On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:37:19PM +0000, Ryan Carboni wrote:

In a very intriguing article entitled “The Nazi Religion: Views on Religious Statism in Germany and America,” J.F.C. Moore argues that Nazism and American conservatism are both deeply rooted in the Illuminati conspiracy. According to Moore, (1) Nazism emerged from the Thule Society, a right-wing occult lodge in 1920s Germany, which was influenced by the Illuminati, and (2) Nazism has too many resemblances of right-wing movements in America for the parallels to be coincidental. Basically Moore’s theory holds that ever since the American and French revolutions, certain rightist groups have seen anarchy as the ultimate result of too much democracy and have tried to prevent this by forming secret societies devoted to State-worship and/or Christian Socialism, combined with a Gnostic mystique of receiving guidance from heavenly or otherworldly beings. This guidance produces the state called “Illumination” and causes the initiate to feel a deep need to fight for Good and against Evil; the problem is that Good and Evil are both defined in terms of the ideology of Authoritarianism, with all rebels against “proper authority” defined as devils incarnate. J. Edgar Hoover and Congressman Otto Passman are named as members of such occult lodges. Although Moore’s style is scrupulously academic and imper- sonal, the data of his study is arranged to indicate that most right- wing groups in America, especially those with anti-Illuminati conspiracy theories, are themselves unknowing dupes of the Illu- minati.

By the way, if you come across something interesting which is in a digital form, then it is appropriate to include a link, and if you read it in paper form, then the details of the document are appropriate to include, so that others may, if they find your summary interesting, go read the source material for themselves. As to the summary: The simple response, and antidote, is "basic human rights" - the state and the authoritarian mindset imposes its will on the individual, demanding that he give up one or another very basic right - the right to collect rainwater off the roof into your water tank, the right to drive (safely, not endangering others or their property) to buy food and visit friends, etc. These basic rights are required for living - that is, to continue living: I must collect and drink water, if I am to actually physically stay alive, similarly, I must grow food and if I have insufficient food growing, I must travel and barter or buy food, to keep this body living rather than die. When any entity, "external authority", human etc, tries to stop me doing the things I need to do in order to live, in order to stay alive, they are opposing my life, they are literally threatening my continued existence. It is my right to live. I have the right to do those things that I need to do, to continue my existence in this world. Such basics are so obvious (in hindsight) as to give me a little faith that I can repeat this position as needed (and I have, and I shall do again, as needed) when confronted by those who would deny to me, such basic human rights to survival. So fear not the complicated theories of secret societies gone awry - they most often devolve into nothing but blunt power of one human (or the state) over another human's basic right to live. The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual. [I]t is the peculiarity of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the intellect and heart of man. The privileged man, whether he be privileged politically or economically, is a man depraved in intellect and heart. When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick". — Mikhail Bakunin, 1873, Statism and Anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#Thought "[d]oes it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person".[47] ... "there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination. This same reason forbids me, then, to recognise a fixed, constant and universal authority, because there is no universal man, no man capable of grasping in all that wealth of detail, without which the application of science to life is impossible, all the sciences, all the branches of social life".[47]