LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Sourakhata
0
There is a relationship between Finance, Centralization, and World Hegemony. Until the outbreak of the First World War, money appeared to be a mere mechanism. But the arrangements made to finance the war reveal that the money system was in fact the vehicle of a POLICY, and that that policy was the CENTRALIZATION of power leading progressively to World Government. Prior to the outbreak of war, Great Britain was the CENTRE (but not the BEING) of world financial control; with the war, financial control was transferred to New York and from there used to dismantle the British Empire which, by reason of British traditions and the Anglo-Saxon character, had been the great barrier to World Dominion by those operating through the world financial system. The fall of the British Empire was a FINANCIAL accomplishment, not a military one. But the terms of 'peace' imposed on 'victorious' Britain are those which might have been expected following military DEFEAT.
But the Power which emerged into the open in this century had its birth long before that. It was incubated (but not conceived) in the Secret Societies of Europe, appeared briefly in the French Revolution, and spread to Britain in the form of Fabianism, and to America in the form of various Socialist societies. Following the first phase of the war, it openly took over Russia, and since has visibly spread as International Communism until it has taken over the greater part of the globe.
Current history, which looks episodic, is in fact the culminating stages of a very long-term policy moving internationally, but visible only in the long perspective of time.
What we think we see is often an illusion intentionally presented, like the conjuror who would have you to believe he holds an orange in his right hand, when it is actually in his left hand. Citizens of the world, whether their sympathies are left-wing or right-wing, monarchist or republican, have been used as pawns in their game of Hegelian psychology by the hidden hand that rules.
In reality, the orange is in neither left nor right hand. The Hegelian dialectic process 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, it 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.
It's like two companies with undisclosed common stockholding submitting competitive tenders for a project on a site for which their stockholder has different plans altogether. Whatever the outcome, the stockholder is in beneficial control.
Hegelian philosophy the conflict of political 'right' and political 'left', or thesis and antithesis in Hegelian terms, is essential to the forward movement of history and historical change itself. Conflict between thesis and antithesis brings about a synthesis or new historical situation.
Our descriptive world history in the West and Marxist countries consists only of description and analysis within a political framework of 'right' or 'left'. For example, historical work published in the West looks at communism and socialism either through the eyes of financial capitalism, or Marxism. While historical work published in Russia looks at the West only through Marxist eyes. However, there is another frame of historical analysis that has never been utilized. This would employ a framework of Hegelian logic, to determine if the elites who control the State use the dialectic process to create a predetermined historical synthesis.
The current world situation was deliberately created by elitist power more or less by manipulation of 'right' and 'left' elements. Over the past 100 years or so they've developed both right and left elements to bring about a NWO. Right-left situations have been deliberately created and then placed in conflict mode to bring about a synthesis.
Since the rise of Kant (who stressed reason and experience) in German philosophy, we can identify two conflicting systems of philosophy; and therefore two opposing ideas of the State, society and culture.
In the U.S., the British Commonwealth and France, philosophy is based on the individual and the rights of the individual. Whereas in Germany from the time of Kant, through Fichte and Hegel up to 1945, basic philosophy has been universal brotherhood, rejection of individualism, and general opposition to Western classical liberal thought in almost all of its aspects. German idealism was the philosophical basis for the work of Karl Marx and the LEFT Hegelians, as well as Bismarck, Hitler and the RIGHT Hegelians. The paradox is that Hegel gave a theoretical basis not only to the most conservative of German movements, but also to most of the revolutionary movements of the 19th century. Both Marx and Hitler have their philosophical roots in Hegel.
From the Hegelian system of political thought, alien to most of us in the West, stem such absurdities as the State seen as the "March of God through history", that the State is also God, and the only duty of a citizen is to serve God by serving the State, that the State is Absolute Reason and citizens can only find freedom by worship and utter obedience to the State. Other Hegelian absurdities have thoroughly penetrated our education system. But that is for another topic.
From this system of Hegelian philosophy comes the historical dialectic, "that all historical events emerge from a conflict between opposing forces." These emerging events are above and different from the conflicting events. Any idea or implementation of an idea may be seen as THESIS. This thesis will encourage emergence of opposing forces, known as ANTITHESIS. The final outcome will be NEITHER thesis nor antithesis, but a SYNTHESIS of the two forces in conflict.
In DAS KAPITAL, Marx posed capitalism as thesis and communism as antithesis. What has been completely ignored by historians, including Marxists, is that any clash between these forces cannot lead to a society which is either capitalist or communist but must lead to a society characterized by a SYNTHESIS of the two conflicting forces. The clash of opposites must in the Hegelian system, bring about a society neither capitalist nor communist. Moreover, in the Hegelian scheme of events, this new synthesis will reflect the concept of the State as God, and the individual as totally subordinate to an all powerful State. This was the thought we encountered in "Hubris".
The function of a Parliament or a Congress is for Hegelians, psychology. Merely to allow individuals to feel that their opinions have some value, and to allow a government to take advantage of whatever wisdom the 'peasant' may accidentally demonstrate. This is so obvious in Australian politics today. As Hegel puts it:
"By virtue of this participation, subjective liberty and conceit, with their general opinion, (individuals) can show themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to count for something."
War, the organized conflict of nations for Hegelians, is only the visible outcome of the clash between ideas. Following the outbreak of war in 1939, Social Creditor C.H. Douglas said, "The international money marketeers care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent that for the death of a sparrow"; and "unfortunately the world is in the grasp of theorists to whom misery and death of millions is a grain of sand beside the working out of their designs". As John Dewey, the Hegelian darling of the modern educational system, puts it:
"War is the most effective preacher of the vanity of all merely finite interests, it puts an end to that selfish egoism of the individual by which he would claim his life and his property as his own or as his family's."
Above all, the Hegelian doctrine is the divine right of States rather than the divine right of kings. The State for Hegel and Hegelians is God on earth:
"The march of God in history is the cause of the existence of states, their foundation is the power of Reason realizing itself as will. Every state, whatever it be, participates in the Divine essence. The State is not the work of human art, only Reason could produce it."
For Hegel the individual is nothing, the individual has no rights, morality consists solely in following a leader.
Compare this to the spirit and letter of the Australian Constitution: "WHEREAS the people" grant the State some powers and reserve all others to the people. Whilst it recognizes no State denomination, it places the Christian God as its Head, unlike Hegel's "the State is God on earth." To elitists like The Order in the USA, The Group in the UK, Illuminati in Germany, and the Politburo in Russia, the State is supreme, and a self-appointed elite running the State acts as God on earth.
Manipulation of 'left' and 'right' in domestic USA, where Wall Street supports both Republicans and Democrats, as their Australian associates support Liberal and Labor, 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. In fact, 'left' and 'right' are two controlled factions of the Illuminati.
Textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiations 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.
The Tribunals that investigated Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any records of Western Assistance to Hitler. And 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. Western textbooks never reveal the evidence that revolutions need finance; and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.
Of course our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China. No Western foundation will award grants to investigate their own benefactors. Few Western scholars can survive by researching such theses, and publishing houses daring to accept such manuscripts suffer intimidation or even violence from the Establishment. The recent trials of David Irving with his erstwhile publisher bears this out.
World history since 1917 reflects an application of Hegelian dialectics. Russia was taken over by mainly Askenazi Jews from the East End of New York who established Socialism, later called Communism. This Revolution was planned by international financiers and financed by Wall Street. Indeed Woodrow Wilson sent US troops who took over and held the Siberian Railroad from 1918 to impede the transport of grain and raw materials to Germany, and so far as possible prevent commerce, until the Soviets were sufficiently established to take over. US troops remained until 1920.
Thus we see governments need censorship to classify certain files for thirty or fifty years after events, to protect the living from charges of treason, and to conceal the past intrigues and long term goals of the hidden elite who call the shots.
Soviet Russia's first Five Year Plan was devised by Detroit-based Albert Kahn, Inc., and Russia's industry financed by Wall Street. Thus was the THESIS: Communism, established.
But the MARXIST version of the Hegelian dialectic poses financial CAPITALISM as thesis, and Marxist revolution as antithesis. An obvious puzzle in this Marxian statement is the nature of the SYNTHESIS presumed to evolve out of the clash of these OPPOSITES. It cannot be Communism!
Lenin's statement that the State will wither away at the synthesis stage is nonsensical. In fact, as all contemporary Marxist states testify, in practice, the State becomes all powerful. The immediate task of "the revolution" is to convey all power to the State, and modern Marxist states operate under a constant paranoia that power may indeed pass away from the hands of the State into the hands of the people.
If MARXISM is posed as the thesis and NATIONAL SOCIALISM as antithesis, then the most likely SYNTHESIS becomes a Hegelian NEW WORLD ORDER, a synthesis evolving out of the clash of Marxism and national socialism. Moreover, in THIS statement those who FINANCE and MANAGE the clash of opposites can REMAIN in control of the synthesis.
The elite have artificially encouraged and developed BOTH revolutionary Marxism and national socialism while retaining some control over the nature and degree of the conflict, therefore it is able to determine the evolution and nature of the New World Order.
Out of war and revolution come opportunities for profit by corporations under the control and influence of these elites. In the two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, there are numerous examples of American banks and corporations trading with the enemy.
The antithesis, National Socialism, is no more. The Cold War is over, so we're taught the thesis of Russian Communism is also dead. This leaves the once Christian now Capitalist West. Since we are 'friends', the West now finances Russia at government level, increasing profits and reducing risks for the international bankers.
To prevent history coming to its end (he says tongue in cheek) the elite introduced a new dialectic process. World War II was the culmination of the dialectic process created in the 1920s and 1930s. The clash between 'left' and 'right', the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, led to creation of a synthesis - the UN, and a start towards regional groupings in NATO, the Common Market, UNESCO, Warsaw Pact, SEATO, CIS, then the Trilateral Commission. A start towards New World Order.
World War II left the Elite with the necessity to create a new dialectical situation to promote MORE conflict to achieve a higher level synthesis.
The source of this process may be found in US National Security Memorandum No. 68 of 1950 which opened up the road for Western technology to build a more advanced Soviet Union - which it did in the 1960s and 1970s with computerized space-age technology. In true Hegelian tradition it simultaneously argued for massive expansion of US defenses - on grounds of a future Soviet threat. (Which would not have been possible without the transfer of Western technology). Thus the internationalists profited from Soviet and US purchases.
The principal devices used to control the dialectic process in the past two decades have been (a) information, (b) debt and (c) technology. These have become diluted over time. They don't work as well today as they did in the 1950s.
By and large, control of INFORMATION has been successful because the intellectual world is still locked into a phony verbal battle between 'left' and 'right', whereas the real struggle is the battle between individual freedom and the encroaching power of the absolute State. The Soviet Union, with its tight censorship, presents a strictly Marxist ('left') orientation to its citizens. The enemy is always the 'fascist' United States. The West is a little more complicated but not much more so. Whereas financial power is used to control politics, information is used to control human perceptions.
Brethren, to the elites, we're 'human cattle' participating in a double blind laboratory experiment. By God's Grace, the elect can't be deceived on the revealed Word of God, which, as a sharp two-edged sword, divides asunder these deceptions.
In the West the choice is basically between a controlled 'left-oriented' information, and a controlled 'right-oriented' information. The conflict between the two CONTROLLED groups keeps an apparent informational conflict alive. Unwelcome facts that fall into either camp are conveniently forgotten. Books that fall into either camp can be effectively neutralized because they will incur the wrath of both 'right' and 'left'. The faster the cattle run, the faster the treadmill takes them to nowhere.
Any publication which points up the fallacy of the Left-Right dichotomy is ignored . . . and citizens keep trooping down to the polling booths in the belief they have a 'choice'. Witness Australian elections. The Labor and Liberal Parties frankly admit their policies are common.
The second control mechanism is DEBT. We all understand that. If Marxist countries have to import technology, they need to earn or borrow Western currencies to pay for it. Loans have to be repaid. So to some extent, debtors are under control of creditors, unless they default. And therein lies the weakness.
The third control mechanism is TECHNOLOGY. If technology to advance to more efficient production levels has to be imported, then the recipient is always kept away from the 'state of the art'. The weakness for the elite is that military technology does not require a market system.
The dialectic plan therefore misfired for several reasons. Firstly, the informational blackouts were not as successful as they expected. Control of Time and Newsweek gave them dominance over weekly news summaries. The TV networks have been able to orchestrate viewers reactions - to some extent - by propaganda in movies. (For example, when I went to the giant IMAX movie theatre, I noticed propaganda for the 'Greenhouse' HOAX had been subtly included in the narrative). But the elite were unable to restrict individuals and relatively small non-academic groups, almost always outside Universities (whose curricula they control) from exploring obvious inconsistencies in Establishment propaganda. These groups, often mistakenly termed 'left' or 'right,' are outside the manipulated left-right spectrum.
Secondly, the debt weapon was over-used. Communist countries are now saturated with debt to Western bankers.
Thirdly, while technology is still a useful weapon, there are distinct stirrings among independent analysts of the danger posed for the Western world by building enemies.
We've spent 50 years arming our enemies, and developing their industries with our technology. And under the LIMA Agreement, have transferred our manufacturing infrastructure offshore. Last year China purchased the whole of New Zealand's forests "in perpetuity" for US$80 million donated by Australia. No wonder our Aborigines are caught up in Communist ideas when we give money to foreign nations who consider us "barbarians," and to others, who have the Northern half of our continent colored green and labeled "South Irian" in their school atlases and on military maps.
Even without interference by the international bankers the consequences are alarming, both for America and for the Western world. The West has a brief opportunity between the decline of Russia and the rise of China. Europe has wasted most of the present decade by pursuing the dangerous IRRELEVANCE of the single currency. (No doubt a ploy of her fairweather banking friends). America has wasted it on a shallow prosperity; even the recovery hasn't greatly strengthened the US economy. Neither Europe nor America is prepared for the global competition of the next century. For America, the progressive shift of wealth and power to Asia will be humiliating, and perhaps destabilizing.
Consequently, in today's world we can identify two facts in construction of a new dialectic. First, cautious reinforcement of the Marxian arm - for example: Marxist Angola got a green light, Marxist Grenada got a red light.
Second, the construction of a completely new arm, that of Communist China, itself Marxist, but with conflict potential for the Soviet Union. Major efforts are in progress, only partly revealed in the press, to create a new superpower in conflict mode with the Soviet Union. This is the new antithesis, replacing Nazi Germany.
American involvement in China began with Wall Street's intervention into Dr. Sun Yat Sen's revolution of 1911. During World War II the US helped the Chinese Communists into power. The decision to build Communist China as a new arm of the dialectic was made under Richard Nixon and executed by Henry Kissinger and George Bush.
By the turn of the century, Communist China will be a "superpower" built by American technology and skill, presumably for conflict with Russia. What then is left for the USA but an 'accommodation' with the CIS to set up a world government.
The Hegelian dialectic is being employed to secure and sustain absolute world power and authority to an elite. We have fallen into a Hegelian trap and don't know it.
Reply With Quote
Pragmatic
Bookmarks