Entry: Nazi/Illuminati Theory, Source: "Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-Ups"

[Zenaan Harkness]

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]