Explaining Dialectics One More Time

Corey Sturmer and Georgi Stankov, April 2, 2015


Hi Georgi,

I notice in your writing you often use the word “Dialectical”.  I did not know the meaning of this word until reading your site, so I looked it up & learned a little about its etymology and ties to Plato, the Socratic dialogs, logos & verbal debate.

This immediately reminded me of a popular journalist, Jan Helfeld, who I have personally enjoyed watching for many years and who has a notable following on the internet for his sometimes explosive interviews with western media presstitutes & cabal politicians using the “Socratic Method.”

See: Stephanopoulos Clams Up When Questioned on Racism

See: Fmr. Republican Chairman Michael Steele says Taxes are Voluntary

See: MSNBC’s Chris Matthew’s Intransigence Exposed by Jan Helfeld

As I learned, the socratic method is an extension of the Greek term “dialectics” and in both cases these forms help expose contradictions in thinking patterns. Fascinating!

I figured this sequence of events could not possibly have been coincidental and then got the message from my HS to write you about it. I hope you’ll watch a couple of Jan’s videos & consider sharing with the rest of the PAT as Jan is very effective at what he does & I have learned a lot from him. I have thought about writing you on this topic before, but never the urge to actually follow through till now for some reason.

As you’ll see in the videos I shared, If the interviewee does not have a consistent or coherent thought, we tend to witness one of two outcomes in response to Jan’s questions… on the one hand; an emotional disturbance caused by this clash of ideas which manifest into sometimes violent/illogical outbursts, or an immediate withdrawal from reality!

See: US Congressman Pete Stark threatens to throw Jan out of a window

Or, a rapid transformation of the interviewee’s opinions because to do anything less is only displaying cognitive dissonance of the most obvious kind.

I felt compelled to share this with you in case you agree Jan is performing a very important service to humanity, in my opinion transmuting a lot of idiocy in some of the Western establishment’s most brainwashed through his surgical application of the socratic method, and exposing it to the collective via the internet.

He’s been at this sometime too. I have always felt that Jan Helfeld was a great light worker, even if he isn’t conscious of the broader mission & he is a solid case study how we are capable of transforming the mental ether with the character of our thoughts.

Classic – Harry Reid says Taxes are Voluntary: 


In other news I will be writing you later about the unbelievable equinox I had which just past. It was a complete reconfirmation & leaves me no doubt that this matrix is really finally crumbling in a visceral way.

In light,



Dear Corey,

you have raised a key philosophical question which constitutes the red thread in Western philosophy, beginning with Greek Antiquity. As you correctly point out, the dialectical method of finding the truth through a discussion based on a logical chain of questions goes back to Socrates as presented by Plato in his famous dialogues. I have read most of them and it is indeed very exciting and intriguing to read how Socrates slowly encircles the truth by asking at the beginning more concrete questions and then moving forward to more abstract questions to his interlocutor before he comes to the truth, or what he considers to be the truth.

Socrates actually encircles the truth or the final correct conclusion by eliminating in a rational and logical manner, described as “dialectics”, all false common ideas that have gained popularity in many a human mind. By the way, Socrates was not the inventor of this dialectical method of logical questioning. Aristotle says that it was the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea who invented dialectics, of which the dialogues of Plato are the classical examples of the Socratic dialectical method.

But I think that it is still justifiable to define this dialectical method, which is in the core of sophism (The Greek sophists), also as the “Socratic method“, as we know almost nothing, or very little, of the philosophy of Zeno and the Pre-Socrates.

If you have happened to have read Plato’s dialogues, where Socrates plays the main role in the conversation, which always involves many people, some of them his pupils and others being invited guests to attend his discussion meetings, it is breathtaking to follow with what dexterity and ingenuousness Socrates overcomes all the thought hurdles created by compartmentalized human minds in order to bring his interlocutor, his audience and of course the reader safely to the final truth.

I am still wondering whether this is the achievement of Socrates as a real person or of Plato as probably not only the greatest philosopher, but also one of the greatest narrators (fiction writer) of modern humanity, whereas I use this term in distinction to previous civilisations, such as Lemuria and Atlantis, about which we have no detailed knowledge but must assume that they were even more sophisticated in philosophy and dialectics than in Classical Greek Antiquity. Plato himself had intimate knowledge of these cultures and the only scientifically accepted proof of the existence of Atlantis goes back to his writings. This as a side note.

But dialectics, as I understand it, cannot be restricted to the sophistic method of Socrates. Hegel further developed this concept by using the classical Greek concept of thesis and anti-thesis to develop his dialectics. Hegelian dialectics constitutes of three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Although this model is often named after Hegel, it goes back to Kant and is widely used in his “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” (Critics of Pure Consciousness). I have discussed Kant’s philosophy in depth in my book on Gnosis “Philosophic Sources“.

Truly popular became the method of dialectics when Marx developed his Marxist dialectics and when this political philosophy became the dominant ideology in the East and almost helped established the NWO prematurely, before humanity was ripe for it. In a certain way the Cold War can be defined as the bellicose dialectics between thesis (old capitalist system) and antithesis (the communist system), which was supposed to be resolved in a synthesis when the Iron Curtain was torn down. That it did not happen, is entirely the negative achievement of the Empire of Evil that believed that its thesis of exceptionalism has won the war and buried the communist antithesis – the dialectical materialism as an overarching ideology of communism.

When I studied electronics and then economics at the Sofia university in Bulgaria in the early 70s, I had an obligatory subject and examinations on the so called “Diamat“, an abbreviation of “dialectical materialism” and had to study all the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Needless to say, I knew the stuff better than my professors and used the classical dialectics to actually reject them by showing the obvious discrepancies in their writings and then sophistically asking my professors for a resolution, which they were unable to render. Instead they wanted to get rid of me as not to get involved in ideological troubles and gave me always the best note.

Finally, I use the term “dialectics’ in the broadest possible sense of human cognition in the new Theory and Gnosis of the Universal Law. I depart from the nature of energy as a physical reality and prove that the Hegelian idea of dialectics remains the most precise intuitive perception of the nature of energy as space-time, but unable to render a sound scientific explanation for it. Essentially, the way the Hegelian dialectics is defined and being used in philosophy reflects the reciprocal character of space and time that humans perceive as distinct, antithetic entities or variables. The latter merge or create in an invisible manner (due to the limitations of human senses) the synthesis of space-time as a unity, which is actually energy (All-That-Is). I have written a lot about this reciprocity of space and time and its ubiquitous repercussions for human knowledge and gnosis. Therefore, I will not delve here any further into this huge topic.

Now some observations to the interviews you have sent me as links. It will be an exaggeration to sustain that this journalist knows and uses the Socratic method of dialectical, sophistic questioning. And even less so the people he interviews who have never heard of this method, especially the way they react to his questioning. Insofar it is not appropriate to apply this term to these interviews. What they though clearly demonstrate, is what will happen with the overwhelming blind, agnostic majority of humanity this month and later on when their world views are swept away by the energetic tsunami of truth.

This journalist actually demonstrates in a rather primitive form what the press was supposed to be when the democratic state and independent journalism were established almost simultaneously in the 19th century – the fourth power of independent truth in opposition to the legislative, executive and the juridical branches of the state.

At the beginning of modern journalism, this dedication to uncompromising truth was brilliantly embodied by Emil Zola in his famous pamphlet “J’accuse” that helped solve the Dreyfus Affair. For his courage Zola was compelled to emigrate from France and later on was killed in an unresolved accident by the dark powers as they have done with any serious critics in the past.

Since then the free press or independent journalism is in a steady, precipitous decline, especially in the last several decades when all western MSM outlets were collected in the hands of five or seven Reptilian moguls. The same holds true for the Internet, where the CIA-sponsored Google and Facebook fully control this medium and can shut down any critical website if they want so. From fighters for truth, the journalists became “presstitutes“. This is the time we live in now and the good old dialectics has become a foreign word to most people.

I have tried to use the dialectical method extensively in my discussions with readers on this website. In particular at the beginning when I opened this website and many divergent ideas clashed on this platform. Now these opponents have left the scene after they realized how desperately inferior they were in their petty argumentation and the rest, who now regularly read my website, are the light warriors who have already overcome the dialectical antagonism of thesis-antithesis and dwell happily in the harmonic synthesis of the higher realms.

With love and light




Thanks for the amazing elaboration & additional historical context.  I really appreciate it.

I will definitely be studying more about this topic & hopefully can apply it accordingly during the short time we have left here. It is a tragedy that Jan’s work beams with a certain authenticity when it stands in comparison to many of his contemporary’s interviews, even if it is primitive, however this is not surprising knowing what we know about the consolidation of media.  It does not look altogether that hard to make the liars squirm beneath the weight of their own contradictions… These days you might only have to ask them about the weather to catch them in a lie!

In light,


This entry was posted in Ascension. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.