---

Additional Titles

COMMUNITY (COMMUNIST) ORIENTED POLICING

 

 

By Detective Phil Worts

June 1, 2001

NewsWithViews.com

The consensus (dialectic) process

There is a myth that communism is dead and that the cold war is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is that few people today understand what communism really is and just where the cold war battle lines are actually drawn. Crack open a dictionary and look up the term "Dialectical Materialism." You should find something like this:

"A philosophy founded by Karl Marx" which forms the basis of Communist doctrine: it combines the materialistic idea of matter over mind with the Hegalian dialectic in which opposing forces are constantly being reunited at a higher level." --Webster Dictionary

But that definition might beg the question, "What is the Hegelian dialectic?" For modern man, the answer to that question is epic. The Hegelian dialectic has profoundly impacted the world in which you live.

What is communism?

The Dialectic:
Fomenting the Revolution

The concept of the dialectic has been around for a long time. It is simply that of opposite positions: Thesis (position) vs. Antithesis (opposite position). In traditional logic, if my thesis was true, then all other positions were by definition untrue. For example, if my thesis is 2+2=4, then all other answers (antithesis) are false. George W.F. Hegel, the nineteenth century German philosopher, turned that concept upside down by equalizing Thesis and Antithesis. All things are now relative. There is no such thing as absolute truth to be found anywhere. Instead, "truth" is found in Synthesis, a compromise of Thesis and Antithesis. This is the heart and soul of the consensus process.

This is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian world-view prevalent in the Western world for the better part of two millennia that held that God existed, that He existed outside of the material creation and that man had a moral obligation to Him and His laws. God was transcendent and thus truth was absolute and transcendent, outside of our ability to manipulate it. This all changed with Hegel and modern man was born. Man could now challenge any authority and position, even God. Since there is no such thing as absolute truth, "my truth" is just as good as "your truth," so don't tell me what to think or how to behave. As Nietzsche, the "God is Dead" philosopher, would later say, "There is absolutely no absolute." Now 2+2 can equal 5, or 17, or whatever you feel is right. (Hint: This is why our schools are failing. All teachers are certified on Benjamin Bloom's work. He said "we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places.")

At about the same time that Hegel was passing from the scene, Karl Marx caught the revolutionary fever. He drew heavily from Hegel (the dialectic) and Feuerbach (materialism). He picked up where the other philosophers left the discussion, but with a twist. He scornfully stated, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." To CHANGE the WORLD was to become the warp and woof of Marxism. In the Marxian interpretation of reality, God had been abandoned. Alone in his universe, man was to fill the vacuum left by religion with materialism. Religion was the enemy of all progress. As he wrote in 1843, "Religion is the opium of the people." No longer bound to a relationship with his Creator, the social relationship of "man to man" became the principle of Marx's theory. It followed that these social relationships, which necessarily involve conflict, cause the changes in human progress. As the opening words of the Communist Manifesto announce: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Note the dialectic reasoning: the clash of opposites produces synthesis and change. Man, freed from religious restraints will carry the revolution (change via conflict) forward until all are equal in a man made utopia on earth. To that end, the Manifesto concludes, "Working men all countries, unite!"

1. It is Dialectical Materialism, or, in simpler terms: a God expunged human reasoning process.
2. REVOLUTION is its goal, to "change the world," Marx said.
3. The CHANGE is to be from a Theistic World View (Old World Order) to a Humanistic World View (New World Order). The term New World Order was a popular euphemism for world communism for years. Conspiracy kooks did not invent it. When it started to take on negative connotations, it was dropped for a nicer sounding label, Global Governance.
4. Change is to occur through CONFLICT, (Crisis/Problems/Issues).

The Cold War. Where is the battlefield?

Change Happens: The re-culturing of America

Even as the worldwide communist revolution got underway in earnest around the glove, a rift was forming within Marxist intellectual circles. Around the turn of the century there was a growing trend within this movement that a better way to change the world is not abruptly and violently at the point of a bayonet, (traditional Marxist revolution), but rather it should be done slowly and incrementally by transforming individuals and their cultural institutions. Then you can control a country as effectively as if you conquered it militarily. In fact, this method is preferred because one does not have to rebuild bombed out cities and dig all those mass graves!

The home for this new wave of dialectical Marxist thinking became the emerging "science" of socio-psychology. It may come as a surprise to many to discover that virtually all of the pillars of modern psychology were humanistic utopians who believed that there is no God, that mankind can and should be manipulated (for its own good, of course), and that all social problems can be solved by the proper reprogramming of man's mind. This would lead to an era of peace and prosperity based on diversity, tolerance and unity. Most of their work dealt with the details of human behavior, but their over-arching view was that of transforming society (echo the revolution). Hence, they came to be known as "Transformational Marxists."

One such group was the Fabian Socialists, who took their name from the Roman general, Fabius. Fabius, it will be remembered, was confronted with Hannibal's invasion of Italy. Hannibal with his elephants held the advantage of superior forces, but was far from home and supplies. Instead of confronting his foe head on, a battle he would have certainly lost, Fabius utilized hit-and-run tactics. Harassing his enemy and wearing him down incrementally piece-by-piece over time until Hannibal capitulated, Fabius won the war. The Fabian Socialists adopted this strategy in their goal of world socialism. In a similar vein, the transformational Marxists advocated a "slow march through the institutions," as famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci would say. Gramsci's theories cannot be overstated in this regard, as this strategy has become synonymous with his name. The Gramsci Strategy is the "War of Position," (i.e. the battle ground is for the mind and culture) vs. the "War of Maneuver," (i.e. traditional battlefield warfare with guns and bombs.) Gramsci engendered the anger of his communist counterparts in Moscow when he basically told them they were doing it all wrong. Gramsci died in prison under Mussolini's regime, but his strategy has become the strategy for changing society.

Meanwhile, in Germany, a group of some 21 Marxist socio-psychologists gathered in Frankfurt and formed the Institute of Marxist Research. Perhaps that was a little too obvious for their opponents and they renamed it the Institute for Social Research. When Hitler rose to power, most of these men fled to America and continued their work here. Kurt Lewin, J.L. Moreno, Theodor Adorno, Erik Fromm, Max Horkhiemer and others found positions in American universities and had their work funded by pro-Marxist foundations.

Kurt Lewin is of special interest for this discussion because it was he who went to M.I.T. and conducted the research involving group dynamics that laid the foundation for Total Quality Management. At the risk of oversimplifying how the process of group dynamics works, it could be summarized as a method of belief and behavior modification, using dialectic-reasoning skills (remember, all truth is relative), in a group setting. It utilizes the inherent fear an individual person has of being alienated from the group. By use of a change agent, or "facilitator," individuals are herded toward "consensus" by compromising their position for the sake of "social harmony." According to Lewin, "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: UNFREEZING the present level, MOVING to the new level, and FREEZING group life on the new level."

This is precisely the technique with which the communists brainwashed American POWs, the only difference being they could accelerate the "unfreezing" phase with physical torture.

In group dynamics the pain is not physical, it's emotional. Do not underestimate the force of emotional pain. POWs frequently described their long periods in isolation as worse than some of the most brutal physical torture Isolation from the group is a powerful behavior modification weapon.

Transformational Marxists such as Kurt Lewin refined their weapon for the new battlefield: Using group dynamics to invade the culture to affect the paradigm shift. The weapon looks like this:

1. A Diverse Group ("Diversity" needed for conflict)
2. Dialoging to Consensus (Dialectic process)
3. Over a Social Issue (Problem/Crisis/Issues)
4. In a Facilitated Meeting (Controlled environment using facilitator/change agent)
5. To a Predetermined Outcome (Paradigm shift)

The Marxist Trojan Horse

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

TQM is an organizational transformation strategy that uses:

1. Group Dynamics
2. Facilitator/Change Agents ("Strategic Planning" occurs in councils)
3. "Problem Solving"
4. Systems Management (ISO 900

Decoding the term "Total Quality Management" is impossible without an understanding of the Marxist foundation upon which it was built. I use the word "Decoding" because so many of the dialectic concepts are masked by nice sounding double-talk.