I warned you last week that Hungarian President Viktor Orban would have to be judged by the merits of his actions and watched VERY carefully. I said this because, as I noted in my article, President Orban was a protege of George Soros’s Soros Foundation, and, how given that George Soros is playing a key role in this “refugee crisis,” it seems very odd that Orban is so opposed to the “refugees,” yet at the same time, Hungary is the port of entry for most of them.
I also noted another person in my article who was part of the Soros Foundation and who served as Mr. Orban’s tutor while at university. This was Zbigniew Pelczynski. If you read about Mr. Pelczynski, his speciality was in Hegelian dialectics.
The Hegelian dialectic was named after the German positivist philosopher Georg Hegel, and it is a way of reasoning that is used to determine truth, not by seeking an absolute standard, but through dialogue between two opposing points and seeking a resolution by “meeting in the middle.” The way it works is that the first person proposes an idea, which Hegel called a “thesis,” and another person proposes the opposite idea, called the “antithesis.” Since the assumption is that “truth” lies somewhere between these two extremes, the “thesis” and “antithesis” argue with each other to form a new outcome, which Hegel called the “synthesis.” If “truth” has not yet been reached, then the “synthesis” is proposed as the new “thesis,” a corresponding anthesis is proposed as well, and a new “synthesis” is developed. This is done as many times as in necessary until the “truth” is elucidated.
A chart showing how the Hegelian dialectic looks
The Marxists of the 19th century loved the Hegelian dialectic and it is still their favorite choice of argument, as well as that of many a tyrant. What makes the Hegelian dialectic so attractive to such people is because it makes no presumptions of absolute truth. Rather, it says that truth is the product of two extremes instead of being its own end, and that this synthesized truth can be realized through argument.
Remember the argument about a frog and a pot of boiling water? If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, he jumps out immediately, but if you put him in a pot of warm water and slowly turn up the heat, he will be cooked to death without even realizing it. The Hegelian dialectic is the intellectual equivalent of the frog in warm water- it allows men with bad intentions to slowly establish bad ideas in other men without them realizing it and in such a way that they eventually come to accept their position without even realizing consciously that they have changed their own views.
The cure for the Hegelian dialectic is fundamentalism, and by that I do not mean just religious, but intellectual, as well. It is the classical philosophical assumption that truth is fixed and absolute, unchanging, and it is for man to understand and conform himself to that truth instead of making his opinion the arbiter of truth.
This background about the Hegelian dialectic is important in light of a recent news story in which, “suddenly,” President Orban seems to have had a “change of heart” when it comes to this “refugee” crisis, albeit still maintaining most of his public positions. He says now that Europe needs a “new migration policy,” a “new Schengen agreement,” and a “new proposal” to stop and deal with the influx of these third-world “migrants.” Even the title of the article is telling- From Protest To Proposal:
The European Commission is set to launch a new attempt to find EU consensus on migration with proposals aimed at overcoming differences with Eastern European countries such as Hungary.
European Council President Donald Tusk has spent months trying to find agreement between the eastern and western EU countries. At a meeting last week of center-right European leaders, Tusk portrayed the issue as a difference of opinion between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán over how welcoming to be to refugees.
“We will either understand that the views of Angela and Viktor are compatible with each other and only together can they provide a full answer, or people will search for other radical and brutal recipes for how to solve the crisis,” Tusk said
It also incorporates ideas put forward more recently by Orbán, the EU leader most strongly opposed to the Commission’s policies on migration — especially when it comes to the relocation of refugees across Europe. The Hungarian prime minister presented his vision of a migration policy, which he termed “Schengen 2.0,” in April. At least six of the 10 points in the plan match up with the Italian proposal. According to an EU official, several of those ideas will be in the Commission’s new package.
Both the Hungarian and Italian plans push to link financial help to African countries with stronger commitments to control their borders and agreements to take back refugees. Both back the idea of setting up reception centers outside the EU for the processing of asylum claims. Both are also partly reliant upon the success of the EU’s deal with Turkey, which has agreed to take back refugees and migrants in exchange for money (and, in Ankara’s case, also in exchange for re-energized accession talks).
“Asylum procedures should be completed outside the EU in closed and protected hotspots before the first entry on the territory of the EU,” states Orbán’s plan. “Third countries should be supported in establishing a system of reception and management of migratory flows … which should foresee careful on-site screening of refugees and economic migrants,” reads Renzi’s.
It remains to be seen exactly how many of Hungary’s ideas will find their way into the Commission’s new package. The movement by the Commission in Budapest’s direction is likely to be more subtle than overt. Diplomats and officials said the Italian and Hungarian proposals have so many common points that it would be easy for the Commission to say that it has a looked at both.
You are looking at a Hegelian dialectic being worked on the European people right now.
The Thesis is that Europe must accept all refugees without limitations. This is a view put forth by Merkel.
The Antithesis is that Europe cannot accept any refugees at all. This is the view put forth by Orban.
The Synthesis is what you are looking at above. Accept “some” refugees, find “solutions” to the problems.
But here is the fundamental problem- there is no solution to this crisis because there is no end to the “refugee” onslaught. These Muslims are going to keep pouring in, and most importantly, they are outbreeding the European people with a culture that is inherently incompatible with that society. There is no end except for a total shut down of the borders.
This “agreement” or “compromise” is the “middle way” of the Hegelian dialectic. The proposed reforms today mean nothing because, ultimately, they will be ignored for the ultimate goal, which is a continued and complete Muslim invasion of Europe by population transfer, and that is what is happening.
Do not delude yourself into thinking this is an actual agreement. It is a trick to give the appearance of an agreement while taking you on the descent into an abyss worse than what Europe is already in. There is no agreement here- only gentle pressure being applied to mask the brutal force which drives it, which is this case it both Merkel and Orban, as they are on the same EU team.
Article reposted with permission from Shoebat.com
*Article by Andrew Biesdzad