Bradlee Dean Knows What Americans Really Think

I have to confess, I find Bradlee Dean endlessly entertaining. He’s a moron — I’m not exaggerating, the guy is astonishingly stupid — who now has a weekly column in the Worldnutdaily and is trying so hard not to sound like a moron. In his latest column, he promises to tell us “how America really feels about gay marriage,” and then doesn’t even address that subject. But he does include this bit of blather:

The Hegelian Dialectic is the tool that the corrupt in government use in an attempt to manipulate the minds of the people to accept their “change” when they normally would reject it.

The Hegelian Dialectic is the process in which the usurping elitists create a crisis, knowing in advance how the population will react to that created crisis, thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. Once that is achieved, they will then bring the “answer” to the crisis.

Anyone who has actually read Hegel (or more importantly, Fichte) or taken an intro to philosophy class — if Dean has read Hegel, I’ll eat this laptop — is scratching their heads right now wondering what the hell any of that has to do with the Hegelian dialectic. The classic Heglian dialectic is thesis – antithesis – synthesis. It has nothing to do with creating a crisis to condition others to want to solve that crisis.

This is what happens when stupid people try to project an image of being intelligent and well-educated — they end up looking even dumber than if they’d just shut up.

11 comments on this post.
  1. Ben P:

    First Tony Perkins is talking about “substructure and superstructure, and when one gets too out of whack with the other you get revolution,” and now Bradlee Dean is talking about Hegelian Dialectics.

    When did conservatives suddenly become enamored with Marxist theory?

  2. Phillip IV:

    This is what happens when stupid people try to project an image of being intelligent and well-educated — they end up looking even dumber than if they’d just shut up.

    Well, he looks dumber to intelligent people, but I thinks it’s likely that a considerable percentage of WND readers actually fall for his fake erudition. Which, I guess, means he does know what Americans think, at least a sufficient number of them to keep his paychecks coming in.

  3. greg1466:

    I can;t really speak to the philosophical faux pas, but talk about classic projection. I think the only proper response is, “I know you are, but what am I?”

  4. Wes:

    He seems to be operating on a highly garbled interpretation of the Marxian version of Hegel’s dialectic. I doubt he’s read Marx either. More likely, he just came across the term in the writings of some other wingnut and has started regurgitating it uncritically. I like how in the article he feels to need to repeat the phrase “Hegelian dialectic” multiple times, as if to assure the reader, “Oh, yeah, I totally know what this means and shit.”

  5. fifthdentist:

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

  6. A Hermit:

    Bradlee Dean’s just another of those damn Bibliophiles!

  7. Brett McCoy:

    He’s basically described demagoguery, a tactic used ad naseum by the right-wing alarmists. His description has nothing to do with Hegelian Dialectics

  8. coragyps:

    Usurping Elitists

    Best rock band name since 1971………

  9. hunter:

    coragyps:

    Let’s just go for broke on this: Usurping Elitist and the Hegelian Dialectics.

    Sorry, but Bradlee Dean is still not as stupid as that GOP chairwoman in Georgia. She’s not even trying to look like she knows what she’s talking about.

  10. vmanis1:

    I highly recommend the `…for Beginners’ series published by Pantheon as introductions to various schools of thought. If Dean had read `Marx for Beginners’, he might not have misunderstood dialectic so catastrophically. But then, he is Bradlee Dean.

  11. DaveC:

    Wait – I think I get it, he has substituted “usurping elitist” for “bourgeoisie” in a twisted sort of way. Maybe not so twisted, but I’m sooo confused now, because the irony is that what he describes is exactly what the bourgeoisie do regularly.

Leave a comment

You must be