanding beyond the bounds of phenomena and possible
experience. Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hagel (1770 - 1831) identified dialectic
as the tendency of a notion to pass over into its own negation as the result
of conflict between its inherent contradictory aspects.
Karl
Marx4,5 and Friedrich Engels adopted Hagel's
definition and applied it to social and economic processes.6
"...Marx and Engels understood materialism as the opposite of idealism,
by which they meant that any theory that treats matter is dependent on
mind or spirit, or mind or spirit capable of existing independently of
matter. For them, the materialist and idealist views were irreconcilably
opposed throughout the historical development of philosophy." I quoted
this text from Encyclopedia Britannica to show you how the concept itself
is muddleheaded. If you felt a little embarrassed reading the last paragraph,
not quite understanding it, please - join the club. From my point of view,
the fact that it is gobbledygook is what I am trying to convey.
Dialectic Contemporary Use
The modern
usage of the dialectic has developed from a Greek form of debate, that
was quite sensible, through a sesquipedalian philosophical rehash by the
two famous German philosophers followed by Hagel into a philosophical so-called
tool. Hagel's usage is usually abbreviated and summarized: Thesis; antithesis;
synthesis. Whereby a proposition (philosophical or other) is introduced.
Its opposite is introduced promptly thereafter (Antithesis), and then some
intermediary position is adopted as the final truth. You see, this denies
the existence of absolute truth. It assumes that every issue can be debated.
This is the origin of situational-ethics in philosophy.
The process
is simple. The premise is false. How is it popularized through our contemporary
sesquipedalian science? Through using convoluted language that embarrasses
the reader who doesn't understand, and therefore is shamed into accepting
the process. An important component of this brainwashing technique is using
a part of a subject to generalize, namely pars pro toto.
How to read the news
Parenthetically,
one might suggest to you that an interesting safeguard in maintaining our
rationality and sanity, when presented with stories in the news is to discipline
oneself always to ask: Does the illustration merit generalization? You
will find that the answer is usually negative. Actually, it's a little
more interesting than that. Now that you have learnt with me how this tool
is used, let's harden our intellectual armor a little more.
If you encounter
a news story that uses an example to imply a generalization (take, for
instance, guns kill, therefore guns should be banned), you need to ask
yourself about the motives of the promoter of the story. The newscaster,
the person who paid for the program and, alas, occasionally the political
agenda behind the news (propaganda would be a better word). Now regarding
the dialectic, you will find that most issues are discussed on television,
etc., where "both sides" are presented. This is the dialectic process on
your screen every night. The mere presentation of both sides implies that
there is no absolute truth. More importantly, it is very likely that the
absolute truth is exactly what is not debated on whatever program it is
you are watching. If you accept that the purpose of the debate is to bring
you into a synthesis (the dialectic ultimate stage) of opinion, it is very
likely that you have been given two false concepts to debate, and your
attention will be drawn away from what might have been obvious otherwise,
that the real issue lies elsewhere. I would propose to you, even, that
the very essence of news casting, programming, advertising, television
series, soap operas, and virtually everything that is promoted by the mass
media, uses this extraordinarily effective tool, the dialectic.
In its modern
incarnation, it contains also the concept of the package deal. 'The package
deal' is a term Ayn Rand coined to imply that something in the discussion
is not mentioned but taken for granted, and the participant, listener,
reader is sucked in to accepting this taken-for-granted concept by sleight-of-hand,
unawares as it were.
Let's take
the example of: Guns kill, therefore we should ban guns. Is the current
debate regarding the safety mechanism appropriate to guns? Some of the
Clinton administration's recommendations for safety measures are ridiculous.
That is not the point. The point is to engage the public in a discussion
about the degree of harm from guns, not the issue that we live in a time
when the government is increasingly corrupt and dangerous, and the Second
Amendment - the right to bear arms - is in the American constitution so
that governments can be defeated militarily as an ultimate protection when
they abandon their Republican principles.
For myself,
(though I am not particularly interested in firearms) I am amazed that
even the organizations that supposedly are "pro-gun" enter into this debate
- the kinds of guns, the number of rounds in the magazine, the length of
the barrel, single, automatic, semiautomatic action, licenses, previous
legal record, registration, duration of waiting before registration and
purchase is allowed, the transfer of weapons between states, and now the
pressure on gun manufacturers not to sell to the public, safe zones around
schools; can you not see that these are all examples of the dialectic?
False arguments
where the key issue is suppressed through this indirect technique? We all
know that people in countries in which all men are armed have less crime;
but the most important issue is a Republican government where the authorities
are responsive to, and afraid of, their servants, the public. I have dwelt
a little on this gun issue, which is not my main topic, as an illustration
of the dialectic process that is so active in our media at the present
time. I will come to the issue of the destruction of medicine through the
dialectical process presently.
It is important
for all of us. We are all mortals, we are all subject to disease, and we
may all require medical attention. I think, however, that is it particularly
important for doctors to understand this issue. The doctor who is swept
into a misunderstanding of his role as a Hippocratic healer may, probably
inadvertently, develop habits of treatment that may not be in his customer/patient's
interest.
Accordingly, I shall continue in this article to look at a few other examples
of where we are going in contemporary America with this dialectic process.
When all is said and done, the destruction of medicine is, after all, only
a case in point.
National Defense
The Clinton
administration in the U.S., and the Blair government in Britain, have increasingly
demobilized and decommissioned the military. "We no longer need defense
against the Soviet Union, which has collapsed." Wrong. The military might
of the Communist Empire has not diminished.7
There is subtlety in camouflaging their strength. They are pretending that
there are no longer closed zones in Russia. Visitors do, however, report
their existence. This is where military development progresses apace.
The Soviets'
ability to distort perceptions in the West has improved (if that is the
correct word) by an order of magnitude since the introduction of perestroika.
This "renewal" coincided with Mikhail Gorbachev's move from being Chairman
of the Communist politburo - via name change - to the presidency. Now he
is the informal head of the New World Order co-chaired by Maurice Strong.8
The anticipated non-governmental organization club, scheduled to propose
a revision of the United Nations Charter in September 2000, is a large
step towards the New World government.9,10,11,12
What
are we debating regarding national defense in America? Whether we are at
risk for missiles from Iran or North Korea. Do you see how the essential
point is avoided? The world Communist conspiracy, based in Moscow and Peking,
aims at complete takeover of us all through world government.13,14
The fact that this is not being debated indicates two things: 1) We are
being subjected to concerted disinformation. 2) There is a plan afoot to
use the outcomes (the synthesis).
Testing
Incidentally,
I think that there is a third rather amusing aspect to recognizing this
phenomenon. It is what I call the test dialectic. In order to bring us
all under the New World Order, preferably thinking we like the plan, Sun
Tsu's15 method of changing the enemy's mind
to accept the change, not recognizing defeat, is the goal.16
How do you achieve it? This has not been done before.
Well, it's
necessary to conduct some experiments. We know, from the business of advertising,
that the skilled promoters send out test mailings with nuances and variations
of the promotional material to test target audiences and have a feedback
mechanism whereby they learn how effective their propaganda is. By a series
of negative feedbacks, finally they hope to arrive at their ultimate goal
by influencing the minds of as large an audience as possible.
You see,
we are coming to a slow realization that the whole business of world affairs
is mind control. It is one thing to control the bodies of your slaves.
How much better it is to control their minds!17,18
The minds of soldiers
The emasculation
of the fighting spirit, idealism for country and culture, is predicated
on destroying the concepts of honor, valor, absolute truths, community
responsibility, pride and dignity. All these destructions flow from relative
morals and situation ethics. Philosophically, they flow from the dialectic
and most specifically from the antecedent of Hagel's dialectic from Immanuel
Kant's philosophy that truth is only in the mind of the believer. There
is no independent objectivity.
Personally,
I doubt whether Immanuel Kant, the pedantic philosopher, saw himself as
a tool of evil, a destroyer of our civilization. For all I know, he merely
enunciated the philosophy that was somehow ready. Nonetheless, the objectivists,
and I think rightly, see his work as emblematic of this change. The social
technique of promoting permissiveness in personal and sexual relationships
between individuals, might be seen as the thesis, based on this precept.
There are no absolute values.
Contrariwise,
the "protection of the weak" is used as a propaganda whip to with which
punish these very acts, (the antithesis) thereby putting military men in
impossible situations, the situation of cognitive dissonance whereby they
cannot perform their duties in a confident and free state of mind. This
is the tool that is responsible for the mass resignation of naval pilots
from the American carrier force, etc.19 The
outcome is the synthesis, in this case the emasculation of the military.
Who benefits? Our enemies. Who are they? Those who would control humanity
as a herd.
Education
The human
animal is different from other creatures. It has a mind. In order to use
people as a human resource it is "necessary" (from the point of view of
those who would control us) to do something about this independent mind.
In other words, to suppress it. It is somewhat difficult to suppress the
independence of people who have been reared free. The obvious recourse
is to wait patiently and train the next generation. Yes, "train" is the
correct word, and for this Skinnerian or Pavlovian techniques are used.20,21,22
I have
discussed this issue in the past. It is called operant conditioning. An
essential part of this is the dialectic technique. For instance, in the
town where I live, I recently saw a new notice on the highway "Do not drink
and drive: zero tolerance under 21". I have come to recognize that the
word education means dumbing down, and the words "zero tolerance" mean
control, through the dialectic technique, with fear. I first encountered
this cunning expression in the context of the supposed control of sexual
molestation of patients by doctors, which turned out to be a cleverly imposed
dialectical technique of compelling doctors to abandon their personal relationships
with their patients and kowtow to authoritarian mandates. The fact that
a woman's mere accusation can destroy a career was a potent whip with which
to frighten the partly brainwashed doctors into complete obedience.23
The special role of the media.
You will
have gathered from this that in order to change the world, in order to
influence the public at large control; and, by that, I mean vise-like complete
control of the media is necessary, nay, absolutely essential. The Communist
dictatorship in the Soviet Union had censorship. So did the Hitlerite regime
in the Third Reich.24 These were impressive
experiments which were, by and large, successful. The censor, however,
was an official of the government, and the population knew formally that
censorship existed. This led to underground newsletters in the Soviet Union
called Sazmisdat and, of course, following news sources from other outside
and free countries.
How could
a regime tighten the control on the media and close this escape-hatch?
The answer is through 1) direct ownership and control of the media, 2)
control and intimidation of newscasters, etc. 3) stacking the ranks of
the media with controlled idiots,25 4) infiltrating
the opposition groups and using them for the dialectic.
Examples
of this are the Republican Party in Congress and almost certainly a number
of more or less widely acclaimed and used "conservative" news sources.
That this would be the strategy of such a plan is not mysterious. It is
self-evident. Well, is it indeed the case?
Evidence
When
wanting to study phenomena, when wanting to test a hypothesis empirically,
there are two tools: 1) Conduct a prospective experiment with controls,
2) predict.
Each
tool is suitable for different circumstances. In the case of historical
or social forces, the tool of prediction is the correct one. Although in
a circumstance where the operator has certain control, prospective experiments
are very useful. I gave an example from advertising, and I propose to you
that some of the events we have seen recently fall into this category.
It is, however, critically important for the experimenter not to tell his
victim/subjects that they are being experiment on. There has been one exception
to the secrecy on this issue, the admission by the leftist organization
who created the alar scare about a decade ago.26,27
I think
that several of the recent wars have been designed to experiment with new
techniques of controlling the population, mind control for propaganda,
illness control through vaccines, population control through poisoning
the environment and, finally, tests for new, less conventional war-making
machines - flying and other.
Would
it be useful to conduct some experiments in population control which, if
successful, ratchets society into the direction favored and, if they fail,
provide a lesson? Of course it would. I think that much of the legislation
we have seen recently, signally, the Hillary Health Care legislation of
1993, was a case in point.28
Why Medicine?
I have
touched on this in previous newsletters. I have not seemingly made any
impact. Therefore, I think some repetition is in order. In a laissez-faire
ideal society, each person is an independent, competent and self-controlling
entity. The word citizen is often used for this concept, and correctly.
Weaker members of our society may not qualify for this independent status.
There is a gradation between what I call in this context, citizenship on
the one hand, and dependency, on the other. The middle-aged entrepreneur,
executive and head of family in bourgeois society represent the citizen.
In his youth, he might have been a sickly child. In old age, he may be
senile. During his active career, he might be ill. Here are instances where
his independence and robustness are impaired. The whole gamut of human
misery, disease and failure can, at some time or other, afflict people.
In these vulnerable phases, our normal societal habit is to rely on family.
An extended family is the community. It is here that the concepts of laissez-faire
independence are vulnerable. Does the man who is (hopefully temporarily)
ill lose his rights? Does he lose his dignitas, as I discussed in a recent
newsletter?29
With
the advent of effective medicine, sometime around the turn of the 20th
century, the ancient medical tradition has assumed a new and greater role
because of the new scientific tools that came its way. This profession
has the potential of controlling a lot of society because of its now important
role in the affairs of the weak. It is interesting that in bygone eras
it was the priesthood that played that role.30
Notice how the significance of the church is declining as that of "scientific"
medicine is ascending and particularly that of psychiatry. Is this a coincidence?
You be the judge. Just as the church controlled belief in order to maintain
its power, so we find that the state has to control medicine for the same
purpose. This is a scourge of our era. In a curious way it is also a side
effect of the scientific method, the new effectiveness of medicine.
Now you
will understand the background for the reason that medicine is coming under
control of the bureaucrats for the first time in human history. It is our
generation of physicians who are facing the first major challenge to the
Hippocratic principle. It is true that the notions of the philosopher king
in Platonic medicine hail back to the Greek area. It is, however, in these
days that we are hearing that the Hippocratic Oath needs to be revised.
Why now,
two and one-half millennia after its enunciation? We are facing the issue
of control through the dialectical technique. This is a challenge no generation
of physicians has faced since Hippocrates' times.
The destruction of medicine
What needs
to be destroyed (from the hopeful controllers' point of view): 1) The confidence
the physician has in himself, 2) his independent thinking, 3) his absolute
commitment to his patient/client, 4) the privacy of the relationship because
4) the dignity of the individual is predicated on maintaining secrecy regarding
is weaknesses.
We all
have weaknesses. The medicalization of the mind, of education, of morality/immorality
of habits and vices, even of criminality, were necessary to wrest moral
support from the priesthood, exemplified in the confessional. Now in the
secular realm, the patient becomes a human resource (notice the significance
of words?) for the New World Order agenda. It is my belief that this task
allocated to the Clinton administration was just that. Due to the valiant
efforts of The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Hillary
plan of 1993 failed. This administration has used the technique of gradualism
to introduce the same horrors piecemeal. They have also revved up the propaganda
machine.
For instance,
I recently encountered a physician at a meeting who was outraged that 47%
of Americans "can't afford" health insurance. I, of course, look at things
differently. I celebrate that at least 47% of the population realize that
"health insurance" is a device to control them through the dialectic: 1)
Fear of catastrophes, thinking that asset protection is health insurance,
2) an attempt at tax avoidance by negotiating "benefits" from an employer
instead of wages,31 3) and above all, signing
up for insurance, through HMOs, with the subtle implication that the patient
gets to exploit the physician through the insurance contract for low premiums.32
This greed
factor is so potent that the public at large is moving from fee-for-service
insurance to capitation and HMO insurance.33,34
The premiums are indeed lower. Does it not occur to any of these people
that they get what they pay for? Evidently not. The particular thing they
get is control by managers who compete by rationing. The rationing is achieved
through foul means, and claim denials, claim delays, arcane coding systems,
and intimidation of physicians with the fascist system of imprecise coding-regulations.35,36
The tort
legal system and the threat of lawsuits aggravate the problem. The massive
publicity for the extraordinary outcome of lawsuits aggravates the fear
factor. Would any sane person want to get intimate, detailed professional
advice from a doctor whose mind is subject to all these pressures? It is
no wonder that the situation is worsening.
Next we hear the government lament that there are 100,000 serious complications
nationally yearly in health care. There will be zero tolerance for these
mistakes and, yes, you guessed it, your Clinton administration is going
to protect you from these incompetent doctors. As no one else has, let
me point out to you clearly that the state of mind, the cognitive dissonance,
that leads to these bad choices is a result of the previous slew of government
rules, mandates, regulations, and private public partnerships, such as
with the AMA and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the "solution"
is no more than the antithesis in the dialectic process.
Where is This Going?
The Jacobins
brought on the French Revolution to the then most civilized European country
in 1793. Robespierre's career is emblematic of the righteousness of a tyrant.37
Mussolini introduced fascism to Italy circa 1922 and Adolph Hitler, in
the name of National Socialism, gave the word Nazi the implication we are
all familiar with. The most important major revolutionary experiment was,
however, Lenin's. The October Revolution of 1917 in then Imperial Russia
developed in phases. He had a fairly easy task. The middle class and the
intelligensia were few and were immensely influenced by Western Europe.
The rest of the huge empire was controlled easily once the intellectuals
were in his trap.
The mind bending, used so successfully in that experiment, has been made
into a documentary film by Ayan Rand38 which,
though somewhat slow moving to a modern moviegoer, contains all the signals
and information you need to understand the process. It is well worth the
three hours it takes to view.
Our Experiment
The experiment we are living
through has been called, by Tony Blair and William Clinton, The third way.
This is a fascistic experiment of private-public partnership. Monopoly
charters are given, sometimes unofficially or by sleight-of-hand, to organizations
or business that manages the public. They masquerade, usually, as voluntary
associations, private organizations, citizens clubs, or professional associations.
These front organizations for the New World Order multiply by the day.39,40,41
Medical Front Organizations
The American
Medical Association (AMA) functions, at least in part, as such an organization,
and the clear evidence for this is their monopoly in providing the CPT
codes. These codes are mandatory for insurance billing, including and in
particular insurance billing to government insurances such as Medicaid
and Medicare. This monopoly is profitable for the AMA, but why did the
Department of Human Health and Services not arrogate to itself the right
to manufacture these codes?
The reason
is clear - the semblance of voluntarism. After all, doctors join the AMA
voluntarily. It is therefore very encouraging for me to learn that the
roles of membership are declining. At least some doctors have the wisdom
or, perhaps more likely, the intuition to understand that this organization
is partaking in a private-public partnership (read fascism) to the detriment
of the interest of its members and the public.
Before
leaving the subject of coding in hospital and doctor bills, let us ask
why is coding necessary? After all, it creates a lot of work, confusion,
computer programming and argumentation. The reason, of course, is control.
Control of a lot of people and a lot of details call for modern databases.
All the rest of the discussion is, I propose to you, merely dialectic.
Conclusion
The dialectic technique
of debate that has been developed, by the illuminati, into a powerful
instrument for the control of the mind of humanity: Just as guns do not
kill, criminals do; so the dialectic is but a tool. We should look at the
causes for criminality in studying both.