Hegelian Dialectic: How the Government Uses Cognitive Dissonance
➝ The puppet masters will create “disorder” so the people
will demand “order”. The price of “order” always entails a handing over
of control and loss of freedom on the part of the citizenry. Out of
“chaos” comes “order” – THEIR order – their WORLD order.
➝ The
trick of creating chaos and then seizing power under the pretense of
putting things back in order is a tried and true method of deception and
manipulation. It’s the meaning behind the Latin motto: ORDO AB CHAO
meaning ORDER OUT OF CHAOS.
➝ It’s also referred to as the
Hegelian Dialect after the philosopher Georg Hegel who wrote about its
effectiveness. He described it as: THESIS — ANTI-THESIS — SYN-THESIS.
➝
Others have described it as: PROBLEM — REACTION — SOLUTION in that
firstly you create the problem; then secondly you fan the flames to get a
reaction; then thirdly (like Johnny-on-the-spot) you provide a
solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first
place, but wouldn’t have been able to achieve under normal
circumstances.
“A society whose citizens refuse to see
and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government
and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality
contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the
Police State Dictatorship it’s going to get.” — Ian Williams Goddard
The
dialectic technique of debate that has been developed, by the
illuminati, into a powerful instrument for the control of the mind of
humanity: Just as guns do not kill, criminals do; so the dialectic is
but a tool. We should look at the causes for criminality in studying
both.
The purpose of confusion in tax laws and regulations is to
cause COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. This is a state of mind where conflicts
remain unresolved. It weakens the subjects with its prolonged
uncertainty. People are then subject to breaking down and having
paradoxical conversions. This can be found in researching the phenomenon
of brain washing. It is a potent device for control.
Dialectic
Introduction
I
shall attempt to survey the use of an intellectual process, the
dialectic. I will survey a broad perspective of the subject,
concentrating on the failure of philosophy and its harm to our
civilization. I will then finish the article with a look at the special
case of medicine in the context of the dialectical tool - how medicine
is being destroyed, how the dialectical tool is used increasingly for
the purpose, and I will hint yet again at my increasing conviction that
there is a plan behind this evil.1 If we, who are savvy, can recognize
its purpose and identify its means of operation, there is a chance that
we can preserve the wonders of our civilization. No man and no family
live in isolation from society. Therefore, the welfare of society is
essential to our own welfare, let alone the need for exchange through
the generations for the other members of our species. We exchange
produce, manufactured goods, know-how, and ultimately the sharing of a
genetic pool. Ayn Rand expressed this concept well with her brief
aphorism There is no conflict between rational men. As we can see,
conflict abounds.
So what is wrong?
The
lack of rationality amongst most men. [EDITORIAL COMMENT: I again
encourage the reading of the classic Ayn Rand book, “Atlas Shrugged”. It
is a must read for anyone interested in helping to bring about positive
changes in society. You can read excerpts from “Atlas Shrugged” on the
web site of Walt Maken at: http://www.Angelfire.com/oh4/befree ] A
rational society is one in which individuals respect each other,
exchange with each other for mutual benefit, strive together for
essential inherent joint interests (such as national defense) and care
for each other based on respect and self-interest. This is the
Republican form of government that the founders of this country gave us
in 1776. 2. The more I study the matter, the more I come to realize that
that Republican gift was unique. 3 It is the first instance in history
where these laissez faire precepts of rationality were made the
foundation of a country, a society, a nation; although fragments of them
were available from the history of Western Civilization before
beginning with the Magna Carta (1215).
The Dialectic
As
many terms and concept in our civilization do, this hails to the
Greeks. Dialectic (also called dialectics) was originally a form of
logical argumentation where two or more sides of a subject were reviewed
before conclusions were drawn. Nowadays, it is a philosophical concept
of evolution applied to diverse fields including thought, nature and
history. Among the classical Greek thinkers, the meanings of dialectic
ranged from a technique of refutation and debate, through a method for
systematic evaluation of definitions, to the investigation and
classification of the relationships between specific and general
concepts. From the time of the Stoic philosophers until the end of the
European Middle Ages, dialectic was more or less closely identified with
the discipline of formal logic. Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) denoted by
Transcendental Dialectic, the endeavor of exposing the illusion involved
in attempting to use the categories and the principals of understanding
beyond the bounds of phenomena and possible experience. Georg Wilhelm
Fredrich Hagel (1770 - 1831) identified dialectic as the tendency of a
notion to pass over into its own negation as the result of conflict
between its inherent contradictory aspects. Karl Marx 4,5 and Friedrich
Engels adopted Hagel's definition and applied it to social and economic
processes. 6
"...Marx and Engels understood materialism as the
opposite of idealism, by which they meant that any theory that treats
matter is dependent on mind or spirit, or mind or spirit capable of
existing independently of matter. For them, the materialist and idealist
views were irreconcilably opposed throughout the historical development
of philosophy."
I quoted this text from Encyclopedia Britannica
to show you how the concept itself is muddleheaded. If you felt a little
embarrassed reading the last paragraph, not quite understanding it,
please - join the club. From my point of view, the fact that it is
gobbledygook is what I am trying to convey.
Dialectic Contemporary Use
The
modern usage of the dialectic has developed from a Greek form of
debate, that was quite sensible, through a sesquipedalian philosophical
rehash by the two famous German philosophers followed by Hagel into a
philosophical so-called tool. Hagel's usage is usually abbreviated and
summarized: Thesis; antithesis; synthesis. Whereby a proposition
(philosophical or other) is introduced. Its opposite is introduced
promptly thereafter (Antithesis), and then some intermediary position is
adopted as the final truth. You see, this denies the existence of
absolute truth. It assumes that every issue can be debated. This is the
origin of situational-ethics in philosophy. The process is simple. The
premise is false. How is it popularized through our contemporary
sesquipedalian science? Through using convoluted language that
embarrasses the reader who doesn't understand, and therefore is shamed
into accepting the process. An important component of this brainwashing
technique is using a part of a subject to generalize, namely pars pro
toto.
How to read the news
Parenthetically,
one might suggest to you that an interesting safeguard in maintaining
our rationality and sanity, when presented with stories in the news is
to discipline oneself always to ask: Does the illustration merit
generalization? You will find that the answer is usually negative.
[EDITORIAL
COMMENT: The principle applies to the continual attempted fraudulent
misapplication of IRS code sections to areas and people that are not
under any bona fide jurisdiction of the United States (government) ]
Actually,
it's a little more interesting than that. Now that you have learnt with
me how this tool is used, let's harden our intellectual armor a little
more. If you encounter a news story that uses an example to imply a
generalization (take, for instance, guns kill, therefore guns should be
banned), you need to ask yourself about the motives of the promoter of
the story. The newscaster, the person who paid for the program and,
alas, occasionally the political agenda behind the news (propaganda
would be a better word). Now regarding the dialectic, you will find that
most issues are discussed on television, etc., where "both sides" are
presented. This is the dialectic process on your screen every night. The
mere presentation of both sides implies that there is no absolute
truth. More importantly, it is very likely that the absolute truth is
exactly what is not debated on whatever program it is you are watching.
If you accept that the purpose of the debate is to bring you into a
synthesis (the dialectic ultimate stage) of opinion, it is very likely
that you have been given two false concepts to debate, and your
attention will be drawn away from what might have been obvious
otherwise, that the real issue lies elsewhere.
I would propose to
you, even, that the very essence of newscasting, programming,
advertising, television series, soap operas, and virtually everything
that is promoted by the mass media, uses this extraordinarily effective
tool, the dialectic. In its modern incarnation, it contains also the
concept of the package deal. 'The package deal' is a term Ayn Rand
coined to imply that something in the discussion is not mentioned but
taken for granted, and the participant, listener, reader is sucked in to
accepting this taken-for-granted concept by sleight-of-hand, unawares
as it were. [EDITORIAL COMMENT: This summarizes precisely the deceptive
approach that the “U.S. ATTORNEYS have tried to legitimize their
blatantly sham legal process with, from the very beginning of case
number CR-3-00-019. They have committed fraud upon the grand jury, fraud
upon this Court, and fraud upon the American people by proceeding as if
the federal ‘laws’ were universally applicable to everyone in America.
Apparently, in their own brainwashed stupor or otherwise acting under
the influence of some coercion on the part of those above them in the
governmental pecking order, they have attempted to proceed forward,
totally ignoring the bona fide requirements to cite the bona fide laws
and to provide bona fide proof of their specific applicability. Instead
of starting at the beginning of the bona fide due process, they have
attempted to skip over the foundational essentials, hoping that no one
would notice or challenge such unfounded presumptions. As I have said
before, not on my watch!!!! ]
Let's take the example of: Guns
kill, therefore we should ban guns. Is the current debate regarding the
safety mechanism appropriate to guns? Some of the Clinton
administration's recommendations for safety measures are ridiculous.
That is not the point. The [ deceptive ] point is to engage the public
in a discussion about the degree of harm from guns, not the issue that
we live in a time when the government is increasingly corrupt and
dangerous, and the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms - is in the
American constitution so that governments can be defeated militarily as
an ultimate protection when they abandon their Republican principles.
For myself, (though I am not particularly interested in firearms) I am
amazed that even the organizations that supposedly are 'pro-gun' enter
into this debate - the kinds of guns, the number of rounds in the
magazine, the length of the barrel, single, automatic,
semi-automatic-action, licenses, previous legal record, registration,
duration of waiting before registration and purchase is allowed, the
transfer of weapons between states, and now the pressure on gun
manufacturers not to sell to the public, safe zones around schools; can
you not see that these are all examples of the dialectic? False
arguments where the key issue is suppressed through this indirect
technique?
[EDITORIAL COMMENT: The “U.S. ATTORNEYS” have
willfully and repeatedly refused to give any bona fide notice of the
specifically applicable bona fide laws, they have willfully and
repeatedly ridiculed the government’s own published documents and
attempted to pass off such evidence as being nothing more than my own
ideas, they have willfully and repeatedly tried to deceive this Court
into overlooking the essential, bona fide issues, they have willfully
and repeatedly violated their own oaths of office, all the while using
their smoke and mirrors approach of false arguments. ]
We all
know that people in countries in which all men are armed have less
crime; but the most important issue is a Republican government where the
authorities are responsive to, and afraid of, their servants, the
public. I have dwelt a little on this gun issue, which is not my main
topic, as an illustration of the dialectic process that is so active in
our media at the present time. I will come to the issue of the
destruction of medicine through the dialectical process presently. It is
important for all of us. We are all mortals, we are all subject to
disease, and we may all require medical attention. I think, however,
that is it particularly important for doctors to understand this issue.
The doctor who is swept into a misunderstanding of his role as a
Hippocratic healer may, probably inadvertently, develop habits of
treatment that may not be in his customer/patient's interest.
Accordingly, I shall continue in this article to look at a few other
examples of where we are going in contemporary America with this
dialectic process. When all is said and done, the destruction of
medicine is, after all, only a case in point.
National Defense
The
Clinton administration in the U.S., and the Blair government in
Britain, have increasingly demobilized and decommissioned the military.
"We no longer need defense against the Soviet Union, which has
collapsed." Wrong. The military might of the Communist Empire has not
diminished.7 There is subtlety in camouflaging their strength. They are
pretending that there are no longer closed zones in Russia. Visitors do,
however, report their existence. This is where military development
progresses apace. The Soviets' ability to distort perceptions in the
West has improved (if that is the correct word) by an order of magnitude
since the introduction of peristroika. This 'renewal' coincided with
Mikhail Gorbachev's move from being Chairman of the Communist politburo -
via name change - to the presidency. Now he is the informal head of the
New World Order co-chaired by Maurice Strong.8 The anticipated
non-governmental organization club, scheduled to propose a revision of
the United Nations Charter in September 2000, is a large step towards
the New World government.9,10,11,12 What are we debating regarding
national defense in America? Whether we are at risk for missiles from
Iran or North Korea. Do you see how the essential point is avoided? The
world Communist conspiracy, based in Moscow and Peking, aims at complete
takeover of us all through world government.13,14 The fact that this is
not being debated indicates two things: 1) We are being subjected to
concerted disinformation. 2) There is a plan afoot to use the outcomes
(the synthesis).
Testing
Incidentally,
I think that there is a third rather amusing aspect to recognizing this
phenomenon. It is what I call the test dialectic. In order to bring us
all under the New World Order, preferably thinking we like the plan, Sun
Tsu's15 method of changing the enemy's mind to accept the change, not
recognizing defeat, is the goal.16 How do you achieve it? This has not
been done before. Well, it's necessary to conduct some experiments. We
know, from the business of advertising, that the skilled promoters send
out test mailings with nuances and variations of the promotional
material to test target audiences and have a feedback mechanism whereby
they learn how effective their propaganda is. By a series of negative
feedbacks, finally they hope to arrive at their ultimate goal by
influencing the minds of as large an audience as possible. You see, we
are coming to a slow realization that the whole business of world
affairs is mind control. It is one thing to control the bodies of your
slaves. How much better it is to control their minds!17,18
The minds of soldiers
The
emasculation of the fighting spirit, idealism for country and culture,
is predicated on destroying the concepts of honor, valor, absolute
truths, community responsibility, pride and dignity. All these
destructions flow from relative morals and situation ethics.
Philosophically, they flow from the dialectic and most specifically from
the antecedent of Hagel's dialectic from Immanuel Kant's philosophy
that truth is only in the mind of the believer. There is no independent
objectivity. Personally, I doubt whether Immanuel Kant, the pedantic
philosopher, saw himself as a tool of evil, a destroyer of our
civilization. For all I know, he merely enunciated the philosophy that
was somehow ready. Nonetheless, the objectivists, and I think rightly,
see his work as emblematic of this change. The social technique of
promoting permissiveness in personal and sexual relationships between
individuals, might be seen as the thesis, based on this precept. There
are no absolute values. Contrariwise, the 'protection of the weak' is
used as a propaganda whip to with which punish these very acts, (the
antithesis) thereby putting military men in impossible situations, the
situation of cognitive dissonance whereby they cannot perform their
duties in a confident and free state of mind. This is the tool that is
responsible for the mass resignation of naval pilots from the American
carrier force, etc.19 The outcome is the synthesis, in this case the
emasculation of the military. Who benefits? Our enemies. Who are they?
Those who would control humanity as a herd.
Education
The
human animal is different from other creatures. It has a mind. In order
to use people as a human resource it is 'necessary' (from the point of
view of those who would control us) to do something about this
independent mind. In other words, to suppress it. It is somewhat
difficult to suppress the independence of people who have been reared
free. The obvious recourse is to wait patiently and train the next
generation. Yes, 'train' is the correct word, and for this Skinnerian or
Pavlovian techniques are used.20,21,22 I have discussed this issue in
the past. It is called operant conditioning. An essential part of this
is the dialectic technique. For instance, in the town where I live, I
recently saw a new notice on the highway "Do not drink and drive: zero
tolerance under 21". I have come to recognize that the word education
means dumbing down, and the words "zero tolerance" mean control, through
the dialectic technique, with fear. [EDITORIAL COMMENT: And what do
those who work for the IRS count on when dealing with those who
challenge the bona fide applicability of the IRC but fear? I can show
people the lies and fraud of the IRS, but because of the fear
deliberately created and promoted by the IRS, most are afraid to step
out and make their own challenge. ] I first encountered this cunning
expression in the context of the supposed control of sexual molestation
of patients by doctors, which turned out to be a cleverly imposed
dialectical technique of compelling doctors to abandon their personal
relationships with their patients and kowtow to authoritarian mandates.
The fact that a woman's mere accusation can destroy a career was a
potent whip with which to frighten the partly brainwashed doctors into
complete obedience.23
The special role of the media.
You
will have gathered from this that in order to change the world, in
order to influence the public at large control; and, by that, I mean
vise-like complete control of the media is necessary, nay, absolutely
essential. [EDITORIAL COMMENT: Witness all of the distorted and
fear-producing articles generally published about the IRS’s
‘prosecutions’, etc. ] The Communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union
had censorship. So did the Hitlerite regime in the Third Reich.24 These
were impressive experiments which were, by and large, successful. The
censor, however, was an official of the government, and the population
knew formally that censorship existed. This led to underground
newsletters in the Soviet Union called Sazmisdat and, of course,
following news sources from other outside and free countries. How could a
regime tighten the control on the media and close this escape-hatch?
The answer is through 1) direct ownership and control of the media, 2)
control and intimidation of newscasters, etc. 3) stacking the ranks of
the media with controlled idiots,25 4) [EDITORIAL COMMENT: This #3
appears to also apply to the “U.S. ATTORNEYS” being “controlled idiots”;
otherwise who, in their own right mind, would continue to spew out
written evidence of blatant violation of their oaths of office and
willfull violation of bona fide due process??? ] be one of the ways the
government has hoped to maintain control of the people and that is by
infiltrating the opposition groups and using them for the dialectic.
Examples of this are the Republican Party in Congress and almost
certainly a number of more or less widely acclaimed and used
'conservative' news sources. That this would be the strategy of such a
plan is not mysterious. It is self-evident. Well, is it indeed the case?
Evidence
When
wanting to study phenomena, when wanting to test a hypothesis
empirically, there are two tools: 1) Conduct a prospective experiment
with controls, 2) predict. Each tool is suitable for different
circumstances. In the case of historical or social forces, the tool of
prediction is the correct one. Although in a circumstance where the
operator has certain control, prospective experiments are very useful. I
gave an example from advertising, and I propose to you that some of the
events we have seen recently fall into this category. It is, however,
critically important for the experimenter not to tell his
victim/subjects that they are being experimented on. There has been one
exception to the secrecy on this issue, the admission by the leftist
organization who created the alar scare about a decade ago.26,27 I think
that several of the recent wars have been designed to experiment with
new techniques of controlling the population, mind control for
propaganda, illness control through vaccines, population control through
poisoning the environment and, finally, tests for new, less
conventional war-making machines - flying and other. Would it be useful
to conduct some experiments in population control which, if successful,
ratchets society into the direction favored and, if they fail, provide a
lesson? Of course it would. I think that much of the legislation we
have seen recently, signally, the Hillary Health Care legislation of
1993, was a case in point.28
Why Medicine?
I
have touched on this in previous newsletters. I have not seemingly made
any impact. Therefore, I think some repetition is in order. In a
laissez-faire ideal society, each person is an independent, competent
and self-controlling entity. The word citizen is often used for this
concept, and correctly. Weaker members of our society may not qualify
for this independent status. There is a gradation between what I call in
this context, citizenship on the one hand, and dependency, on the
other. The middle-aged entrepreneur, executive and head of family in
bourgeois society represent the citizen. In his youth, he might have
been a sickly child. In old age, he may be senile. During his active
career, he might be ill. Here are instances where his independence and
robustness are impaired. The whole gamut of human misery, disease and
failure can, at some time or other, afflict people. In these vulnerable
phases, our normal societal habit is to rely on family. An extended
family is the community. It is here that the concepts of laissez-faire
independence are vulnerable. Does the man who is (hopefully temporarily)
ill lose his rights?
Does he lose his dignitas, as I discussed
in a recent newsletter?29 With the advent of effective medicine,
sometime around the turn of the 20th century, the ancient medical
tradition has assumed a new and greater role because of the new
scientific tools that came its way. This profession has the potential of
controlling a lot of society because of its now important role in the
affairs of the weak. It is interesting that in bygone eras it was the
priesthood that played that role.30 Notice how the significance of the
church is declining as that of 'scientific' medicine is ascending and
particularly that of psychiatry. Is this a coincidence? You be the
judge. Just as the church controlled belief in order to maintain its
power, so we find that the state has to control medicine for the same
purpose. This is a scourge of our era. In a curious way it is also a
side effect of the scientific method, the new effectiveness of medicine.
Now you will understand the background for the reason that medicine is
coming under control of the bureaucrats for the first time in human
history. It is our generation of physicians who are facing the first
major challenge to the Hippocratic principle. It is true that the
notions of the philosopher king in Platonic medicine hail back to the
Greek area. It is, however, in these days that we are hearing that the
Hippocratic Oath needs to be revised. Why now, two and one-half
millennia after its enunciation? We are facing the issue of control
through the dialectical technique. This is a challenge no generation of
physicians has faced since
Hippocrates' times.
The destruction of medicine
What needs to be destroyed (from the hopeful controllers' point of view):
1) The confidence the physician has in himself,
2) his independent thinking,
3) his absolute commitment to his patient/client,
4) the privacy of the relationship because
5)
the dignity of the individual is predicated on maintaining secrecy
regarding his weaknesses. We all have weaknesses. The medicalization of
the mind, of education, of morality / immorality of habits and vices,
even of criminality, were necessary to wrest moral support from the
priesthood, exemplified in the confessional.
Now in the secular
realm, the patient becomes a human resource (notice the significance of
words?) for the New World Order agenda. It is my belief that this task
allocated to the Clinton administration was just that. Due to the
valiant efforts of The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,
the Hillary plan of 1993 failed. This administration has used the
technique of gradualism to introduce the same horrors piecemeal. They
have also revved up the propaganda machine. For instance, I recently
encountered a physician at a meeting who was outraged that 47% of
Americans "can't afford" health insurance. I, of course, look at things
differently. I celebrate that at least 47% of the population realize
that "health insurance" is a device to control them through the
dialectic: 1) Fear of catastrophes, thinking that asset protection is
health insurance, 2) an attempt at tax avoidance by negotiating
'benefits' from an employer instead of wages,31 3) and above all,
signing up for insurance, through HMOs, with the subtle implication that
the patient gets to exploit the physician through the insurance
contract for low premiums.32 This greed factor is so potent that the
public at large is moving from fee-for-service insurance to capitation
and HMO insurance.33,34 The premiums are indeed lower. Does it not occur
to any of these people that they get what they pay for? Evidently not.
The
particular thing they get is control by managers who compete by
rationing. The rationing is achieved through foul means, and claim
denials, claim delays, arcane coding systems, and intimidation of
physicians with the fascist system of imprecise coding-regulations.35,36
The tort legal system and the threat of lawsuits aggravate the problem.
The massive publicity for the extraordinary outcome of lawsuits
aggravates the fear factor. Would any sane person want to get intimate,
detailed professional advice from a doctor whose mind is subject to all
these pressures? [EDITORIAL COMMENT: Would any sane person think they
could get bona fide advice regarding the lies and fraud of the IRS from
the judges, attorneys, tax accountants, etc., etc., who are all
operating under the cloud of fear fostered by the IRS and those who are
deliberately wielding the mind controlling fear that constitutes the
“charisma” of the IRS????] It is no wonder that the situation is
worsening. Next we hear the government lament that there are100,000
serious complications nationally yearly in health care. There will be
zero tolerance for these mistakes and, yes, you guessed it, your Clinton
administration is going to protect you from these incompetent doctors.
As no one else has, let me point out to you clearly that the state of
mind, the cognitive dissonance, that leads to these bad choices is a
result of the previous slew of government rules, mandates, regulations,
and private public partnerships, such as with the AMA and the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, and the "solution" is no more than the
antithesis in the dialectic process.
Where is This Going?
The
Jacobins brought on the French Revolution to the then most civilized
European country in 1793. Robespierre's career is emblematic of the
righteousness of a tyrant.37 Mussolini introduced fascism to Italy circa
1922 and Adolph Hitler, in the name of National Socialism, gave the
word Nazi the implication we are all familiar with. The most important
major revolutionary experiment was, however, Lenin's. The October
Revolution of 1917 in then Imperial Russia developed in phases. He had a
fairly easy task. The middle class and the intelligencia were few and
were immensely influenced by Western Europe. The rest of the huge empire
was controlled easily once the intellectuals were in his trap. The mind
bending, used so successfully in that experiment, has been made into a
documentary film by Ayn Rand 38 which, though somewhat slow moving to a
modern moviegoer, contains all the signals and information you need to
understand the process. It is well worth the three hours it takes to
view.
Our Experiment
The
experiment we are living through has been called, by Tony Blair and
William Clinton, The third way. This is a fascistic experiment of
private-public partnership. Monopoly charters are given, sometimes
unofficially or by sleight-of-hand, to organizations or business that
manages the public. They masquerade, usually, as voluntary associations,
private organizations, citizens clubs, or professional associations.
These front organizations for the New World Order multiply by the
day.39,40,41
Medical Front Organizations
The
American Medical Association (AMA) functions, at least in part, as such
an organization, and the clear evidence for this is their monopoly in
providing the CPT codes. These codes are mandatory for insurance
billing, including and in particular insurance billing to government
insurances such as Medicaid and Medicare. This monopoly is profitable
for the AMA, but why did the Department of Human Health and Services not
arrogate to itself the right to manufacture these codes? The reason is
clear - the semblance of voluntarism. After all, doctors join the AMA
voluntarily. It is therefore very encouraging for me to learn that the
roles of membership are declining. At least some doctors have the wisdom
or, perhaps more likely, the intuition to understand that this
organization is partaking in a private-public partnership (read fascism)
to the detriment of the interest of its members and the public. Before
leaving the subject of coding in hospital and doctor bills, let us ask
why is coding necessary? After all, it creates a lot of work, confusion,
computer programming and argumentation. The reason, of course, is
control. Control of a lot of people and a lot of details call for modern
databases. All the rest of the discussion is, I propose to you,
merely dialectic.
Conclusion
The
dialectic technique of debate that has been developed, by the
illuminati, into a powerful instrument for the control of the mind of
humanity: Just as guns do not kill, criminals do; so the dialectic is
but a tool. We should look at the causes for criminality in studying
both.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT: Much as the “U.S. ATTORNEYS” have
created and are continuing to perpetuate an inherently void case through
their vast amount of lies, half truths, willful violation of their
oaths of office, and continuing willful failure to give any bona fide
written notice of any specifically applicable bona fide laws . Their
attempts to keep secret what must be revealed under bona fide due
process of bona fide law provide additional prima facie evidence of
their willful violation of their oaths of office.]
Find All My Blog Here: https://www.Minds.com/blog/MindCom
╰ Luminous▼Sovereign ╮
▬ Subscribe to @MindCom for more ▬
▬ Join these Groups also: ▬
*Gno-
