American politics
"Left" versus "Right" and the Hegelian dialectic
Tue Jul 8 02:11:06 2003
208.152.73.78

Antony Sutton on "Left" versus "Right" and the Hegelian dialectic in
American politics

The following excerpts are from Sutton's America's Secret
Establishment, his "magnum opus" exposing the Order of Skull and
Bones, the deeply influential Yale secret society that has played a
leading role in shaping politics and social development since its
inception in 1833. Three generations of the Bush family, including
pResident George W., are members, as well as many other movers and
shakers in politics, law, business, media, and education. The
influence of the Skull and Bones illustrates a reality that is often
difficult to accept for those who are accustomed to conventional ways
of thinking about politics — in particular, the idea that the left
and right of the political spectrum are inherently in opposition and
that political leaders and their policies must fit on one side or the
other. Elitists such as the members of Skull and Bones, however, have
historically played both sides of the game as it suits them; the
seeming contradictions and cross-purposes at work are difficult to
understand unless one understands the elitist divide-and-conquer
concepts of Hegelianism, which Bonesmen introduced to America from
Germany.

With long-overdue discussion emerging about the potential for
alliance between left and right to form a better and more powerful
antiwar movement, a wider awareness of Sutton's work will help to
clear the air of long-held misconceptions about the way power works
at the very top.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.


http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/1104_sutton.html