America Betrayed: Bush, Bin Laden, & 9/11 Part 1


Chapter 3

political cal

THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH

“We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” —George W. Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly 11/10/2001

“Conspirators are successful because the moral citizen cannot accept the conclusion that other individuals would actually wish to create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow citizens.” Ralph Epperson (the Unseen Hand).

“Some of the biggest men in the U.S. in the fields of commerce and manufacturing know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” -President Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the USA

THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC

The philosophical and political roots of the 9/11 conspiracy do not have their source in Afghanistan or from within the inner sanctum of al-Qaeda or the current Bush administration, but instead can be traced backwards in time, to Berlin, Germany, and the year 1823.

It was in 1823 that Hegel, the great German philosopher and political scientist, proposed his dialectic (1), an idea that spread like a virus from the University of Berlin, to Yale college—the alma matter of George W. Bush, his father, George H.W. Bush, and grand-father, Prescott Bush.

Hegel proposed and developed the concept of “Controlled Conflict.” Hegel argued “that all historical events emerge from a conflict between opposing forces” and that change is a product of conflict between two opposing forces that produced such change. However, by creating, manipulating and controlling that conflict, Hegel proposed, it was possible to create a specific end result: “Conflict produces change, and controlled conflict produces controlled change.” The controlled change is referred to as a “synthesis” such that in the end, both opposing forces undergo change and cease to exist except as an altered state (1).

By understanding and putting this principle to work, Hegel argued, one could create a specific end result and shape world history, simply by creating and managing a controlled conflict between opposing parties and opposing states.

Hegel also believed the state to be representative of the Divine Will. He argued that the end result of a controlled conflict, was a product of reason and Divine Will, and had little or nothing to do with the will of the masses whose purpose was simply to obey.

Hegel’s views were also consistent with and incorporated the theology of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism.

Luther preached that the true Christian owes absolute authority to the State (2). It is not for the people to decide what is right or wrong, but merely to obey.

Adolf Hitler deeply admired Luther, and considered the Protestants to be “submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them.”

When the German peasants revolted against the state in 1525, Luther advised the princes to act ruthlessly against these “mad dogs.”

Luther’s brand of Protestantism considered the state to be a representative of the will of God on earth. Thus the Protestant Church in Germany has always stood up for the advancement of German nationalism and the interests of the state. Since its inception Protestant pastors have always stood solidly behind the King, the Junkers, and the Army, until 1918 when the King was overthrown; an event which made the Weimar Republic an enemy of the Protestant Church (3).

Thus, the German Protestant Church, being nationalistic, antidemocratic, and a willing instrument of the state, was easy to Nazify, though there was also opposition (3—pp 326-327).

Adolf Hitler considered Luther to be “one of my spiritual ancestors. I have sought to carry out the ideas of this man of God, to the smallest detail.” Indeed, both Hitler and Luther believed the state to be the personification of divine will, and both men condemned the Jews “and their lies.”

“Throughout the history of Germany,” Luther once said, “the Jews have exploited and sought to enslave honest Germans. While Germans toiled, the Jews fleece us of our money and goods and then sit around the stove and fart.”

Hitler also agreed with Luther’s solution to “the Jewish problem.” According to Luther (2): “First set fire to their synagogues… raze and destroy their schools… take away their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which adultery, lies, and sex with children is taught. Forbid that Rabbis be allowed to teach. Take away their cash and silver. Let whosoever throw brimstone and pitch upon them and let them be driven like mad dogs from the land.”

To destroy the Jews, would also be in keeping with the Nazi’s version of eugenics: the extermination of a dangerous “subhuman” race.

Hitler celebrated Luther’s birth date by unleashing his storm troopers on November 9 and 10, 1938. The Nazis, funded by bankers, industrialists, Standard Oil and Prescott Bush and associates (4) destroyed Jewish business, and set fire to their synagogues and schools—the so called Kristallnacht (3,5,6): “The Night of Broken Glass.”

Though it is true that almost half of the Protestant clergy and leadership initially opposed Hitler’s attempts to Nazify the Protestant church (3), Nazi ideology is deeply rooted in Lutherism and Hegelian thought. Both Luther (2) and Hegel (1) saw the state as being an instrument of God.

As explained by Hegel (1): “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.”

Because the State is also God and a representative of absolute pure reason, it is the absolute duty of all citizens to serve God and Reason by serving the State. Democracy, individualism, morality, the will of the masses are irrelevant. According to Hegel, the individual can only find freedom through worship and utter obedience to the State (1).

Hitler believed that he had been chosen by “divine providence” to lead the state (3,5,6,7). Believing himself to have been chosen by God, and that he was acting as an instrument of God, Hitler—and his Nazi followers who shared these beliefs —also believed that the Nazi state should act according to Hitler’s will, and Hitler’s will alone.

As summed up by Rudolf Hess: “Hitler is Germany and Germany is Hitler!”

“The individual is nothing.” —Adolf Hitler.

“If men were given complete liberty of action, they would immediately behave like apes. Slacken the reins of authority, give more liberty to the individual, and you are driving the people along the road to decadence” —Adolf Hitler (7).

The philosophies of Hegel (1), Luther (2), and Hitler (7), in equating the state with Divine Will, also promotes the goal of annihilating all individuality. The individual is nothing. The individual has no rights. Morality consists solely in obedience to the state which is a manifestation of the Divine essence and the power of reason.

Democracy, therefore, is the antithesis of Hegelian thought.

As summed up by Hegel (1): “All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State. For truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will; and the Universal is found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth.”

Likewise, according to Hegel, the synthesis resulting from the conflict between opposing forces and opposing states (thesis vs anti-thesis) represents the “march of God through history.”

However, because God and the Divine essence is also a manifestation of reason, the use of reason to manipulate and create a controlled conflict (between “thesis” and “anti-thesis”) could therefore result in the creation of a new state (Synthesis): A new world order that is divinely inspired and governed by an all powerful intellectual elite.

In the 1990s, George H.W. Bush, repeatedly announced and called for a “New World Order.”

THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Paradoxical as it may seem, Hegel’s philosophy not only provided a theoretical basis that supported Germany’s Protestant religion and the most conservative and rabidly nationalist of German political movements during the 19th century, but opposing revolutionary movements of the 20th century: Marxism (8) and the rise of Nazism and Adolf Hitler (9).

Broadly considered, Hegelians can be divided into two seemingly oppositional camps: the right-wing Hegelians who promoted German/Prussian militarism and spawned Baron von Bismarck and later Adolf Hitler (9), and the left-wing Hegelians (the “scientific socialists”) who provided the philosophical foundations that gave rise to Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and thus Marxism/Communism (8).

Be it Nazi or Communist, regardless of their rightor leftward leanings, these Hegelians all share the same unifying beliefs: The supremacy of an all powerful state, the total insignificance of individuality, contempt for democracy, and the desire to create a New World Order—a singular all powerful government which would rule the world (7,8,9).

THESIS VS ANTI-THESIS = SYNTHESIS

The existence of these two opposing Hegelian-political/governmental organizations, is also Hegelian. The Hegelian dialectic envisions the participation of two opposing parties (thesis vs antithesis) who are then guided and manipulated into engaging in a controlled conflict (1). The result of this conflict between thesis and anti-thesis, is synthesis: change in the form of increased wealth, increased power, and the concentration of this power and wealth in the hands of a divinely elected elite who control the state; i.e. a New World Order.

At the turn of the 19th century, the major national powers of the world were ruled by Kings or democratically elected governments whose economies were capitalistic. Communism was as yet, a theory.

The first world war was not fought between communists and capitalists, but between kings and kings (e.g., Germany against Russia), and between kings and democratically elected governments (i.e. Germany against France, Britain and America).

As the first world war neared to a close, it became apparent that the democratic states would triumph and that the Kings of Germany and Russia would be exiled and deposed.

War and conflict is good for business, at least for those lending money or selling oil and weapons. But if the kings were deposed and replaced by democratically-elected governments, wars and thus controlled conflict, among the major powers might well become obsolete.

As the first world war drew to a close, an American bank, with direct ties to Prescott Bush and George Walker (Bush’s future father-in-law), began providing loans, funds, and other assistance to Communist terrorists and Bolshevik revolutionaries who were striving to overthrow the Russian Zsar (10). In 1917, the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, and the “red terror” began. Millions of Russians were murdered by terrorists who were financed by Standard Oil and a New York investment bank, Guaranty Trust (10).

The communist government of the new Soviet Union would now be in conflict with the democratic West, as the stated goals of both were world dominion; i.e. a communist world (Thesis), or a democratic world (Anti-Thesis). Those who would finance and thus control the coming conflict, would be bankers, oil companies, and arm’s merchants, and in return they would be the recipients of incredible wealth, i.e. synthesis.

Thesis Antithesis

| |

Communist Russia Capitalist West

| |

-Loans/Debt/Spending-

|

-Synthesis= Profit-

| |

Thesis Antithesis

| |

Communist Russia Capitalist West

| |

-The Cold War—Controlled Conflict-

| |

-Loans/Debt/Spending-

|

-Synthesis= Profit-

With the defeat of Germany, World War I came to an end. However, although Germany’s king was deposed and exiled and a democratic government was installed in his place (the Weimar Republic), the controlled conflict within Germany had just begun. Nationalists, Nazis, and monarchists battled with the Communists and the democratically elected government in order to install their own regimes in its place (3,5,6,7).

The German communists advocated the creation of a Soviet Socialist state aligned with and eventually to become a satellite of Soviet Russia. The Hitler wing of the Nationalist movement instead promised to destroy both the Weimar Republic and the German Communists. As detailed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, he also promised to destroy Communist Russia which would become, instead, a Nazi slave state (3,5,7).

The Nazis and Russian Communists not only shared the same fascist Hegelian roots but were propped up financially by some of the same individuals and organizations (10,11), including the alumni of a Yale secret society, “The Brotherhood of Death” (also known as “Skull and Bones”), e.g., the Bush family and their associates in the oil and banking industries.

Hitler and his Nazis began receiving tens of thousands of dollars from individuals, banks and business associated with BushHarriman and Standard Oil, as early as 1923 (12). By the late 1920s until he came to power, Hitler and his Nazis were receiving millions of dollars in payments (12) —money and assistance which kept pouring in even after Hitler declared war on Russia and America (12,13).

From the perspective of bankers and arm’s merchants, there is no contradiction in providing funds to and doing business with opposing groups, organizations, or states. If both could be guided into conflict, both would require loans to buy weapons, which would trigger an arm’s race, and eventually, war. And war is good for banks, oil companies, and arm’s merchants.

This strategy also has Hegelian roots.

Thesis and anti-thesis = controlled conflict between opposing states: Nazi Germany vs Communist Russia, for the purposes of creating a synthesis.

Synthesis: The creation of new wealth for bankers, the armaments industry, and the financial backers of the Nazi and Communists regimes, and the creation of a “New World Order.”

Thesis Antithesis

| |

1917 Bolshevik Revolution 1923 Hitler’s rise to power

|

-Loans/Debt/Spending-

|

-Synthesis= Profit-

| |

Thesis Antithesis

| |

Marxist Russia Nazi Germany

| |

-Loans/Debt/Spending-

|

-Synthesis= Profit-

| |

Thesis Antithesis

| |

Marxist Russia Nazi Germany

| |

-World War II—Controlled Conflict

| |

-Loans/Debt/Spending-

|

-Synthesis= Profit-

| War Ends

|

-Loans/Debt/Spending-

|

-Synthesis= Profit—New World Order-

THE NEW WORLD ORDER: A WORLD OF SLAVES

During the 1930s and early 1940s, the Bush family and their associates (Harriman, Rockefeller), were betting on the Nazis as were a number of other influential Americans, such as Joe Kennedy(14) and newspaper magnate William Randolf Hearst (15). Some of these men not only openly supported the Nazis, but were predicting the death of democracy (as well as Communism) and advocating a Nazi form of government for the United States.

In the 1930s and 1940s, it seemed to many that Hitler and his Nazis would finally deliver the Hegelian promise of a New World Order, ruled over by a divinely inspired and a divinely chosen, business-friendly, powerful elite (3,4).

“My presence on earth is providential. I owe it to a superior will.” —Adolf Hitler.

Power, however, requires money. Money can be borrowed, stolen, or earned. To make the most money requires the elimination of competitors. As summed up by John D. Rockefeller: “Competition is a sin.”

It was in fact the goal of the SS, also known as “The Order” and the “Brotherhood of Death” to gain monopolistic control over all forms of German industry and commerce and to employ, as slave labor, the conquered peoples of other countries (6,7)—slaves who would be kept ignorant, impoverished, unhealthy, and uneducated.

As pontificated by Hitler (7):

“What will the social order of the future be like? Comrade, I will tell you. There will be a class of overlords, after them the rank and file of the party members in hierarchical order, and then the great mass of anonymous followers, servants and workers in perpetuity, and beneath them again all the conquered foreign races, the modern slaves. And over and above all these will reign a new and exalted nobility of whom I cannot speak.”

“In order to retain our domination over the people in the territories we have conquered… we must therefore…deprive them of any form of State organization and consequently, keep them on as low a cultural level as possible.”

“The ideal solution would be to teach this people an elementary kind of mimicry. No special books for them! The radio will be enough to give them the essential information. Of music, they can have as much as they want. They can practice listening to the tap running. I’m against entrusting them with any work that calls for the least mental effort.”

“To teach the Russians, the Ukrainians and the Kirghiz to read and write will eventually be to our own disadvantage; education will give the more intelligent among them an opportunity to study history, to acquire an historical sense and, hence, to develop political ideas which cannot but be harmful to our interests.”

“A loud-speaker should be installed in each village, to provide them with odd items of news and, above all, to afford distraction. What possible use to them would a knowledge of politics or economics be? There is also no point in broadcasting any stories of their past history. All the villagers require is music, music and plenty of it. Cheerful music is a great incentive to hard work; give them plenty of opportunities to dance, and the villagers will be grateful to us.”

“In the field of public health, there is no need whatsoever to extend to the subject races the benefits of our own knowledge. This would result only in an enormous increase in local populations, and I absolutely forbid the organization of any sort of hygiene or cleanliness crusades in these territories. Dentistry, too, should remain a closed book for them.”

“Compulsory vaccination will be confined to Germans alone, and the doctors in the German colonies will be there solely for the purpose of looking after the German colonists. We must even try to stifle any desire for such things, by persuading them that vaccination and the like are really most dangerous!”

“I recently read an article from the pen of some Herr Doktor advocating the prohibition of the sale in the occupied territories of contraceptives. If any criminal lunatic should really try to introduce this measure, I’d soon have his head off! In view of the extraordinary fertility of the local inhabitants, we should be only too pleased to encourage the women and the girls to practice the arts of contraception at all times. Far from prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, therefore, we should do our utmost to encourage it.”

“The local population must be given no facilities for higher education. Instruction in geography can be restricted to one single sentence: The Capital of the Reich is Berlin, a city which everyone should try to visit once in his lifetime. There is no need to teach them much more than, say, the meaning of the various road-signs. Jodl is quite right when he says that notices in the Ukrainian language ‘Beware of the Trains’ are superfluous; what on earth does it matter if one or two more locals get run over by the trains?”

“As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilizing him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!”

When Adolf Hitler spoke of a “New World Order,” he envisioned a world of slaves ruled over by the Nazi elite: “The Brotherhood of Death,” his SS, the high ranking membership of which consisted almost exclusively of aristocrats and the kings of industry and commerce (6,7).

“Thanks to its method of recruiting, the SS will be a nursery of rulers. In a hundred years’ time from now, we’ll control this whole empire without having to rack our brains to know where to find the proper men.” —Adolf Hitler (7).

When the newly elected George H.W. Bush (and his administration) took office in 1988 and repeatedly spoke of “a new world order,” and when, twelve years later, his son, President George W. Bush (and his administration) spoke the same words, these men were not addressing the American public. They were speaking to the same brotherhood which brought Hitler to power, “the Brotherhood of Death.”

«- Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | View All | Next -»

Be the first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.