The Hegelian Dialectic & Politics
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
Why is it important for you to understand the subject of the Hegelian Dialectic? Because it is the process by which all change is being accomplished in society today. More importantly, it is the tool that the globalists are utilizing to manipulate the minds of the average American to accept that change, where ordinarily they would refuse it.
The Hegelian Dialectic is, in short, the critical process by which the ruling elite create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the given crisis, and thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. When the population is properly conditioned, the desired agenda of the ruling elite is presented as the solution. The solution isn't intended to solve the problem, but rather to serve as the basis for a new problem or exacerbate the existing one.
When the newly inflamed difficulty reaches the boiling point of a crisis, it becomes the foundation upon which arguments may again be made for change. Hence, the process is repeated, over and over, moving society toward whatever end the planners have in mind.
It's also important to understand that as this process is being driven, arguments are created both for and against certain measures of change. All arguments are controlled. The presented solutions — each with varying levels of unadornment — are "debated" publicly by the manipulators or their minions. This is done until a perceived compromise has been reached on the best measure to take in route to solving the crisis. Then, the outcome of the "debate" — which purportedly weighs the concerns of the public with the mandate to do something — is enacted as public policy.
Such is a summary of the Hegelian Dialectic. Though few in American society have ever heard of it, still fewer have not been profoundly impacted by its use in the effective neutralization of opposition in the formation of public policy.
..................................................................................................................................
There is a relationship between Finance, Centralization, and World Hegemony. Until the outbreak of the First World War, money appeared to be a mere mechanism. But the arrangements made to finance the war reveal that the money system was in fact the vehicle of a POLICY, and that that policy was the CENTRALIZATION of power leading progressively to World Government. Prior to the outbreak of war, Great Britain was the CENTRE (but not the BEING) of world financial control; with the war, financial control was transferred to New York and from there used to dismantle the British Empire which, by reason of British traditions and the Anglo-Saxon character, had been the great barrier to World Dominion by those operating through the world financial system. The fall of the British Empire was a FINANCIAL accomplishment, not a military one. But the terms of 'peace' imposed on 'victorious' Britain are those which might have been expected following military DEFEAT.
But the Power which emerged into the open in this century had its birth long before that. It was incubated (but not conceived) in the Secret Societies of Europe, appeared briefly in the French Revolution, and spread to Britain in the form of Fabianism, and to America in the form of various Socialist societies. Following the first phase of the war, it openly took over Russia, and since has visibly spread as International Communism until it has taken over the greater part of the globe.
Current history, which looks episodic, is in fact the culminating stages of a very long-term policy moving internationally, but visible only in the long perspective of time.
What we think we see is often an illusion intentionally presented, like the conjuror who would have you to believe he holds an orange in his right hand, when it is actually in his left hand. Citizens of the world, whether their sympathies are left-wing or right-wing, monarchist or republican, have been used as pawns in their game of Hegelian psychology by the hidden hand that rules.
In reality, the orange is in neither left nor right hand. The Hegelian dialectic process is the notion that conflict creates history.
From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. For example when the Trilateral Commission discusses 'managed conflict', as it does extensively in its literature, it implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends - not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.
The dialectic takes this Trilateral 'managed conflict' process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again: Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis.
It's like two companies with undisclosed common stockholding submitting competitive tenders for a project on a site for which their stockholder has different plans altogether. Whatever the outcome, the stockholder is in beneficial control.
In Hegelian philosophy the conflict of political 'right' and political 'left', or thesis and antithesis in Hegelian terms, is essential to the forward movement of history and historical change itself. Conflict between thesis and antithesis brings about a synthesis or new historical situation.
Our descriptive world history in the West and Marxist countries consists only of description and analysis within a political framework of 'right' or 'left'. For example, historical work published in the West looks at communism and socialism either through the eyes of financial capitalism, or Marxism. While historical work published in Russia looks at the West only through Marxist eyes. However, there is another frame of historical analysis that has never been utilized. This would employ a framework of Hegelian logic, to determine if the elites who control the State use the dialectic process to create a predetermined historical synthesis.
The current world situation was deliberately created by elitist power more or less by manipulation of 'right' and 'left' elements. Over the past 100 years or so they've developed both right and left elements to bring about a NWO. Right-left situations have been deliberately created and then placed in conflict mode to bring about a synthesis.
Since the rise of Kant (who stressed reason and experience) in German philosophy, we can identify two conflicting systems of philosophy; and therefore two opposing ideas of the State, society and culture.
In the U.S., the British Commonwealth and France, philosophy is based on the individual and the rights of the individual. Whereas in Germany from the time of Kant, through Fichte and Hegel up to 1945, basic philosophy has been universal brotherhood, rejection of individualism, and general opposition to Western classical liberal thought in almost all of its aspects. German idealism was the philosophical basis for the work of Karl Marx and the LEFT Hegelians, as well as Bismarck, Hitler and the RIGHT Hegelians. The paradox is that Hegel gave a theoretical basis not only to the most conservative of German movements, but also to most of the revolutionary movements of the 19th century. Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in Hegel.
From the Hegelian system of political thought, alien to most of us in the West, stem such absurdities as the State seen as the "March of God through history", that the State is also God, and the only duty of a citizen is to serve God by serving the State, that the State is Absolute Reason and citizens can only find freedom by worship and utter obedience to the State. Other Hegelian absurdities have thoroughly penetrated our education system. But that is for another topic.
From this system of Hegelian philosophy comes the historical dialectic, "that all historical events emerge from a conflict between opposing forces." These emerging events are above and different from the conflicting events. Any idea or implementation of an idea may be seen as THESIS. This thesis will encourage emergence of opposing forces, known as ANTITHESIS. The final outcome will be NEITHER thesis nor antithesis, but a SYNTHESIS of the two forces in conflict.
In DAS KAPITAL, Marx posed capitalism as thesis and communism as antithesis. What has been completely ignored by historians, including Marxists, is that any clash between these forces cannot lead to a society which is either capitalist or communist but must lead to a society characterized by a SYNTHESIS of the two conflicting forces. The clash of opposites must in the Hegelian system, bring about a society neither capitalist nor communist. Moreover, in the Hegelian scheme of events, this new synthesis will reflect the concept of the State as God, and the individual as totally subordinate to an all powerful State. This was the thought we encountered in "Hubris".
The function of a Parliament or a Congress is for Hegelians, psychology. Merely to allow individuals to feel that their opinions have some value, and to allow a government to take advantage of whatever wisdom the 'peasant' may accidentally demonstrate. This is so obvious in Australian politics today. As Hegel puts it:
"By virtue of this participation, subjective liberty and conceit, with their general opinion, (individuals) can show themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to count for something."
War, the organized conflict of nations for Hegelians, is only the visible outcome of the clash between ideas. Following the outbreak of war in 1939, Social Creditor C.H. Douglas said, "The international money marketeers care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent that for the death of a sparrow"; and "unfortunately the world is in the grasp of theorists to whom misery and death of millions is a grain of sand beside the working out of their designs". As John Dewey, the Hegelian darling of the modern educational system, puts it:
"War is the most effective preacher of the vanity of all merely finite interests, it puts an end to that selfish egoism of the individual by which he would claim his life and his property as his own or as his family's."
Above all, the Hegelian doctrine is the divine right of States rather than the divine right of kings. The State for Hegel and Hegelians is God on earth:
"The march of God in history is the cause of the existence of states, their foundation is the power of Reason realizing itself as will. Every state, whatever it be, participates in the Divine essence. The State is not the work of human art, only Reason could produce it."
For Hegel the individual is nothing, the individual has no rights, morality consists solely in following a leader.
Compare this to the spirit and letter of the Australian Constitution: "WHEREAS the people" grant the State some powers and reserve all others to the people. Whilst it recognizes no State denomination, it places the Christian God as its Head, unlike Hegel's "the State is God on earth." To elitists like The Order in the USA, The Group in the UK, Illuminati in Germany, and the Politburo in Russia, the State is supreme, and a self-appointed elite running the State acts as God on earth.
Manipulation of 'left' and 'right' in domestic USA, where Wall Street supports both Republicans and Democrats, as their Australian associates support Liberal and Labor, is duplicated in the international field where 'left' and 'right' political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis. In fact, 'left' and 'right' are two controlled factions of the Illuminati.
Textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiations into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.
The Tribunals that investigated Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any records of Western Assistance to Hitler. And Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western firms and banks.
Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state. Western textbooks never reveal the evidence that revolutions need finance; and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.
Of course our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China. No Western foundation will award grants to investigate their own benefactors. Few Western scholars can survive by researching such theses, and publishing houses daring to accept such manuscripts suffer intimidation or even violence from the Establishment. The recent trials of David Irving with his erstwhile publisher bears this out.
Like the true revelation of God's Word, largely unrecorded history tells a story contrary to what we've been taught to regard as truth. A story of the deliberate creation of war, the knowing finance of revolution to change governments, and the use of conflict to create a New World Order.
We will explore thesis and antithesis in the development and construction of the Soviet Union (thesis) and Hitler's Germany (antithesis). We will also explore the continuation of this dialectic conflict into the last few decades, specifically in China today and show that the purpose is to create a new synthesis, a New World Order along Hegelian lines where the State is Absolute and the individual can find freedom only in blind obedience to the State.
Something we have to do is to break an almost universal mindset, that Communists and Capitalists are bitter enemies. This Marxist axiom is a false statement and for a century has fooled academics and investigators alike. The key to understanding modern history is that elitists had as close working relations with both Marxists and Nazis as they have with Marxists and Capitalists.
After World War II the world stage was changed. After 1945 it became the Soviet Union on one side versus the United States on the other. The first dialectical clash led to the formation of the United Nations, an elementary step on the road to world government. The second dialectical clash led to the Trilateral Commission and REGIONAL groups, like Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia from "1984," and more subtly to efforts for a merger of the United States and the Soviet Union. Definitely Orwellian! Various stooges 'fronting' for the faceless elite agitate for a new Constitution that will enable them to usurp Australia's sovereignty and absorb us into an Asian Bloc, ruled from Beijing or Tokyo.
Western Christian civilization, whose domain was very nearly the world, had expanded without notable recession until in 1914. In 1917 it began a retreat that has since been uninterrupted (Matthew 24:7-8). Huge amounts of Western property, much of it in land, factories and mines, has been stolen by revolutionaries, or abandoned by Western owners. Political and strategic losses are of more lasting and fundamental importance. But it is not politically correct to criticize its demise today.
The Hegelian Dialectic is, in short, the critical process by which the ruling elite create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the given crisis, and thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. When the population is properly conditioned, the desired agenda of the ruling elite is presented as the solution. The solution isn't intended to solve the problem, but rather to serve as the basis for a new problem or exacerbate the existing one.
When the newly inflamed difficulty reaches the boiling point of a crisis, it becomes the foundation upon which arguments may again be made for change. Hence, the process is repeated, over and over, moving society toward whatever end the planners have in mind.
It's also important to understand that as this process is being driven, arguments are created both for and against certain measures of change. All arguments are controlled. The presented solutions — each with varying levels of unadornment — are "debated" publicly by the manipulators or their minions. This is done until a perceived compromise has been reached on the best measure to take in route to solving the crisis. Then, the outcome of the "debate" — which purportedly weighs the concerns of the public with the mandate to do something — is enacted as public policy.
Such is a summary of the Hegelian Dialectic. Though few in American society have ever heard of it, still fewer have not been profoundly impacted by its use in the effective neutralization of opposition in the formation of public policy.
..................................................................................................................................
There is a relationship between Finance, Centralization, and World Hegemony. Until the outbreak of the First World War, money appeared to be a mere mechanism. But the arrangements made to finance the war reveal that the money system was in fact the vehicle of a POLICY, and that that policy was the CENTRALIZATION of power leading progressively to World Government. Prior to the outbreak of war, Great Britain was the CENTRE (but not the BEING) of world financial control; with the war, financial control was transferred to New York and from there used to dismantle the British Empire which, by reason of British traditions and the Anglo-Saxon character, had been the great barrier to World Dominion by those operating through the world financial system. The fall of the British Empire was a FINANCIAL accomplishment, not a military one. But the terms of 'peace' imposed on 'victorious' Britain are those which might have been expected following military DEFEAT.
But the Power which emerged into the open in this century had its birth long before that. It was incubated (but not conceived) in the Secret Societies of Europe, appeared briefly in the French Revolution, and spread to Britain in the form of Fabianism, and to America in the form of various Socialist societies. Following the first phase of the war, it openly took over Russia, and since has visibly spread as International Communism until it has taken over the greater part of the globe.
Current history, which looks episodic, is in fact the culminating stages of a very long-term policy moving internationally, but visible only in the long perspective of time.
What we think we see is often an illusion intentionally presented, like the conjuror who would have you to believe he holds an orange in his right hand, when it is actually in his left hand. Citizens of the world, whether their sympathies are left-wing or right-wing, monarchist or republican, have been used as pawns in their game of Hegelian psychology by the hidden hand that rules.
In reality, the orange is in neither left nor right hand. The Hegelian dialectic process is the notion that conflict creates history.
From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. For example when the Trilateral Commission discusses 'managed conflict', as it does extensively in its literature, it implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends - not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.
The dialectic takes this Trilateral 'managed conflict' process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again: Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis.
It's like two companies with undisclosed common stockholding submitting competitive tenders for a project on a site for which their stockholder has different plans altogether. Whatever the outcome, the stockholder is in beneficial control.
In Hegelian philosophy the conflict of political 'right' and political 'left', or thesis and antithesis in Hegelian terms, is essential to the forward movement of history and historical change itself. Conflict between thesis and antithesis brings about a synthesis or new historical situation.
Our descriptive world history in the West and Marxist countries consists only of description and analysis within a political framework of 'right' or 'left'. For example, historical work published in the West looks at communism and socialism either through the eyes of financial capitalism, or Marxism. While historical work published in Russia looks at the West only through Marxist eyes. However, there is another frame of historical analysis that has never been utilized. This would employ a framework of Hegelian logic, to determine if the elites who control the State use the dialectic process to create a predetermined historical synthesis.
The current world situation was deliberately created by elitist power more or less by manipulation of 'right' and 'left' elements. Over the past 100 years or so they've developed both right and left elements to bring about a NWO. Right-left situations have been deliberately created and then placed in conflict mode to bring about a synthesis.
Since the rise of Kant (who stressed reason and experience) in German philosophy, we can identify two conflicting systems of philosophy; and therefore two opposing ideas of the State, society and culture.
In the U.S., the British Commonwealth and France, philosophy is based on the individual and the rights of the individual. Whereas in Germany from the time of Kant, through Fichte and Hegel up to 1945, basic philosophy has been universal brotherhood, rejection of individualism, and general opposition to Western classical liberal thought in almost all of its aspects. German idealism was the philosophical basis for the work of Karl Marx and the LEFT Hegelians, as well as Bismarck, Hitler and the RIGHT Hegelians. The paradox is that Hegel gave a theoretical basis not only to the most conservative of German movements, but also to most of the revolutionary movements of the 19th century. Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in Hegel.
From the Hegelian system of political thought, alien to most of us in the West, stem such absurdities as the State seen as the "March of God through history", that the State is also God, and the only duty of a citizen is to serve God by serving the State, that the State is Absolute Reason and citizens can only find freedom by worship and utter obedience to the State. Other Hegelian absurdities have thoroughly penetrated our education system. But that is for another topic.
From this system of Hegelian philosophy comes the historical dialectic, "that all historical events emerge from a conflict between opposing forces." These emerging events are above and different from the conflicting events. Any idea or implementation of an idea may be seen as THESIS. This thesis will encourage emergence of opposing forces, known as ANTITHESIS. The final outcome will be NEITHER thesis nor antithesis, but a SYNTHESIS of the two forces in conflict.
In DAS KAPITAL, Marx posed capitalism as thesis and communism as antithesis. What has been completely ignored by historians, including Marxists, is that any clash between these forces cannot lead to a society which is either capitalist or communist but must lead to a society characterized by a SYNTHESIS of the two conflicting forces. The clash of opposites must in the Hegelian system, bring about a society neither capitalist nor communist. Moreover, in the Hegelian scheme of events, this new synthesis will reflect the concept of the State as God, and the individual as totally subordinate to an all powerful State. This was the thought we encountered in "Hubris".
The function of a Parliament or a Congress is for Hegelians, psychology. Merely to allow individuals to feel that their opinions have some value, and to allow a government to take advantage of whatever wisdom the 'peasant' may accidentally demonstrate. This is so obvious in Australian politics today. As Hegel puts it:
"By virtue of this participation, subjective liberty and conceit, with their general opinion, (individuals) can show themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to count for something."
War, the organized conflict of nations for Hegelians, is only the visible outcome of the clash between ideas. Following the outbreak of war in 1939, Social Creditor C.H. Douglas said, "The international money marketeers care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent that for the death of a sparrow"; and "unfortunately the world is in the grasp of theorists to whom misery and death of millions is a grain of sand beside the working out of their designs". As John Dewey, the Hegelian darling of the modern educational system, puts it:
"War is the most effective preacher of the vanity of all merely finite interests, it puts an end to that selfish egoism of the individual by which he would claim his life and his property as his own or as his family's."
Above all, the Hegelian doctrine is the divine right of States rather than the divine right of kings. The State for Hegel and Hegelians is God on earth:
"The march of God in history is the cause of the existence of states, their foundation is the power of Reason realizing itself as will. Every state, whatever it be, participates in the Divine essence. The State is not the work of human art, only Reason could produce it."
For Hegel the individual is nothing, the individual has no rights, morality consists solely in following a leader.
Compare this to the spirit and letter of the Australian Constitution: "WHEREAS the people" grant the State some powers and reserve all others to the people. Whilst it recognizes no State denomination, it places the Christian God as its Head, unlike Hegel's "the State is God on earth." To elitists like The Order in the USA, The Group in the UK, Illuminati in Germany, and the Politburo in Russia, the State is supreme, and a self-appointed elite running the State acts as God on earth.
Manipulation of 'left' and 'right' in domestic USA, where Wall Street supports both Republicans and Democrats, as their Australian associates support Liberal and Labor, is duplicated in the international field where 'left' and 'right' political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis. In fact, 'left' and 'right' are two controlled factions of the Illuminati.
Textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiations into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.
The Tribunals that investigated Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any records of Western Assistance to Hitler. And Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western firms and banks.
Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state. Western textbooks never reveal the evidence that revolutions need finance; and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.
Of course our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China. No Western foundation will award grants to investigate their own benefactors. Few Western scholars can survive by researching such theses, and publishing houses daring to accept such manuscripts suffer intimidation or even violence from the Establishment. The recent trials of David Irving with his erstwhile publisher bears this out.
Like the true revelation of God's Word, largely unrecorded history tells a story contrary to what we've been taught to regard as truth. A story of the deliberate creation of war, the knowing finance of revolution to change governments, and the use of conflict to create a New World Order.
We will explore thesis and antithesis in the development and construction of the Soviet Union (thesis) and Hitler's Germany (antithesis). We will also explore the continuation of this dialectic conflict into the last few decades, specifically in China today and show that the purpose is to create a new synthesis, a New World Order along Hegelian lines where the State is Absolute and the individual can find freedom only in blind obedience to the State.
Something we have to do is to break an almost universal mindset, that Communists and Capitalists are bitter enemies. This Marxist axiom is a false statement and for a century has fooled academics and investigators alike. The key to understanding modern history is that elitists had as close working relations with both Marxists and Nazis as they have with Marxists and Capitalists.
After World War II the world stage was changed. After 1945 it became the Soviet Union on one side versus the United States on the other. The first dialectical clash led to the formation of the United Nations, an elementary step on the road to world government. The second dialectical clash led to the Trilateral Commission and REGIONAL groups, like Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia from "1984," and more subtly to efforts for a merger of the United States and the Soviet Union. Definitely Orwellian! Various stooges 'fronting' for the faceless elite agitate for a new Constitution that will enable them to usurp Australia's sovereignty and absorb us into an Asian Bloc, ruled from Beijing or Tokyo.
Western Christian civilization, whose domain was very nearly the world, had expanded without notable recession until in 1914. In 1917 it began a retreat that has since been uninterrupted (Matthew 24:7-8). Huge amounts of Western property, much of it in land, factories and mines, has been stolen by revolutionaries, or abandoned by Western owners. Political and strategic losses are of more lasting and fundamental importance. But it is not politically correct to criticize its demise today.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
How so?
Did not Hegel propose that the end justifies the means, in the process of the eventual realization of some kind of Christianized utopia? This is just a simplified summary of what he proposed.
I'd strongly disagree with that interpretation. His was a retrospective justification of what had happened in order to arrive at what he considered the end of history, which was the Prussian state. I would not say that religion was paramount. It was always trumped by the political entity.
As I said, I am not disputing the interest of what you posted, but it draws mostly on events that occurred after Hegel died. For all we know, he would have rejected any development after what he considered the apex of political development.
I actually think that Hegelian dialectic does offer rich political insight (after all, it is what got Marx started
Hegel is a tough read, but immensely rewarding. My favorite work by him is The Phenomenology of Spirit (sometimes translated as Phenomenology of Mind). It is possibly the most difficult work of philosophy of all time. Yet sometimes it makes me wonder whether he wasn't actually right... that his work embodied the highest and unsurpassable form of philosophical thinking.
The most significant part is the master/slave (wah!) dialectic, in paragraphs 178-196.
Good companions for a reading of the Phenomenology are:
Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980.
Alexandre Kojève, Outline of a Phenomenology of Right, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000.
Jean Hyppolite, Genesis and Structure of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1979
Judith Shklar, Freedom and Independence: A Study of the Political Ideas in Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind, Cambridge University Press, 1976.
I never read any Hegel. I was put off reading him by my philosophy professor who told us that his work made Kant seem easy. I have a copy of the book by Kojève - Foucault was inspired by his lectures - but I never got around to reading it. Though I have read a pretty impressive critique of Hegel in Albert Camus' book 'The Rebel'.
I take it you've studied philosophy then? :ugeek:
Shit, I just counted and I can safely say "for most of my life" :shock:
Anyway, I am actually on Camus's side, but think that had there been no Hegel there probably would not have been Camus. I really think you would be inspired by the Phenomenology, even if you will end up still siding with Camus. Hell, you could do your own Camusing. Kojeve is a great starting point.
Hugs.