I haven't read it yet, so I may be inaccurate, but from what I've heard, he glorifies the organic state and conflict between external entities leads to a sort of teleological Omega point, just as he argues that dialectial logic leads the individual towards enlightenment. In other words, he seems to have a Hermetic Microcosm-Macrocosm perspective, where the micrcosm is the individual reaching enlightenment through dialectical reasoning, and the Macrocosm is the World reaching "Perfection" through dialectical struggle.
from that article:"The Philosophy of Right (as it is usually called) begins with a discussion of the concept of the free will and argues that the free will can only realize itself in the complicated social context of property rights and relations, contracts, moral commitments, family life, the economy, the legal system, and the polity. A person is not truly free, in other words, unless he is a participant in all of these different aspects of the life of the state."
"Hegel also argues that the state itself is subsumed under the higher totality of world history, in which individual states arise, conflict with each other, and eventually fall. The course of history is apparently toward the ever-increasing actualization of freedom; each successive historical epoch corrects certain failures of the earlier ones. At the end of his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Hegel leaves open the possibility that history has yet to accomplish certain tasks related to the inner organization of the state."
Also:"The State is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State."
– Philosophy of Right, "The State", p. 258
It appears that this shows that his ideology is very similar to Marx, except it is Gnostic rather than Materialistic (or a dialectical synthesis of both, given that Gnosticism is anti-Materialistic).
It might be appropriate to call the oligarchy "Hegelian", given that there is apparently an occult emphasis on self worship and perfection, as well as the collectivist progression of "Organic social units" towards "perfection". Though Hegel is probably the messenger boy for a much earlier mystery tradition.
Hegel seems to be a "Plato 2.0". The following article gives insight on thw traditins from which Plato derived his ideas: http://conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Plato_Kabbalist.htm
Marx seems to be a derivative figure, applying and refining Hegel's MACROCOSM for a specific purpose required at the time, while ignoring his MICROCOSM. I wonder who the anti-thesis to Marx is in the broader Hegelian Simulacrum. Perhaps someone who applies his MICROCOSM without applying his MICRCOSM would be the anti-thesis. But within pure Hegelianism as applied throughout History, the Nazis replaced the Class dialectic of Marx with a Race dialectic. That seems to have been the only difference.
I guess the opposite of Hegelianism/Illuminism is Individualism (or anti-Oligarchical Collectivism). Illuminism and higher dialectical logic might be perfectly fine if stripped of the psychopathy and oligarchical manipulation. It might be a perfect follow up after learning the Trivium and Quadrivium.
Antony Sutton has some good commentary on Hegelianism in his book "America's Secret Establishment". He traces the idea through Fitche back to Illuminism, which itself is merely a strand deriving from much earlier traditions.
James Corbett called Alan Watt about Hegel here: http://corbettreport.com/mp3/2008-06-13%20Alan%20Watt.mp3
I urge you to not say that I am falling for a COINTELPRO trap here, for in light of the information I just posted, the following is totally accurate.
"Alan: Now we'll go to James from Japan. Are you there James?
James: Mr. Watt. Thank you for taking my call.
Alan: Yes. How are you?
James: I’m doing pretty good. I’m doing some research for my pod cast right now at Corbitreport.com and I wanted to draw on your vast historical knowledge to ask you about GWF Hegel. Now, your audience is probably familiar with the idea of problem-reaction-solution by which the ruling oligarchs manage to move society in whatever direction they wish by playing both sides of the crisis and then presenting their phony solution. Which of course, is just their way of pushing society in whatever direction they want. This is usually traced back to Hegel and the Hegelian Dialectic. The thesis, antithesis leads to synthesis. But I suspect this knowledge is probably part of the ancient knowledge by which the oligarchs have been ruling over free humanity for centuries, if not millennia. I was wondering what can you tell us about Hegel and where he might have gotten the idea for the dialectic?
Alan: Well, Hegel himself belonged to Masonic orders, Rosicrucian orders, and he was heavily backed and paid. He was actually quite mad in some respects and he took fits where he’d have to be locked up for a while inside his own apartment. He was looked after by some very rich and powerful people who sponsored him to sit and write this kind of material. You’re quite right. He didn’t come up with the idea. His thing was to try and write it in such a way for a new time, a new period where it would fit together with the coming ‘superman’. That’s behind all of these writings, the coming of the new superman, which was an actual belief system of the Rosicrucian society. It still is. There’d be an old man and through evolution, through scientific means they could create a new type of perfected, super human. The Germans also took that off into the superman idea. Ancient societies perfectly understood it because all it is, is military strategy. Military strategy. They plan a battle, the enemy often doesn’t know it’s going to occur. They say, when we move here, the enemy will then react this way and then hopefully, through the conflict, we’ll get them to go that way. That’s your synthesis. IT’S ALWAYS THE SYNTHESIS THEY’RE AFTER. They use an action made by them, followed by a counter reaction made by the opposing force and then they get to where they want to go in the first place.
That was the whole idea of setting up the Soviet system to eventually blend, as Lenin talked, with the west. There are no sides in this, in actuality. They knew there was different mentalities within human nature so they would give us sides to join. Classes were very important to join, one side or another. However, there really was one hand at the top, behind this, because it falls under economics and it’s to do with, basically, the principle of materialism. Both Capitalism and Communism deal SOLELY in the material world with materials and economics. That’s what they’re based on. So the idea was, through giving you conflict through oppositions, you’ll come to an understanding, then a merger and out of that you have your synthesis which IS to be the new world order or as Bertrand Russell called it, a world run by experts and bureaucracies. Well, that’s exactly what we have. Hegel himself was put there, as many of these people are, and sponsored and paid handsomely, by very rich, powerful people.
James: If fact, your description of Hegel being locked up in a room and handled by people above him sounds to me exactly like Marx and the way he was also handled.
Alan: Exactly. You’ll find this with ALL of them. You see, how you make a star is quite easy. You make a star by telling the people you going to bring forward a star. You build it up and build it up in the media. In those days it was newspapers and magazines. They did the same with Darwin. No one had ever heard of Darwin. He was unknown. They wanted to make him a star. Eventually when he came out with his book, he was already made, you see. They built it up by waving the wand, the public anticipation was geared up and suddenly he’s a star. Then he’s boosted by the institutions that already, and the foundations that were already running the world, in those days. They make is so exciting. It’s meant to grab the youth, especially with Hegel and even Nietzsche was the same. Nietzsche was very similar, in fact, in temperament. He also wrapped in the whole superman theory and the evolution of mankind. That all goes back to Darwinism which is a chief, again, a CHIEF belief in all high Masonry and the high, what we call, occultic side of it. Which, really, it does exist. It’s not the little boys at the bottom with aprons on. It’s the big boys at the top with the real story. It’s all based on materialism, the concept that the material world without any deity looking over you. This new world order, in fact, will be the WORST AND THE MOST SEVERE SYSTEM WE’VE EVER SEEN. We saw a touch of that in the Soviet system where they were utterly ruthless. They wiped out millions of people over many, many years. They went after all religions. It’s worse under Khrushchev. Khrushchev persecuted all churches; violent more so than even Stalin ever did. There’s no trial. You’re just simply rounded up and killed. This new world order, we can see it already, there’s no MORAL background behind it whatsoever. It’s based on materialism, a psychopathic type system where ‘might is right’ and it will be horrific when it all comes down.
James: So, if this knowledge already existed centuries before Hegel, why then was it necessary to get Hegel to actually bring this to the public domain? Why is that such an important part of their agenda?
Alan: Most of these books are written for recruits. It changes the mindset of thousands and thousands of youngsters who get caught up in it and excited and they become willing workers towards it to help bring it, a society as is envisaged, in to actual existence.
James: So to a certain extent then, people like Marx who took Hegel’s ideas may have actually been in their own mind, really, sort of acolytes to that idea rather than to some ancient, esoteric idea.
Alan: That too, but they also did attend the Masonic lodges. A good book to read is one written by Trotsky. It’s called, My Life. In that book he tells you that he joined the Masonic lodge and that everyone in Russia who was anybody belonged to it at that time.
James: Very interesting. Thank you very much for all that information, Mr. Watt.
Alan: Thanks for calling."