AZL flag holder TransparentGrounded in philosophy, true dialectical discourse dates back to Plato and uses a process of analytical debate to discern truth. Void of sophisticated technique the craft of writing was still in its infancy. The purveyance of complex philosophical ideas stood testament to this posing a major problem for the philosopher. It was in this crude environment that Plato developed a persuasive but simple way of projecting his ideas. A fictional scenario involving 2 characters allowed Plato to present a rational debate the resolution of which consolidates in logical truth. The validity of the truism is exposed in the practical demonstration of holding ground against opposition rending the reader less able to reject the conclusion. However, modern dialectics is based on the Jew Karl Marx’ ideology. What Marx does, in direct opposition to Plato’s fictional scenario, is fabricate a situation in the physical world, a situation controlled by the fabricator, rendering dialectical discourse rigid and artificial (dialectical materialism). The proof of its fallacy lies in its inability to stand up to rational debate. A typical example is the anti-Fascistic obstruction of debate with crude Marxist howls. The fundamental difference is that the Caucasian uses as a starting point analysis/knowledge because the goal is truth. The Jew on the other hand will only posit construct/prediction as it desires the outcome to be in his control. Therefore, even if there was an artificial aspect to Hegal’s dialectic the intension was good where as the outcome of dialectical Materialism is meant to be nefarious. Thus, just as propaganda is a tool for the dissemination (propagation) of information, the real issue is whether the inanimate tool is responsible or the organism using the tool to reinforce his agenda. In the hands of the Jew dialectics becomes a formula for generating predetermined outcomes. Reduced to its simplest form dialectics could be summed up as problem, reaction, solution. Applying a dialectical strategy is accomplished through a process of tension and resolution. Here a construct is employed as the strategy to create the problem or crisis thus fermenting a reaction (tension). Then the problem is controlled by presenting a solution (resolution). In this way the Jew achieves its desired outcome. This form of dialectics (dialectical materialism) is the Jewish general state of mind also known as ‘chutzpah’. This particular dialectical strategy is the way the Jewish mind has always worked, basically the materialisation of chutzpah or chutzpah in action. So when the Jew Marx put pen to paper he explicitly exposed the Jewish mind.

The Jew has engineered a totally artificial environment in which he controls all elements. The Jew achieves this by manufacturing both thesis (aims) and antithesis (opposition). In order to stay credible the opposition crafted by the Jew must expand to stay within the realms of acceptance. A perfect example is during Trump’s presidential candidacy his presentation provided all that the electorate expected and all that was needed to maintain credibility. Nevertheless on election the manifesto was exposed as lies when Trump reneged on all his promises. Thus demonstrating the degree of alertness to which the Aryan must rise when dealing with the Jew. The political landscape is a model of large scale dialectics, however, the Jewish dialectic is manifest at all levels. At the most basic the Jew asserts its control by delivering an issue tightly constrained within Jewish boundaries. The most simple way to explicate this is that of an individual inciting an issue among the silent public. That his audience was not contemplating the issue prior to his launch instantly gives him command over the debate’s direction. It is Jewish prowess to manufacture an issue that was never on the public agenda and make it the forefront of everybody’s agenda. While the Holocaust construct is the grandest manifestation of this in the 20th century, being that it was a fiction delivered through Jewish propaganda to a vulnerable gentile public and kept on the agenda solely for the Jewish advantage, striping it down it can be seen that all elements of this environment are handled in this fashion restricting the Aryan to boundaries the Jew has set. Significantly this type of regulation also applies to the Christian who bypasses God to rely on biblical scripture purely revealed, largely by the Jew Saul (Paul). Therefore, it is the Jew who has instigated the boundaries to which the Christian gentile must stick. In so doing the Jew Paul supplants European heritage with a Jewish ideology thus, subjugating the Christian gentile to his Jewish ‘saviour’. In this light Christianity can be viewed as a self contained dialectic. Here Christianity is the overarching paradigm through which reality is filtered. As such, like the Jew Paul who initially set the boundaries, it is now Christianity itself that manufactures and regulates a Judaic moral foundation for ‘reality’. Thus anything ‘not Christian’ is instantly encapsulated and confined within the limitations of Christian reasoning. This means that complex matters are put in neat little packages that are easily managed by Jewish (Christian) reasoning.

Big lies (dialectic) are foundation destroyers that leave the way clear for multitudes of smaller cruder constructs that only hang together because they are concealed within dialectical absurdity-an example is the so called immigration debate. Here it matters not what the party label is but always one will engender the notion of immigration while the other will take a ‘hard line’ applying the necessary tension. The public are encouraged to take sides as if these are the only options yet the resolution will still be mass immigration into Europe destroying the native demographic of our ancestral land. Stealthily managing both sides of this closed system ensures the establishment and their outcome while concealing the real issue. It is as if the immigrant spontaneously began creeping across European borders and now we must manage it. This shallow accusation of responsibility appeals to ‘Christian sentiment’, or rather misplaced guilt arriving through the introduction of ‘sin’. Indeed discounted is the fact that it was the global Jewish agenda who deliberately removed those borders without native public consent. This absolves our apparent ‘obligation’ to the overarching Jewish construct. Managing a problem that the enemy has created rather than solving it will always work in the enemy’s favour. In truth such issues are right or wrong/black or white but the Jewish dialectic encourages an artificial ‘grey area’ that defies logic in favour of Jewish reasoning. Also an aspect of immigration and blamed on ‘Islamic terrorism’ at the most dramatic level is the false flag ‘terror attack’ in which the Jew exposes his Middle Eastern enemy to his European nemesis. Occupying European Governments the Jew can tighten security to the extreme; disarm the European natives, occupying enemy land in the Middle East all in the name of ‘security’. Nevertheless displaced Muslims are deliberately imported into Europe, a conscious effort on the part of the Jew to manufacture war and destroy both his enemies at once. Hence the dialectic method manipulates the mass into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action.

Other examples of the dialectic in play are the democratic multi-party state with a vote and choice that only leads to Cultural Marxism (political correctness). Thus no matter who the players are whether Putin in Russia, Trump, Obama and Hilary Clinton in America or Labour, Conservatives, UKIP they are puppets fighting artificial battles with outcomes predetermined in the Jewish favour.

While the working concept of the dialectic is straight forward even simplistic, indeed our presentation has been simplified in order to make the basics more accessible to a wider audience, its multilayered application is paradoxically complex. Dialectic built upon dialectic fails to furnish us with a solid anchor. Accordingly, the environment controlled by the Jew is not a tangible reality but smoke and mirrors.

Without objective truth (foundation) tackling the problem is like looking at the reflection of a mirror in another mirror, there is no end! Consequently, it must be understood that the dialectic is a problem of graphic proportions because it fundamentally destroys traction (truth) leaving a groundless synthetic environment on which any and all absurdity can sit.


%d bloggers like this: