What you never learnt despite
years of schooling, a Ph.D. in political science, mathematics,
physics, history, international relations, or even underwater basket
weaving - The one master key that unlocks all mysteries of modernity
'After 16 books and 25 years in basic research I thought I'd heard it
all ... the world was a confused mess, probably beyond understanding
and certainly beyond salvation - and there was little 'l could do
about it.
Back in 1968 my Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In three substantial volumes I detailed how the West had built the Soviet Union. However, the work generated a seemingly insoluble puzzle - why have we done this? Why did we build the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts? Why have we boosted Soviet military power? And simultaneously boosted our own? In subsequent books, the Wall Street series, I added more questions - but no answers. I had more or less arrived at the conclusion that there was no rational answer that could be proven.
Then a year or so ago I received an eight-inch batch of documents - nothing less than the membership lists of an American secret society. Glancing through the sheets it was more than obvious - this was no ordinary group. The names spelled Power, with a capital P. As I probed each individual a pattern emerged ... and a formerly fuzzy world became crystal clear.
... These volumes will explain why the West built the Soviets and Hitler; why we go to war, to lose; why Wall Street loves Marxists and Nazis; why the kids can't read; why the Churches have become propaganda founts; why historical facts are suppressed, why politicians lie and a hundred other whys.' --- Preface Antony C. Sutton
Back in 1968 my Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In three substantial volumes I detailed how the West had built the Soviet Union. However, the work generated a seemingly insoluble puzzle - why have we done this? Why did we build the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts? Why have we boosted Soviet military power? And simultaneously boosted our own? In subsequent books, the Wall Street series, I added more questions - but no answers. I had more or less arrived at the conclusion that there was no rational answer that could be proven.
Then a year or so ago I received an eight-inch batch of documents - nothing less than the membership lists of an American secret society. Glancing through the sheets it was more than obvious - this was no ordinary group. The names spelled Power, with a capital P. As I probed each individual a pattern emerged ... and a formerly fuzzy world became crystal clear.
... These volumes will explain why the West built the Soviets and Hitler; why we go to war, to lose; why Wall Street loves Marxists and Nazis; why the kids can't read; why the Churches have become propaganda founts; why historical facts are suppressed, why politicians lie and a hundred other whys.' --- Preface Antony C. Sutton
Here is a sample, pgs. 37-38:
'How can there exist a common objective when members 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 devices 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, neither 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. He finds freedom only in obedience to the State. There was no freedom in Hitler's Germany, there is no freedom for the individual under Marxism, neither will there be in the New World Order. And if it sounds like George Orwell's 1984 - it is.
In brief, the State is supreme and conflict is used to bring about the ideal society. Individuals find freedom in obedience to the rulers.'
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 devices 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, neither 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. He finds freedom only in obedience to the State. There was no freedom in Hitler's Germany, there is no freedom for the individual under Marxism, neither will there be in the New World Order. And if it sounds like George Orwell's 1984 - it is.
In brief, the State is supreme and conflict is used to bring about the ideal society. Individuals find freedom in obedience to the rulers.'
The tortuously descriptive expression “Hegelian Mindfuck”
(syntactically sugared to the spelling “Hegelian Mind Fck”)
captures the raping of the public’s moral imagination and
commonsense by brilliant hectoring hegemons. It is the perverse
method of mass behavior control through perception management, in
which the mind-fcked public, quite unwittingly, is guided, coerced,
and left with no choice but to voluntarily give a measure of its
consent to its own enslavement; acquiescing to its own loss of
freedom in decision making; and voluntarily submitting to the diktats
of those in positions of power as: 'they know best'. Thoughts and
behavior are voluntarily self-policed in accordance with the tune of
the shepherd's whistle.
The highest shepherd in Hegelianism is the 'state', the supreme
authority, meaning, in essence, those who control the theology,
beliefs, policies, and agendas of the state. The state is often akin
to religion, its precepts a taboo, its narratives holy and divine.
Belief in the axioms of 'state' is sacred --- regardless of the
state. The modern nation state in that respect is little different
from empires of the past or present. The state is “implemented”
by front-men and front-woman who, in electoral democracies, are
elected by the public in the mistaken belief that this elected ruling
class is the public's representatives to the state, doing what's best
for those who elected them, when, in reality, the ruling class is the
representatives of the controllers of the state to the people,
manipulating the public to believe and behave in accordance with
what's projected to be in the interest of the state. Profound?
Hardly. This was true even when kings ruled in the name of gods too.
What changed in modernity is the make-belief script and its actors.
Just a simple example makes this clear: going to war --- getting
people to lay down their lives for the state under the sound of
trumpet, when, in reality, the behind the scenes shepherds of the
state are the ones deciding when, and for what, to make war and peace
in the blood of the sheep. Only a truly fucked up mind can be made to
believe and act in this unholy manner to voluntarily give its measure
of consent for a 'higher cause' as defined by the shepherd, which
culminates in its blood offering and commensurate 'honor' in society.
It's called 'patriotism'.
In a theological state, its clergy class is deemed to be the
representatives of God to man, and thus, in even more egregious a
manner in the name of divine favor, the state gets away extracting
voluntary servitude from the flock in much the same way as in
electorally elected government. Military-style dictatorships however,
are slightly different in that they control public behavior at the
point of their totalitarian bayonet. Such coarse dictatorships
usually find little use for Hegelian mind fuck; the point of the
bayonet is sharp enough for the public to obey regardless. Albeit, in
the Orwellian depiction of a more sophisticated totalitarian
dystopia, mind-control is seen as being instrumental in extracting
the desired behavior, uniformity, and conformity, under full spectrum
thought control. Even a slightly divergent or independent mind within
the darkest privacy of the silence of thought, is deemed a threat to
the state. Independence of thought, which naturally leads to
resistance to behavior control in any form, as depicted by George
Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-four, is deemed to be a 'thought crime'
punishable by legal sanction.
Theological states are more inclined to police thought crimes than
democratic states where the illusion of 'freedom' is normally
maintained. However, as witnessed on the sacred cow axiom of the
Jewish HolocaustTM, even democratic states willingly give
up that illusion of freedom when necessary; it is a criminal offense
in European states, Canada, to not accept the Jewish narrative of the
Holocaust. In the United States, it is usually the end of a career.
Similarly, in times of crisis, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
are suspended or abolished in the name of state security, as in the
various Congress approved Patriot Acts, and Presidential Executive
Orders. Without some form of mass behavior control, a state simply
cannot function in its primacy objectives, and the most diabolical
method for this exercise is to employ the Hegelian Dialectic. The
public can never figure out what's really going on.
In the democratic modernity, any strain of totalitarianism in the
state which often accompanies its primacy imperatives in which the
public are not naturally participant and their compliance must be
extracted by mind fuck whenever it's needed, is disguised with
cunning illusions. Both sustained propaganda and indoctrination from
birth rely on some technique of mind fuck for mass behavior control
in the name of any number of pretexts, such as the flag, religion,
the state's sacred cow axioms, self-defence, crisis management,
terror and threat of terror, aliens, natural and unnatural
catastrophes, fear of catastrophes, etc. The public mind is kept
agitated and in a state of turmoil under one pretext or another,
which is why war has been so useful as a means of social control
since time immemorial.
The expression “Hegelian Mindfuck” originated (as
far as one is aware) in the insightful analyses of comrade in common
cause, A. Peasant, at Twelfth Bough. See its usage in The
Ultimate Hegelian Mindfuck, and in the broad spectrum
tutorial that covers a large canvas of modernity: Hegelian
Mindfuck Records. All rights reserved (PDF).
More “Hegelian Mindfuck” here,
here.
To mildly sanitize the expression to pass automatic filters, and also
to make it acceptable to the profoundly “innocent
of knowledge”, Project Humanbeingsfirst borrowed it
with permission and re-spelled it “Hegelian Mind Fck”.
Several Project Humanbeingsfirst reports carry that appropriate
expression in the report title itself (see here,
here,
here).
Other missives elaborate upon it (see here,
here,
here,
here).
The Hegelian Dialectic upon which this diabolical raping of the
public's mind is calculatingly waged to keep the peasants and
the plebeians and the useless eaters perpetually
chained as “Prisoners
of the Cave”, is examined in the tutorial: The
Hegelian Dialectics of Deception Today's Focus: Anatomy of Modern
Lies, Senseless Warfare, Merchants of Death – Educate Yourself.
Conspiracy: “in law,
agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise
unlawful act. At common law, the crime of conspiracy was committed
with the making of the agreement, but present-day statutes require an
overt step by a conspirator to further the conspiracy. Other
controversial aspects of conspiracy laws include the modification of
the rules of evidence and the potential for a dragnet. A statement of
a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against
all conspirators, even if the statement includes damaging references
to another conspirator, and often even if it violates the rules
against hearsay evidence. The conspiracy can be proved by
circumstantial evidence. Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive
crime committed by any other conspirator in furtherance of the
enterprise. It is a federal crime to conspire to commit any activity
prohibited by federal statute, whether or not Congress imposed
criminal sanctions on the activity itself.” --
Columbia
Encyclopedia
Ah – but what if the “criminals” were to write the
laws and the statutes themselves? Then, the conniving and conspiring
isn't legally defined as a crime, nor the “criminals”
called criminals. In fact, most are called bankers (emperors
previously), and their instruments today, foundations (fleets
previously)! Isn't that just peachy?
Now let Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski
and the US. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton confirm that very
process of behind the scenes planning and orchestration by
“legalized” instruments of the oligarchy without it
legally being defined as “conspiracy” and “subversion”
--- it's all in the OPEN stupid and therefore not deemed illegal!
Source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-quigley-formula-for-world-government.html
The
Hegelian Dialectic and Hegelian Mind-Fck 8/8
Zahir Ebrahim Project Humanbeingsfirst.org