|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
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).
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.
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).
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.