Re: WEB INTELLIGENCE # 2 - jULY 23, 2003 (fwd)

  John Leonard says Anthony Sutton is worth reading. Look at this.
  http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_sutton.html
Found via,
http://www.centrexnews.com/
Antony Sutton on "Left" versus "Right" and the Hegelian dialectic in 
American politics

Anthony Sutton July 9 2003

How can there exist a common objective when members [of The Order of Skull 
and Bones] are apparently acting in opposition to one another?

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the 
reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The 
Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial 
devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and 
political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.

The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. 
Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" 
presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical 
system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from 
Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but 
with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the 
dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For 
example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another 
political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This 
conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this 
process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission 
where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to 
bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and 
systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete 
obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for 
himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in 
the operation of the State...

So who or what is the State? Obviously it's a self-appointed elite. It is 
interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a 
freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the 
Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati 
code) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.

Furthermore, the Illuminati principle that the end justifies the means, a 
principle that Quigley scores as immoral and used by both The Group 
[Millner / Rhodes Round Table] and The Order, is rooted in Hegel.

...Most of us believe the State exists to serve the individual, not vice 
versa.

The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to 
understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and 
right, while essential to promote the change, is never allowed to develop 
into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best 
government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always 
towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual 
rights. So it doesn't matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is 
termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious - so long 
as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power 
of the State.

This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar positions taken 
by members - they have a higher common objective in which clash of ideas is 
essential.

...

The operational history of The Order can only be understood within a 
framework of the Hegelian dialectic process. Quite simply this 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, the 
Commission 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. ...

For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as "the march of God on 
earth." Indeed, a state religion.

...

We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian 
conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the 
dominant decision-making positions -- Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and 
so on -- all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use 
of "right" and "left." They financed and encouraged the growths of both 
philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent. This was 
aided by the "reductionist" division in science, the opposite of historical 
"wholeness." By dividing science and learning into narrower and narrower 
segments, it became easier to control the whole throught the parts.

In education, the Dewey system was initiated and promoted by Skull and 
Bones members. Dewey was an ardent statist, and a believer in the Hegelian 
idea that the child exists to be trained to serve the State. This requires 
suppression of individualist tendencies and a careful spoon-feeding of 
approved knowledge.

...

This manipulation of "left" and "right" on the domestic front 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.

College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental 
results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiation 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.

Western textbooks also have gigantic gaps. For example, after World War II 
the Tribunals set up to investigate Nazi war criminals were careful to 
censor any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler. By the same 
token, 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. Never in Western 
textbooks will you find the evidence that revolutions need finance and the 
source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.

Consequently it can be argued that our Western history is every bit as 
distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the 
soviet Union or Communist China. No western foundation will award grants to 
investigate such topics, few Western academics can "survive" by researching 
such theses and certainly no major publisher will easily accept manuscripts 
reflecting such arguments.