Anti-Dialectic Aktion
On Building and Breaking the Ratchet
In this piece I will endeavor to teach you the what, why, and how of the primary tool of the leftist march through political and social history: the dialectical ratchet. First, know that the “dialectic” does not have to be complicated, it can be simply thought of as third-way-ism, or the practice of taking two competing ideas and “synthesizing” them into a new concept that accounts for both. For instance, somebody wants to cook dinner at home, another wants to eat dinner out, and the negotiated synthesis might be getting takeout to eat in. This process is readily weaponized, however, as it has been by the left for centuries, into a mechanism whereby leftist ideas are “synthesized” with rightist ideas in a way that always favors the gradual progression of leftism.
This is accomplished by handicapping the rightist ideas through “scientizing” them, or various linguistic tricks that place the rightist idea – properly considered in the realms of theology or philosophy – into the realm of “science,” or “experts,” who can then speak to the rightist ideas as “false” (making an objective claim with no basis in objectivity), or, alternatively, through placing rightist ideas as outside the Overton Window, and thus unacceptable socially. These practices favor the leftist ideas during the negotiated process of synthesis such that it effectively builds out a dialectical ratchet, so named for the tool that moves by ever-so small increments in one direction while resisting movement in the other.
Further necessary to the understanding of this incremental process is that the “science” we typically consider to be science is not the same “science” that they mean when they engage in the process of political warfare. This was outlined in the political theology of German philosopher GWF Hegel in the division of “science” into two categories, one of which being rudimentary and process-driven, the other being metaphysical and prophesy driven. Very much of what the modern left refers to as “science” is actually of the latter variety, and more properly called “Scientism.”
By capturing the broader sciences, and infecting them with Scientism, the left has managed to remake institutions, and repurpose them as reification agents of leftist dogma. In other words, the left can, through the dialectical process described above, point to the institutions that it has captured, and the “science” that it has infected with Scientism, to label rightist ideas and policy as “objectively false,” or “scientifically harmful,” while in reality they are referring to a religious ideology, and not actual science. Again, they get away with this because they have ideologically captured the institutions that would be, in a functional system, a check on their false claims to expertise.
But don’t take my word for any of this. Please, read through this piece in Psychology Today from 2020 laying out the strategy for implementing this process, citing “dialectical behavioral therapy” as the model, detailing how they intend to negate rightist ideas and policy through this dialectical process. The author of this piece, Jeremy Shapiro, gives away the game at the end with the following quote: “In principle, Republicans could use this strategy too, but the main problem currently besetting that party is the rejection of factual and scientific information, which is not a two-sided issue and is a topic for a different post.” In other words, the Republicans don’t get to use this strategy because their ideas aren’t correct according to the institutions that the left controls.
I ask you then to consider with this new knowledge what the actual purpose might be of a training event, for lawmakers from both the left and right, to learn to utilize the dialectical process to “work together,” to find “common ground,” and to “reduce polarization” might actually be intended to accomplish. Would it be helpful to know that this training event was run by a psychologist? Don’t assume the worse of those involved in bringing in this training, however, as it is entirely likely they didn’t, and don’t, know the true intentions of it.
So, the question of questions is then “how do we break the ratchet?” Well, everyone needs a new kind of education to understand the environment we now operate in, as it’s not necessarily productive to continue on the way things have been done to date. First, we must understand that if we don’t make moves to reclaim the framing of the issues we will forever be at a deficit. Take “gun control” for instance. It doesn’t exist. It’s not a real thing. It’s a propagandized phrase cemented through reflexivity: political warfare. Nobody is interest in “controlling guns.” What they actually want to do is put good and decent people in prison for owning property they’d rather they not own. That’s the reality, and it’s how the issue needs to be reframed. The battle starts with language, and learning to reject the presuppositions inherent in propaganda. There’s more to say, but this is a good start, and it’s plenty to digest in a single sitting.