Anthony Sutton argues that the left-right political division is “a control device” used by an elite that subscribes to Hegel’s understanding of the historical process. As Sutton explains,
For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as “the march of God on earth.” Indeed, a State religion. Progress in the Hegelian State is through contrived conflict: the clash of opposites makes for progress. If you can control the opposites, you dominate the nature of the outcome.
In 1947, the first director-general of UNESCO, Julian Huxley wrote “UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy,” in which he revealed the globalists’ adherence to the Hegelian dialiectic:
“The task before UNESCO… is to help the emergence of
a single world culture with its own philosophy and
background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.
This is opportune, since this is the first time in
history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for
world unification have become available…. And it is
necessary, for at the moment, two opposing
philosophies of life confront each other from the West
and from the East….
“You may categorize the two philosophies as two
super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus
collectivism; or as the American versus the Russian
way of life, or as capitalism versus communism, or as
Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be
reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher
synthesis? I believe not only that this can happen,
but that, through the inexorable dialectic of
evolution, it must happen….
“In pursuing this aim, we must eschew dogma – whether
it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma…. East and
West will not agree on a basis of the future if they
merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past.
For that is what dogma’s are — the crystallizations
of some dominant system of thought of a particular
epoch. A dogma may of course crystallize tried and
valid experience; but if it be dogma, it does so in a
way which is rigid, uncompromising and intolerant….
If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to
un-crystallize our dogmas.” [3]
…
One of the most effective means of putting people off looking into these questions is the attachment of the “conspiracy theory” label to them. Few people, and certainly no self-respecting intellectual, want to be called a “conspiracy theorist.” The problem is that a vast range of issues which challenge the dominant view of the world presented by respectable academics and the mainstream media, from the highly probable to the downright bizarre, are all lumped together as “conspiracy theories,” serving as a warning to the curious who dare to entertain them that to do so will invite the ridicule of all right-thinking people. But as John Judge points out, “Not all “conspiracies” are created equal.” In other words, some conspiracies are more plausible than others. “The government did kill JFK, and they lied about it,” Judge says. “That does not mean there was never a Holocaust, or that the world is run by the Illuminati.”
“I’m willing to be called a conspiracy theorist,” as John Judge says, “as long as you call everyone else a coincidence theorist.”
Judge accuses the progressive magazine The Nation of having a “anti-conspiracy fetish.”
John Judge explains why many on the left disdain so-called conspiracy theories.
The blindness of Chomsky and the other left structuralists is that they make the class out to be monolithic and without mechanisms to carry out its will. They fear that if you think there was any reason to kill a president then you don’t understand how capitalism works, and that you will be filled with false hope about the Kennedy clan, who were only more of the same old ruling class. They can’t let themselves think JFK could really have intended to pull out of the Vietnam war…
“The real history of the world is a history of competing conspiracies,” Ishmael Reed says in Mumbo Jumbo.
Carl Oglesby: “Clandestinism is not the usage of a handful of rogues, it is a formalized practice of an entire class in which a thousand hands spontaneously join. Conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means.” (pp. 27-28)
Daniel Schmidt: “If you asked Americans to line up according to whether they believed in conspiracies, on one side you’d get a bunch of major media journalists and Ivy League professors, many of whom belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. On the other you’d see Californians, UFO abductees, and folks wearing aluminum-foil hats to keep out Big Brother’s mind-control waves. The middle of the room would be deserted — it requires thinkers who are widely-read on politics, the secret state, and current history, and have no propertied interests or lucrative careers to protect.
This middle position requires constant sifting of reams of material by very smart people, and an instinct for the probable and not-so-probable. Even those who are qualified seldom write on this topic, as it’s difficult and the audience is small.”
Daniel Schmidt: “The historical record of who did what, what did he
know, and when did he know it, should be the bible of
journalism. Today that record is largely invisible. A
huge chunk is kept from us by our secret state, with
too few reporters objecting, or pursuing FOIA
requests. Another chunk is ignored because it precedes
the 1980s and cannot be found on Nexis. It’s a rare
reporter who does more than lift a finger to dial a
telephone, whether directly or through his keyboard
and modem. It’s too difficult, deadlines are pressing,
and there’s an adverse market for investigative
pieces. Newly-released CIA documents on Oswald can
easily get lost, for example, under the hoopla that
accompanied the publication of Gerald Posner’s “Case
Closed” — a book that was sloppy, one-sided, and
nurtured by Random House editor Robert D. Loomis, who
admits to an anti-conspiracy grudge.
“The trivialization of conspiracism may itself be a
conspiracy, but until there’s more evidence of
deliberate patterns in this regard, one can only hope
for more benevolent interpretations. In many cases,
high-level conspiracism is more reasonable than the
succession of coincidental lone-nut explanations that
satisfy most reporters. This applies to the three
recent assassinations in Mexico — an embarrassment to
journalists. It also applies to the JFK, RFK, Malcolm
X, and Martin Luther King assassinations.
“So why are most reporters such wimps? Perhaps it’s
because the word “conspiracy” suggests hard or even
dangerous work ahead, whereas “lone nut” means that
their weekends will be free. If the paycheck is the
same in either case — or often much fatter in the
latter instance — then only reporters who take their
social obligation seriously might consider the
question of conspiracy. And how many fit this
description?
“Admittedly, it’s too easy for conspiracists to become
intolerant or to get lost in microanalysis. The latest
count of bullet trajectories on pinheads seemingly
draws more bitter debate than the big picture of who’s
pulling the strings. It’s rare to find anyone who
achieves that delicate balance between historical
macroanalysis and conspiratorial awareness. The
brilliant Carroll Quigley comes to mind, which
explains his appeal to a broad spectrum of admirers –
including Pat Robertson from right of center, Carl
Oglesby from the left, and even Bill Clinton from
wherever. Regrettably, Quigley’s 55-year narrative
shuts down just prior to the JFK assassination,
precisely when we needed him most.”
Daniel Brandt: “In 1932, Huey Long said, “They’ve got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen.” Nothing has changed in seventy years.”
Daniel Brandt on Eric Chester: “The Cold War period in American history was characterized by a seamless cooperation among international charities, quasi-governmental organizations, major foundations, funding conduits, and the CIA. Any semblance of private- sector independence was more calculated than real — a veil that is stripped away by following the careers, connections, and correspondence of the key players who show up on the interlocking boards of directors. This book singles out the International Rescue Committee, and to a lesser extent the Ford Foundation. Its impressive original-source research makes a mockery of any historian who would pretend that these organizations can be considered separately from the CIA’s influence and agenda, particularly during the Cold War period.”
Notes
John Judge, “Not all conspiracies are created equal,” 30 October 2002,
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/notAllCequal.html
John Judge, “”Conspiracy” Theories vs. “Coincidence” Theories,” Steamshovelpress.com,
http://www.steamshovelpress.com/latestword15.html
Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies From Dallas to Watergate (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1976)
Daniel Brandt, Review of Robin Ramsay’s Conspiracy Theories, Name Base
http://www.namebase.org/sources/eB.html
Daniel Brandt, “The Decline of American Journalism,” NameBase NewsLine, No. 9, April-June 1995, http://www.namebase.org/news09.html
“Mark Hand: Searching for Daniel Brandt,” Counterpunch, Jan 3, 2003,
http://www.counterpunch.org/hand01032003.html
Chester, Eric Thomas. Covert Network: Progressives, the International Rescue Committee, and the CIA. Armonk NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.
Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy (Washington DC: Public Affairs Press, 1947), page 61.
