For the love of money is the root of all evil:
which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith,
and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
I Timothy 6:10
And on their breasts they wear a sign that tells their race and name.
It is the ghastly badge of death. And from his kingdom came The son of
Satan, son of sin, the enemy of man.
The poem above was written by the editor of the Iconoclast, the student newspaper at Yale University in the 1870s about the Skull and Bones elitist fraternity at Yale.
Members just call it The Order. Membership includes three generations of the Bush clan with Prescott, George H.W. and Dubya all being members. In the book America’s Secret Establishment, an Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones, the author, the late great Antony Sutton, shows the enormous power and influence of this secret society in both U.S. and world affairs.
Sutton shows convincingly how this group is one of the most powerful components of the New World Order and how they have manipulated many important world events since their inception as an outgrowth of a German secret society whose methodology is that of a dialectic originally developed in theory by a German philosopher.
Another anonymous writer described the Order as “The Brotherhood of Death.” It seems accurate considering the track record it has. These elitists have been involved in financing wars and revolutions since their inception. Like their kinsmen in the SS and pirates of old, they adopted that cute little symbol of death—the skull and crossbones—as their very own. That alone should tell us something about their intentions toward others.
We know that we have passed from death unto life,
because we love the brethren. He that loveth not
[his] brother abideth in death.
I John 3:14
The author intends to show through this essay that the New World Order will be operated through the political/economic system known as fascism, which is the synthesis of a dialectical process with liberalism/ laissez-faire capitalism as the thesis, with communism/socialism as the antithesis, with fascism as the synthesis.
The NWO system is one of total control in three areas: politics, economics, and religion. The Beast system spoken of in the Bible will be a type of fascism on a global scale since it is the preferred method of control of not only the oligarchs of international corporatism but also the third element: world religion led by the Vatican. It will resemble a revived Roman Empire.
The two political/economic systems of fascism and communism are in opposition to each other but have a common philosophical basis. They are both collectivist ideologies and they both owe their origins in part to one man: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Hegel, a German professor of philosophy, developed a system of understanding history and politics as a progression in which each successive movement emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement. There is insufficient space to go into great detail in this essay, but basically Hegel taught a concept which he called the “dialectic.”
This Dialectic was characterized as a three-step process: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. It is often now expressed as problem, reaction, solution. An example of this concept could be seen in the French Revolution (thesis), The Reign of Terror (antithesis) and the constitutional republic (synthesis). This philosophy of Hegel was used by the Fathers of communism and fascism.
Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel when he formulated the concept of dialectical materialism, which is the foundation of communism. Dialectical materialism originates from two major aspects of Marx's philosophy. Marx said he was putting Hegel’s dialectic “back on its feet.” Marx found Hegel to be too idealistic and detached from the real world and saw the dialectic in materialistic terms. Marx saw the world as purely material. In Das Kapital, Marx states: “The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought.” Marxism sees reality as the things we can see and experience. It is an atheistic philosophy which denies the existence of the supernatural. Class struggle is the other major tenet of dialectical materialism.
Communism and fascism, the two totalitarian systems which brought so much misery
and death upon the world, have several common components. The most important
of these is that they are both collectivist ideologies and, therefore, opponents
of individual liberty. They both see the state as supreme and the individual
as insignificant. Many opponents of collectivism such as Orwell and
Rand see it as leading directly to tyranny.
It cannot be said too often—at any rate—it is not being said nearly often enough
that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a
tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.
–George Orwell, review of Road to Serfdom, 1944
Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a
group—whether to a race, class or state—it does not matter. Collectivism holds
that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for
the sake of what is called “the common good.” Throughout history,
no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing “the common good.”
Napoleon served the common good of France. Hitler [was] ‘serving the common good´
of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake
are perpetrated with a clear conscience by “altruists” who justify
themselves by—the common good. –Ayn Rand
I used the quotes from Orwell and Rand to illustrate the point that many intellectuals from both the Left (Orwell) and the Right (Rand ) oppose collectivist ideologies as being the basis of totalitarianism. Orwell as a democratic socialist with a small d and s despised the totalitarian fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin’s communism as well as Rand, a die hard laissez-faire capitalist.
The predominant political/economic systems of the l9th century were liberalism and laissez faire economics. This is the thesis. And communism is the antithesis. The early laissez-faire economists, such as Adam Smith, believed in the liberal ideology that individuals should be encouraged to take actions that would be beneficial to society. The development of laissez-faire capitalist ideology was based on the premise that, when allowing people to pursue their own private interests, people would be guided by an invisible hand to act in the best interests of society. The foundation of laissez-faire ideology was not the pursuit of self-interest for self-interest's sake, but rather that through the laissez-faire process social interests would be served. As Smith put it: men would live in a system of natural liberty in which each individual would be free to pursue his own ends but would be guided as if by an invisible hand to serve the interests of others in society as the means to his own self-improvement.
Many working class people and others became increasingly frustrated with capitalism since they did not see any “Invisible Hand” moving in their best interest but rather increasingly harsh working and living conditions as the Industrial Revolution saw large numbers of workers living in squalor and working long hours in appalling conditions in the factories of that day. The invisible hand seemed more like a thumb in the eye to those at the bottom. Smith’s vision of laissez faire just wasn’t working for anybody but a small wealthy elite who owned the means of production. Society was becoming increasingly stratified and the gap between the elite and the lower classes was becoming wider.
Again, there is not sufficient space in this essay to go into great detail, but Marx saw the entirety of history to be that of class struggles which had culminated in the class struggle of his era: capitalism versus labor. Marx saw it as a struggle between those who owned the means of production and those who worked to produce and were exploited in the process. The goal of Marxist communism was the complete elimination of class and the role of private capital. The utopian goal of the Marxists was ultimately to eliminate all traditional elements of society and create a new society founded on the principle of equality. Although it is not evident by the evolution of communism, which is totalitarian in its practical forms in our world today, Marx preached equality, democracy and atheism/materialism. Marxism champions the pursuit of the equality of race, gender, and economic status. Marxism stated that democracy as it was practiced was not truly representative of all people, it was only representative of establishment interests and, thus, Marxism was a call for true and total democracy where every citizen was totally equal in their political influence. Marxism, of course, stated that religion was the “opiate of the people” and a barrier to solutions for worldly problems.
Fascism was a reaction to Marxist communism and is thus the synthesis of the dialectic of liberalism/laissez faire capitalism (thesis); Marxist communism/socialism (antithesis); fascism the middle ground (synthesis). Fascism rejects both of the previous systems as we can see from these statements by Mussolini:
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of
the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide
with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal
will of man as a historic entity . . . The fascist conception of the State is all
embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less
have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which
equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest
number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a
century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was
the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to
believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.
–Benito Mussolini, The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism
Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base
of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history; according
to which the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of
interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means
and instruments of production. That the changes in the economic field-new discoveries
of raw materials, new methods of working them and the inventions of science-have their
importance no one can deny; but that these factors are sufficient to explain the history of
humanity excluding all others is an absurd delusion. Fascism, now and always, believes in
holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive,
direct or indirect. And if we deny the economic conception of history, according to
which men are no more than puppets carried to and fro by the waves of chance,
while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that
the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied-the
natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all
Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force
in the transformation of society.”
—Benito Mussolini, Essay on Fascism
The man credited with being the Philosopher of Fascism was Giovanni Gentile, who was a Hegelian disciple. Gentile was the ghost writer of many of Mussolini’s works. He had held the philosophy chair at Palermo University and was influenced by German philosophers such as Hegel, Marx, Fichte and Nietzsche. He saw himself doing to Marxist thought what Marx had done to Hegel. Gentile believed that Marx's conception of the dialectic to be the fundamental flaw of his application to system making. To Gentile, Marx made the dialectic into external object, and therefore abstracted it by making it part of some process that theoretically exists of outward matter and material.
Gentile saw Marx’s fundamental mistake as divorcing the dialectic from human conceptual thought. The dialectic to Gentile could only be something of human precepts, something that is an active part of human thinking. The dialectic was to Gentile concrete subject and not an abstract object. Gentile observed how humans think in forms wherein one side of a dual opposite could not be thought of without its complement. One could not know heat without knowing cold, or upward without knowing downward, and so on.
