Hegel and the Hammer of Thor - propaganda


Recommended Posts

Hegel and the Hammer of Thor - propaganda

The following quote is from Brad Thor's newest book, Hidden Order. This is a thriller about the Federal Reserve, however the quote below is perceptive and applies to most of the social movements these days.

The context is that Bill Wise, a secondary mentor, is talking to the hero, Scot Harvath (super-mercenary ass-kicker of bad guys). Bill Wise asks the question at the start of the quote to see how much Harvarth knows before explaining how the Fed was formed in the early 20th century. Harvath responds.

"Are you familiar with something called the Hegelian dialectic?"

"I am. It's where a group or an individual creates a problem, knowing full well in advance how people are going to react to it. They then begin agitating for something to be done about the problem, for things to change. Once the masses are then worked up enough and desperate for something to be done, the party behind the problem unveils their solution. The people are thrilled to have a plan, any plan, and so demand that it be implemented."

I cut the quote off at that point. Here is the rest of it.

"They never seem to realize that they've been manipulated and that they haven't really ushered in change, but actually a much worse version of what they had previously, only now in brand-new packaging."

I cut it off because it's such a good quote up to that point and applicable universally. The pessimism in the rest of it works within the context of what Harvarth and Wise were talking about--meaning the outcome is often true, but not always. Regardless, the intention in this process is always to manipulate a collective.

That kind of qualification would be a distraction at that moment in the book, so Thor made it a bad outcome across the board instead of most of the time. That's what a person in that situation would say. So I cut it off. But God knows, it is true enough of the time to be spoken.

Incidentally, this kind of mass manipulation is also called "top down, bottom up and inside out." The idea is to get the masses to start clamoring for suffering to stop. That's the inside out part, the "heart stuff" as Van Jones puts it. People generally want peace and to get on with their daily affairs, which keep them busy enough. They don't want chaos and they don't want anyone to suffer. All they want when it erupts is for someone to make it stop.

Little do they suspect that the situation--the artificial cause that results in real suffering--is intentional, with the top and bottom in collusion.

Here are the two fronts of the socially engineered problem: (1) Top down--the people in power impose one part of the problem on the masses to make things unbearable. Laws, taxes, unfair enforcement, confiscations, war, things like that. (2) Bottom up--there are demonstrations galore, preferably with violence and lots of hatred. The two come together to put a massive squeeze on the middle--the ordinary citizen who is trying to make a living and generally get along in life. That's when the inside out kicks in and people look to whoever promises they can solve the mess.

Enter the manipulator as a savior with a magic bullet solution. And the rest depends on how good or bad the character of said manipulator is. He will rule the day. That part is inevitable. The people will clamor for his solution and enact it, so he will not only get massive power, he will get it with the sanction of looking like he is responding to a popular request.

If he is a reasonably good person, things will bump and grind along. If he is a monster, he will kill and destroy on a grand scale.

Here is Van Jones in 2010 explaining this process (top down, bottom up and inside out) in honeyed smokescreen terms with strong emotional appeals. (For example: "But be very clear, as inspiring as he [Obama] is, you inspired him first. You inspired him first. That's the power that you have.")

And notice that he feeds the poison in at the end--that real American patriotism means wanting a big American government (he frames it as "strong").

Whoever would have thought the good ol'e Hegelian dialectic would be top down, bottom up and inside out like that?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that Thor's Hammer is one of the 57 symbols you can have put on your headstone if you are a veteran and the government is burying you? (after you are dead I mean). They have Wiccan ones, Humanist ones, and Atheist ones and all sorts If you request a new design and they approve it it will be yours. Vets, get out your drawing pads!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

That is really a wonderful description of the manipulation that goes on in politics in this country and around the world. I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, because I am working, but I loved the explanation of the process.

BTW, I'm not sure what all this has to do with Hegel or the Hegelian dialectic, other than the fact that Harvath (or Thor) brings it up, but it sounds like something from the leftist playbook.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, rightists don't have a play book?

Individualists have a lot of different play books.

Marxist collectivists have one and they run it consistently and that is why they are successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Thor's novel "The Apostle" and thought it was a competent thriller with a few lame elements. But I came to it as a non=appreciator of military action scenes as I will never understand the armaments or tactics involved. I read for the overall story and the conclusion.

What jolted me was reading reviews of Thor comparing him with Forsyth, LeCarre etc. There is no comparison. The thriller genre, whether psychological or action thriller or a combination, is dominated by superior novelists, and simply as a novelist Thor is not yet anywhere near superior. |He is a plotter and a storyboarder and something of a polemicist. He does have some nice kudos towards the Canadian military which are accurate and which I very much appreciate, thanks Brad and sincere congratulations on your hard work and achievements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally if you are wondering why I disparage Thor's lit skill on first reading, it is in part because he robbed me of suspense. As soon as I knew the premise dilemma and that the hero was a renegade, individualist hero with a lot of important connections, I knew he would of course both capture the villain and rescue the heroine, although a few good people would be killed along the way.. I should not know or expect this until the very end of a new storyteller,s story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol,

Yesterday I finished Hidden Order. I agree with you that, "as a novelist Thor is not yet anywhere near superior. He is a plotter and a storyboarder and something of a polemicist."

That's the exact impression I got from Hidden Order, albeit, I enjoyed the book. Sort of like the same way I would enjoy a TV episode of Law and Order, but maybe a little more because of the length.

I don't find him in the same league as Clancy or Ludlum, to cite real genre authors.

I think I got an inkling to his approach during a recent interview. He said he always makes sure to have a strong female lead character, one whose competence is necessary for the male hero to win.

That made my antenna wiggle. It sounded like he was wedding genre to demographic marketing as part of his premise-level inspiration. And right now, I believe if I dig deeper, I will find other elements to support the case. (See Hit Lit: Cracking the Code of the Twentieth Century's Biggest Bestsellers for a good starting list of what to look for.)

So I give him strong marks for talent that he is able to take a paint-by-the-numbers approach to artistic creation and do as much as he does. I suspect he will break free from that as he matures. I hope so. He has a real talent for devising likable smartass heroes with authority issues.

This is not to say Hidden Order did not hold my interest and send me off into a story trance. It did. But I want to be shaken to my core and kept awake at night because I can't put the damn book down, not pleasantly entertained with murder, riddles, banter, fights and chases.

On the positive side, I'm glad I read it because it is an excellent example of how to intertwine two very different stories and make them lead to the same place at the climax. I am currently writing a work where I needed to see a good example of that because of some doubts I have. By chance, Hidden Order used that format. Thor actually shined from this perspective.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting, he must be improving then. Apostle also had two intertwined stories but one of them (a Chappaquidick type blackmail on the president) was one of the lame elements I mentioned before. Very badly done, actually boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I have not read Hunter but speaking of intertwined stories, some of the reviews I saw said it was like a co-written book, with the romance and action elements seeming out of synch. You said it was next on your list so I will be interested in your reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a power-grabbing dialectic:

Thesis: People with freedom of action + introduction of problem that threatens freedom.

Antithesis: People clamor for someone to act--not themselves--to solve problem + proposed solution ignores freedom.

Synthesis: People with restricted freedom of action + solution of problem that restricts freedom.

The power-grabber plays the game of being the one who introduces both the problem and the solution, except he hides that fact. And he gets the power.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a power-grabbing dialectic:

Thesis: People with freedom of action + introduction of problem that threatens freedom.

Antithesis: People clamor for someone to act--not themselves--to solve problem + proposed solution ignores freedom.

Synthesis: People with restricted freedom of action + solution of problem that restricts freedom.

The power-grabber plays the game of being the one who introduces both the problem and the solution, except he hides that fact. And he gets the power.

Michael

I get what you're saying. It's just that I find it strange for a book to need to analogize a story element with a rationalistic process. Sort of throws the whole story of like "Whoa. Where did that come from and of what relevance is it?". Then again, it's probably just used as a tool to make people interested as opposed to embodying an actual theme that the author wishes to convey. But the trope of an individual or group of individuals really just toying with the people is an awesome one. FFXIII uses this and the result is, well, in Kantian parlance, sublime. I understand that "collectivist" is the term that some may use to label such people (the manipulators), but I consider the word to be inapplicable to such actions and instead prefer "Machiavellian", the point being that the manipulator(s) sees others as nothing but means to some other end(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samson,

Thor was talking layman's Marxism (remembering that Marx's theory is alleged to be the Hegelian dialectic standing on its head).

No matter.

The current political trend is toward dictatorship by committee of technocrats. Whether you call it this term or that, the propaganda and covert mass persuasion techniques are as thick as molasses.

If you want to see this in concrete tactical terms (instead of the strategic dialectic), Google the following keywords:

COBS

nudge squad

behavioral insights

It ain't pretty. It actually gets worse, but that's a start.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samson,

Thor was talking layman's Marxism (remembering that Marx's theory is alleged to be the Hegelian dialectic standing on its head).

No matter.

The current political trend is toward dictatorship by committee of technocrats. Whether you call it this term or that, the propaganda and covert mass persuasion techniques are as thick as molasses.

If you want to see this in concrete tactical terms (instead of the strategic dialectic), Google the following keywords:

COBS

nudge squad

behavioral insights

It ain't pretty. It actually gets worse, but that's a start.

Michael

Sound like fancy terms for a PR department (dark humor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now