Just kidding. That is my sense of humor that would resemble dust if it wasn’t so dry it’s already gone. It’s ether. Etheric humor.
I did want to make a point, though. This whole notion of thesis/antithesis/synthesis leads to some serious flaws of thought. The image conveyed is of two cars racing headlong against one another, colliding in a massive spasm of metal and gas fumes, tumbling up in the air and then apart, and something useful flowing from the wreckage. This is not even remotely the way the world works, yet it is the basic metaphor for revolutionaries, who think they must destroy what came before, so something new–a “synthesis”–can come of it. The OWS clowns think if they can just destroy Capitalism, something BETTER will come of it. They are assured by the “Marxists” (there can be no serious Marxist today, since his hypotheses have been fully falsified; they are necessarily Leninists, as I have defined the term) that “history”–which has all the empirical validity as the word “God” as it is commonly used–is on their side. This is patent nonsense.
The better metaphor is two rivers, coming from different places, flowing together in a wider place. Neither has taken from the other; on the contrary they have reinforced one another.
You cannot make the poor rich by destroying the rich. This has been tried: not once, but many times. It doesn’t work. But, and this is a big but, it DOES serve the role of expressing hatred and rage, and the innate propensity for indulging evil that both those sentiments imply.