The following essay was posted today at Vlad Tepes in a slightly different form.

Marx and the banning of elements in the periodic table

by Vlad Tepes

Examining the problem, reaction, solution/thesis, counter thesis, solution, or the dialectic scam of the left.

There certainly seems to be more than one understanding of this phrase. Here is our shot at it. Of course, there are scholars of Hegel/Marx who read this site, and we welcome any corrections or other interpretations of this well known phrase.

Picking Global Warming as an example, we have a completely invented problem, which of course can be manipulated in any way needed to end up at the point you want to land on. Primarily, the destruction of the West with its notions of free market economy and individual rights. Since the problem is fake, and created and enforced by “consensus” (See video below) all the reactions from people calling it out as fake must be dealt with using the dialectic attack of hate speech. This was fabricated by a second generation Frankfurt School acolyte, a certain Habermas, in the form of “Discourse Theory”.

[Video text read by Krzysztof Karon, translated by Ava Lon]

For the past many decades, various leftist controlled governments and leftist think tanks, have attempted to use the element of carbon as a means to control industry and humanity in a highly selective manner. Like slavery as an issue, we must only examine the ‘problem’ of CO2 production in Western and free market nations, more accurately perhaps, in cultures with the concept of individual rights as being sacrosanct. We must not look at slavery in Africa or Islam ever but must focus on the past actions in The USA pretty much exclusively in terms of passing moral judgment. And we must not look at really dirty industrial activity, let alone CO2 production in China or India but must pretend that CO2 produced by any and all means connected to humans in the West as an existential threat to the entire planet.

There should be no need to try and disprove the idea that CO2 is a problem on this site. I do have a dedicated page to the science of it here on Vlad but I don’t maintain it very well, since to engage in a debate based on a lie is to lose that debate since only one side seeks to know the truth and the power of the lie is much greater in the short run. At least where the goal is destruction.

One fact, though, is that where CO2 is produced, more life happens. Plants grow etc. Plants, and life, are made of carbon. Even on the side of highways, plants tend to thrive from a truly poisonous form of carbon, CO1 or Carbon monoxide. CO2 is actually pumped into greenhouses to help plants hit their optimal growth rate.

But let’s pretend that CO2 production was a problem. Then why are those who wrap themselves in a false flag of environmentalism, so opposed to nuclear power? It’s the obvious solution to those who claim that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to the planet. Whatever the issues with nuclear power, it cannot be as bad as that.

And then there is this:

A very worthy deeper dive:

So we have a solution now for food production that is safe, energy-efficient and absorbs far more carbon than it produces.

Global Warming is a consensus-based thing, though. Meaning communists agreed on creating it and presenting it as an existential problem in order to get to the solution they want, which is communism. No real-world approach to solving even the non-problem of “global-warming” will be entertained, and any attempt to expose it as the fraud it is will be met with charges akin to hate speech. “Climate-denier”, for example, makes moral equivalence with a Holocaust-denier of one who would deny the ‘existential threat of global warming’. A fairly palpable use of the Hate-Speech tactic.

More recently, in order to destroy farming in the Netherlands and replace these farms with what will almost certainly be beehive brutalist housing for illegal mostly Muslim and African migrants forced on the local population since before 2015, a new element and compound had to be demonized as an existential threat. Nitrogen, which makes up damn near 80% of the total atmosphere, and ammonia.

I won’t even bother to deal with the issue of nitrogen. To think that the tiny amount of nitrogen released on a few Dutch farms justifies the actions against farmers we see in the Netherlands is even worthy of rebuttal on that basis, means a lack of understanding of the tactic at play. Much like when one knows that nearly all human beings are born either a man or a woman (with the exception of extremely few genetic mutations which end with those individuals as they tend to be sterile) and to pretend these are fungible is, well risible.

So let’s look at the new threat of ammonia.

How could we somehow solve the issue of ammonia in a way that would satisfy those who claim it’ a problem while maybe at the same time, solving other problems many are concerned about?

The bottom line is:

The problems we are bombarded with, from Covid to vaccine hesitancy. From global warming to cow flatulence. From Nitrogen to ammonia, are all fake problems which, even by engaging about it, causes us to lose. These are not problems at all, and some, to the extent they might be, are selectively enforced against the Western nations and peoples with zero effort to deal with these non-problems in places like China, North Korea, India and other places where the raw production of these gases and so on are orders of magnitude higher than in the West.

We need to understand that so much of what we engage with on a day to day basis is we, the intellectual descendants of Socrates, being constantly basted with pseudo-reality and false cosmologies in order to destroy Western civilization where it actually lives.

In our own minds.

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog.

Krzysztof Karon video transcript:

20:06		SEMANTIC MARXISM — Discourse Theory
20:12		The notion of “discourse” has become very trendy lately, and it’s being used
20:16		in a very nonchalant way by representatives of totally different ideologies.
20:21		But all seems to point to its being used in order to
20:25		designate “discussion”. Only it does sound better;
20:29		it is “trendy” and testifies to the higher intellectual ambitions
20:33		of the users. However, this notion — even though
20:37		it has a much older history— has currently become an element of a phraseology
20:41		of the New Marxism. And if it’s being used mindlessly even by
20:45		its opponents; it means that they adopted Marxist language,
20:49		which is, in itself, a testimony of the cultural domination of Marxism.
20:53		Therefore I’ll explain very briefly:
20:57		The formula of discussion was worked out back in the Middle Ages
21:01		by [the teachings of] the Scholastics, whose goal was searching for the Truth.
21:05		And the reference point for evaluating competing views
21:10		was knowledge about the reality, [which was] treated as
21:14		an account of the facts, independent of subjective interpretation or judgment.
21:18		One of the conditions of the discussion is precisely separating this,
21:22		what is the description of reality, thus the knowledge about the facts,
21:26		from subjective interpretations, evaluations, or
21:30		represented interests. That objective sphere is
21:34		the base for the verification of the legitimacy of positions,
21:38		and constitutes — you might say — an independent argument. In the new linguistic paradigm
21:42		such an objective knowledge about reality —
21:46		traditionally called the TRUTH — DOESN’T EXIST. Therefore,
21:50		a discussion about social life has to be organized
21:54		following other norms, and has to have a different goal.
21:58		SEMANTIC MARXISM — Compromise vs. Consensus
21:59		There are several Discourse Theories, but the most important one for
22:02		Jürgen Habermas 1929-
22:03		the New Marxism was created by the representative of the second generation of the Frankfurt School
22:04		Theory and Practice 1963, Knowledge and Human Interests 1968, Theories of Truth 1973, The Theory of Communicative Action 1981
22:07		and reformer of Critical Theory, Jürgen Habermas.
22:11		The very same person who criticized the Fascist attitude of Rudi Dutschke
22:15		at the Hannover Congress in 1967.
22:19		The main work by Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action,
22:23		published in 1981,
22:28		is a summary of the new concept of the Consensus Truth,
22:32		introduced in a book from 1973
22:36		called The Theories of the Truth. According to Habermas,
22:40		the veracity or falsehood of a statement — while there are no objective
22:44		verification criteria — are decided by their declarative force.
22:48		So the very fact that we state something,
22:52		demanding ipso facto that the statement be recognized as true,
22:56		is an argument determining definitely the veracity of the statement.
23:01		The substantiation of the veracity of such a claim
23:05		cannot be the obviousness of the experience, but the
23:09		process of the discourse, or the process during which the truth is being established.
23:13		When translated into normal language it means that
23:14		SEMANTIC MARXISM — Compromise vs. Consensus
23:17		the truth is that what — during the discourse — is being presented
23:21		as the truth and accepted as truth by all its participants.
23:25		Because the condition for truth is the consensus.
23:29		As it’s easy to guess that the reference point for the argumentation
23:33		supporting different positions cannot be reality.
23:37		It’s the power of persuasion that becomes the reference point.
23:41		It is not, however, hanging in the void.
23:43		SEMANTIC MARXISM — Discourse Ethic
23:45		Discourse Theory, whose goal is consensus,
23:50		creates its own space in which a vital role is being played by the notions
23:52		The goal of the Communicative Action and the Communicative Rationality is Consensus
23:54		of Communicative Rationality and the Communicative Ethic.
23:58		Communicative Rationality is a principle of thinking
24:02		whose point is consensus. It isn’t by definition contrary
24:06		with the rationality in the common understanding of the word, or logical thinking
24:10		of cause and effect; but that logical rationality isn’t the principle that is
24:14		mandatory and superior, because it has no support in
24:18		objectively stable reality.
24:20		The reality of the Discourse is inter-subjectivity, or the space independent of subjectivity which is contrary to the idea of Consensus and of non-existent objectivity
24:22		The reality which is the reference point is the so-called
24:26		inter-subjectivity, which is neither objectivity, because
24:30		objectivity doesn’t exist, nor subjectivity, because
24:34		subjectivity excludes consensus. The discourse
24:38		is the reference point for itself and establishes
24:43		its own discourse ethic. The principals of the Discourse Ethic
24:45		Karl-Otto Apel 1922-
24:47		were established by Habermas together with a longtime collaborator Karl-Otto Apel. Discourse and Responsibility. The Problem with the Transition to Post-Conventional Morality — 1988
24:51		Consensus isn’t a compromise
24:55		or an elaboration of a position that can possibly be accepted by all, CONSENSUS ISN’T A COMPROMISE, or acceptance of an agreed-upon position which partially takes into account different views of the parties. CONSENSUS is an AFFIRMATION of the agreed-upon position, and therefore demands the change of one’s position.
24:59		as a result of concessions by each party
25:03		from a clearly defined own position, view and interest.
25:07		Consensus in the understanding of Discourse Theory
25:11		doesn’t mean the agreement of all the parties with the elaborated position,
25:15		but the ABANDONMENT of the previous position
25:19		and the acceptance of the common position as ONE’S OWN.
25:23		Consensus doesn’t so much mean acceptance
25:27		as AFFIRMATION of the elaborated negotiating position. [i.e. not ACCEPTING,
25:31		but LOVING Big Brother] The prerequisite of the very adherence
25:34		The prerequisite for participation in the Discourse is the renunciation of the conviction of the legitimacy of one’s position [not of having it, but of what it says], because it precludes the willingness to reach a consensus
25:36		to the discourse is the renunciation of conviction about the objective
25:40		legitimacy of one’s own position. It’s logical,
25:44		because if one is convinced of that legitimacy,
25:48		then one’s goal of participating in the discourse will be rather to justify the validity of one’s
25:52		own position, rather than to strive for acceptance, or even
25:56		affirmation of the common position, which isn’t the same
26:00		as one’s own position. Such an approach is therefore
26:04		contrary to the idea of consensus. Even though it might seem like
26:08		splitting hairs, it’s worth underlining here the importance of this aspect.
26:12		Because the ethic of the discourse goes beyond the frame of the
26:16		discourse itself in such a sense, that in its categories,
26:20		every precisely specified position, every point of view,
26:24		that someone would like to defend or that he even only considers
26:27		Anyone, who represents a precise position that he would like to defend is opposing the idea of agreement and consensus, and becomes the sower of discord, conflict and hate.
26:28		as objectively legitimate, puts him immediately
26:32		in the position of the ENEMY OF CONSENSUS or the sower of discord,
26:37		conflict and HATE.
26:41		I’ll stubbornly reiterate: if anyone
26:45		uses the notion of ‘discourse’ instead of ‘discussion’ or agrees
26:49		to participate in a discourse and not in a discussion,
26:53		then he should realize that he is waiving
26:57		the right to have precise convictions,
27:01		or to buttress himself with the knowledge of reality
27:05		as an argument justifying those convictions.
27:09		What is presented here, very briefly, the Neo-Marxist conception
27:13		of the Common Consensus, is hard to translate into praxis,
27:17		because it’s indefinite what decides WHICH truth
27:22		as the result of the Discursive Consensus.
27:26		The answer, however, is simple: what is decisive about it is
27:30		which party succeeded in prompting the other party
27:34		to consider the position [of the first party] as their own.