Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Lucifer777
You know, it is rather easy to make apologies for the idealists of the 18th and 19th centuries (Marx, Weisshaupt, Nietzche) because they had very nice
intentions. However, and I hope you will forgive me for using the old addage, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". As Ya'hshuah (Jesus)
said "you will know them by their fruit" and the fruit of these idealists is not in their fancy, benevolent sounding manifestos but in the genocidal
implementation of their ideals
You will probably not be able to accept any reasonable response I could make, but for the sake of other children who might be listening and who may be
beguiled by you, I will attempt to make an intelligent response.
The fictional Jesus, as described in the Gospels was a religious fanatic who promoted strict adherence to the (Mosaic) Law and the "prophets (thought
to be the Judaic "Oral Torah" (en.wikipedia.org...
) which was later written down as the Talmud.)." The "implementation" of the
Judaic Law would be so genocidal, that probably 99.999% of human beings would be considered "unlawful" including most Biblical fanatics themselves.
However, and I hope you will forgive me for.......
Unfortunately I am unable to offer forgiveness to Biblical fanatics; it is simply beyond the scope of by mission; my offer of 144 virgins (twice what
the Muslims offer) in the afterlife only applies to those who abandon religion and convert to being evangelically sacrilegious, blasphemous and
heretical; otherwise they will be doomed to spend all eternity with the Christians (where they will be eternally tortured by boredom, and sermonised
to by hypocrites).
One can easily trace Illuminist philosophy to the French Revolution and resulting Reign of Terror. It is also not too much of a stretch to link
Illuminism to Communism, Socialism, and National Socialism, because they were all founded on similar ideals and from similar sources.
Most European governments could today be defined as "Nationalist" and "Socialist," to some degree or other; however the kind of genocidal racism and
authoritarianism which the Nazis promoted is not part of modern European political ethics (I.e, how we treat each other).
Illuminism has evolved, or if it was truly stamped out in the 18th century, has most certainly influenced the splintered progressive, utopian
philosophies of Communism, Socialism, and National Socialism. These three camps of progressives have been attempting global domination for the past
hundred years. The Socialist camp has been operating in incremental stages under formerly capitalist nations in Europe (look up Fabian Socialists) and
the United States.
Yes most of the Socialists of the European political elites could probably be described as "Fabians.” I include myself in this definition, despite
conceding to Trotsky's criticisms of the Fabians; the Fabians being “evolutionary socialists” and the Trotskyists being “revolutionary
socialists;” I am somewhere in the middle ground between the two camps due to hindsight on numerous failed revolutions.
The current British leader of the opposition (Ed Miliband) is an archetypal Fabian, he is a Jewish Neomarxist and an atheist; such a person would be
more likely to be totally demonised and branded as a "Satanist" in America, but in the UK, he is fortunately more likely to end up as the next Prime
Minister (Godless willing).
I do understand that "socialism" is considered a "blasphemous" ideology to American Christians and that providing economic assistance to the poor and
implementing universal healthcare reform is considered "Satanic" to the US Christian Right, but we European socialists don't think like that and we
generally consider the US Religious Right to be dangerous militant religious fanatics who are morally subhuman and are about as politically correct
and as dangerous as Hitler's Wehrmacht (armed forces) or the Gestapo.
The Communist camp has largely failed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and their blunt, conspicuous modus operandi, but enjoys moderate
popularity in Central America (which is the only place where it is truly implemented, I'll get to China in a bit).
You will find that almost all Communists in Europe are evangelically anti-Stalinist. Rather than revering the Judaic religious fanatic, Jesus, we tend
to revere other Jewish prophets such as Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Berkman and Chomsky.
The political philosophy of your dead god (Jesus) and the Biblical faith was and is essentially theocratic (god-government) monarchism (dictatorship /
tyranny), and we have witnessed centuries of that form of government; thus no Biblical fanatic or defender of the Biblical deity can credibly stand on
a moral platform and criticise Stalin and Mao, since their own brand of political philosophy has had many centuries to prove itself and has left
behind a legacy of genocides, holy wars, inquisitions, tyranny and slavery; all of which can be justified by the Biblical faith.
National Socialism, which is generally thought to be a dormant progressive camp, has learned subtlety from the Fabians and effective
implementation from the Communists while eschewing it's formerly communistic bluntness and the ineffective "use of the system" by the Fabians. You say
that most people believe that the NWO is a Capitalist police state? Not so, most people believe it to be a communist or progressive movement, however
I believe the future is a Fascist Illuminist state. Everyone thinks that National Socialism has disappeared since WWII, which is so obviously untrue
if you actually understand how Fascist countries operated, a fact that is blatantly covered up by loaded language.
The modern European states certainly represent an attempt to implement Fabian socialism, and the regressive elements which resist this usually come
from the both the conservative (to conserve the past) and radical (such as the Neonazis and ultra Nationalists such as the French NF) political Right
and the Christians; I do understand that Fabian Socialism tantamount to "Satanism" from the point of view of the Christian and Islamic fanatics and
the “Henry Makow” brand of US Christian Neofascist conspiracy theorists; America is an example of a nation which has not succumbed to this kind of
Fabianism, and as has attempted to globally interfere with almost any nation which swings to the "left," often with genocidal consequences for the
political left; the post war history of Latin America and the US support for almost any kind of anti-communist dictator is ample evidence of this.
Unfortunately militant, evangelical Biblical fanaticism breeds theocratic dictatorship, and so when you speak of "Fascist Fabians" it is only
"Fabianism (i.e., evolutionary socialism)" which is blasphemous and heretical to the Christian fanatics, not fascism, since the political philosophy
of the Biblical fanatics "is" a form of fascism, albeit proto-fascism.
An absolute monarchy (dictatorship) of a theocratic and global "king of kings" would actually be "pre-fascist" since it would be a regression to
absolute monarchy, but I tend to refer to Christians as "Neofascists" rather than proto-fascists or pre-fascists since they have generally been
influenced by modern liberal anti-Christian ethics and most of them would probably object to anyone who suggested that there should be mass executions
for those who profane the Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday Sunset) and numerous other Biblical “crimes” since modern Christian neofascism is
anyway based on a “quote mining” and “cherry picking” of Biblical texts to suit the misinterpretations, bigotry and beliefs of the modern
Christian; and all this they do in the name of their allegedly “unchanging” and infallible tribal deity; such is their hypocrisy.
National Socialism –noun the principles and practices of the Nazi party in Germany.
Well the American Biblical fanatics are not really so different to the Nazis; Christians such as the anti-feminist, anti-Jewish, anti-Communist,
anti-Socialist, homophobic Henry Makow, who would be considered to be a "Neonazi" in Europe, and who is probably the US equivalent of Jean Marie La
Pen (of the French National Front) and who seems to be quite popular among the Christian conspiracy theorists and Neofascists of America; he seems to
have an army of acolytes and sycophants who frequent discussion forums such as this one. Why on earth the Makowites criticise the Nazis is quite
surprising since they seem almost ideologically identical.
. It is ultra-nationalistic Socialism that allows some private property, but all industry and business is controlled by a very centralized
power. Sound familiar? Yup, that would be China, which is not Communist in the least anymore.
Meanwhile here in America, we hear all about this great State Capitalism (see what they did there?) that's working so well for China, while the
not-so-subtle message that "China is the future" is bashed over our heads. If you believe America to be a truly capitalist country, you are also
wrong. The centralized government regulates everything and in case you hadn't noticed, is pretty nationalistic. It's not all the way there, but the
Socialists and TPTB in our country are moving us in that direction.
So if you are opposed to State Capitalism (Nationalisation of Banking) what then is your counterproposal to the current economic dictatorship of
Since you are obviously a Biblical faithist I must assume that you can hold two or more contradictory beliefs at the same time and possibly numerous
contradictory political philosophies.
A “Capitalist” Christian who holds contradictory political philosophies can be a "laissez faire (anything goes)" Capitalist (In other words an
Anarcho-Capitalist) and propose that the world should be ruled by the Mafia, the gangsters and private armies and at the same time propose that we
should live in a theocratic tyranny (dictatorship / monarchy) ruled by a global dictator (a king of kings), and they can, at the same time, be
critical of "fascism" because the fascists are socialists, but not because they are authoritarian since the Christians “are” authoritarianists.
So now that we know the NWO future, we know two things 1. it is not capitalist 2. of the three camps bent on world domination, it looks like Fascism
is going to win.
Well in terms of which political ideology will win, you would have to be predict the possible future in 100, 1000 and 10,000 years from now. We homo
sapiens have probably been here for about 300,000 years or thereabouts, and we have progressed from tribalism to state monarchism and only very
recently to Republicanism and Socialism. Socialism is still evolving, and with the progress of the scientific and technological revolutions, the
Socialism of the future will probably be very different to the current models; ideologically I think it will become much more dogmatically atheistic,
anti-religious and democratic and that is certainly progressive in my judgement, however the two major threats to that progress, in my judgement, are
the Christians and Muslims, who are both totalitarianists; thus these two threats may unfortunately eventually have to be dealt with in a very brutal
and oppressive manner; certainly more so with the threat of totalitarian Islam.
Now, back to Weisshaupt and a major mistake you made. Weisshaupt believed that the Empires of the World ran on a five stage life cycle of
chaos, discord, confusion, bureaucracy, and aftermath. He believed that by infiltrating the existing establishment or starting a revolution and
implementing his strategy, he could break this cycle and establish a global rule of enlightened, benevolent kings/rulers who would rule forever if
they kept his stratagem.
Adam Weishaupt was a "monarchist????" Are you just making this up as you go along, or can you actually provide some evidence for that? Quotes?
The "global rule of enlightened, benevolent kings/rulers who would rule forever
(to use your own words)" is entirely the agenda of Biblical
fanatics and Christian Neofascists such as yourself and is entirely the antithesis (opposite idea) of the Illuminist agenda.
You are simply accusing your ideological opponents of what you are guilty of yourself. Utilising such brazen "Straw Man" argument fallacies is usually
the last cry of the desparate and is entirely deceiptful
Never in the history of Illuminist or post-Illuminist thought have these ideals been implemented in a "stateless" manner and have been
Well the Anarchist Revolution in Spain "was" implemented, but unfortunately it "failed" due to the military victory of the Christian Fascists such as
yourself. A military defeat is not necessarily a permanent failure, but can be merely a temporary setback. Anarchism is by no means a “defeated”
political philosophy; on the contrary, it has yet to be established, and as a philosophy is very much alive in the modern Revolutionary Vanguard, many
of us whom you will probably meet at various points in your Internet journey.
You can make all the apologies you want, but in the end you are just playing devil's advocate (which, judging from your name is your favorite
I am not an advocate for my father (i.e., the Devil), but I am quite good terms with him. He would be a far better dictator than the dead god Jesus,
but he is an anti-Communist, so I would probably be among the first to face his firing squads; he is anyway of a past generation and there are far
worse devils in the modern world than the Devil himself .
Weisshaupt's roots look nice on paper, but the followers of this and similar ideals learned long ago that this type of society can only be
forced on the general public by a centralized state. So, I would venture to say with most certainty that Weisshaupts fruit is moldy and will give you
a lethal infection of E. Coli.
Adam Weishaupt is far more "alive and well" in the hearts and mind of the European socialists, Marxists and Anarchists than the dead god Jesus. As far
as Weisshaupt's ideals looking “nice on paper,” they are a vision of heaven on earth in comparison to the ideals of your sadistic Biblical deity
who does not appear to be very “nice on paper,” and the long and bloody history of his religion is like a history of hell on earth.
I think your ideals are impossible, destructive, and dishonest. I've even caught bits of genocidal rhetoric in your Christian bashing thread:
I am not at all genocidal by nature; I am a rather gentle creature, but a dialectical response to genocidal Christians is entirely appropriate; for
those who revere the primitive and savage god of the Bible, it is quite appropriate to suggest, for example, that all Christians who work or profane
"Thursdays (The Holy Day of Thor)" and Wednesdays (The Holy Day of Woden)" and who refuse to commit adultery in honour of the gods should be stoned to
death, but please don't confuse satire and my European sense of humour with the genocidal insanity of the Biblical fanatics.
Not only do you suffer from religous psychosis, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others, much like some Hollywood zombie
movie; you are not content to be infected yourself, but you seek to spread your mind virus to others; this is part of the "Trolls for Jesus" Internet
phenomenon which I and many others of my ilk are attempting to combat; unfortunately your disease is both lethal and genocidal, and I suspect that
eventually the only "cure" will also be that of genocide.
You are a tremendous hypocrite. You get up on your moral high horse as a tactical feint to discredit Christianity and objective morality,
Hypocrisy? Objective morality? Objective morality to a Christian is the moral laws of their infallible unchanging deity which if implemented would
necessitate the genocide of practically the entire human race, apart from possibly a handful of religious schizophrenics. I have yet to meet a single
Christian in print, on the Internet or in real life who actually follows the alleged “objective moral law” of the Bible anyway; thus they define
then turn around and make apologies for amoralists like Weisshaupt and Crowley.
Actually Thelemic philosophy "is" a moral (a discernment of good and evil) philosophy; it just merely a rejection of slave morality (i.e., religious
morality). What is "good" is defined by the gods of nature (i.e., Mother Nature, human nature); whereas the gods of religion mostly all seem to
despise human nature and implement "sins of restriction," to punish people who follow their own natural (mostly erotic desires), such as the slave who
runs away from her master.
We do not, for example, execute animals for adultery since we consider them to be "beyond good and evil" and to be innocently following their nature,
but implementing the laws of the religious fanatics would define almost all human beings as "evil;" that is religious morality, and it is essentially
a damnable and obscene blasphemy and heresy against the gods of nature (i.e., human beings).
You pick ambiguous aspects of the religion of Abraham (Judeo-Christian, I am not an Islamic apologist) as a means to discredit it and ignore
the moral principals at it's core.
There is nothing "ambiguous ("unclear or inexact
)" about Biblical Law (i.e., the 613 Laws of Moses, the prophets (i.e., the Talmud) and the
edicts of Jesus), and in my judgement anyone who advocates the genocidally obscene, primitive and savage Biblical laws is clearly a deluded, deranged
and genocidal psychopath who is "morally" subhuman.
Meanwhile the Thelemic philosophy you hold so dear has "Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of law" at it's core. This is total moral
relitivism in which power and hedonism are exalted and altruism and objective morality are debased. Oh, and don't give me that "Love is the law, love
under will" crap, "love" does not have a universal meaning. You will find tremendous differences between the altruistic love of Ya'hshuah's sermons
and Paul's epistles and Crowley's concept of "love" (passion).
Well if there is such a thing as "absolute moral values" they are more likely to be written into the natural order and should be able to be deduced by
the highest authority of human reason and intuition; whereas the Biblical fanatic who speaks of "absolute morals" is referring to the Biblical laws of
a tribe of Bronze Age religious fanatics.
You claim "not" to be an Islamic apologists and refer to the "Judeao-Christian" definition of morality, but from a modern perspective there is very
little difference between Sharia law and Biblical law; both justify slavery, sex slavery, the genocide of competing religionists and all manner of
You even go so far as calling Ya'hshuah a religious dictator as though being under the rule of an all-loving God is a bad thing.
Well "I" consider myself to be a very loving person, but I would not stone my children to death, for example, for disobedience, for homo-erotic
relationships, for working on the Sabbath, for blasphemy against some ancient proto-fascist tribal deity (to list only a few Biblical “crimes”),
etc., particularly since I would have to execute myself for such alleged crimes.
Democracy fails when the moral majority is wicked and a Monarchy prevails when the Monarch is good and vice versa. If God is omni-benevolent
and is the whole reason why you exist, why not serve him? If you take issue with a being that is all-good then you are on the wrong
Since this thread is about Adam Weishaupt, who was a Deist, the philosophical question of whether God is good and how we can define Her goodness is
quite relevant, however the definition of "goodness" as defined by a tribe of Bronze Age religious fanatics is an ancient an savage definition which
has no real place in the modern world.
Adam Weishaupt and the Deistic philosophers of the Enlightenment would probably agree with the statement that "God" must be "good," but as far as the
goodness of your Biblical deity, I must refer to Richard Dawkins definition of that deity as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all
fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic,
racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
As for the Masons in this thread... I am at a loss for words. You realize that you just came in on the side of Illuminism, moral relitivism, Thelema,
globalism, anti-Christianity, and above all a guy who identifies with Lucifer? Isn't this the kind of stuff you guys have been trying to distance
There is a reason why the Christian medieval world is referred to as the "Dark Ages" and why the Age of Science and Reason of the past few centuries
are referred to as the "Enlightenment."
Luciferianism in general is not about the worship of a deity called "Lucifer," though if you chose to worship me it would probably be an improvement
on the worship of your Biblical deity, but I would not be flattered; I would just think you to be a bit ridiculous, though certainly less ridiculous
than a person who reveres the Biblical deity.
Lucifer is simply an archetype which is invoked (personified) when a person attempts to personify Nietzsche's "Ubermensch (superior man / woman),"
which is essentially a description of a modern, educated, scientific, rational, sacrilegious (anti-religious) human being who is a product of the
I would not wish to place myself beyond criticism or to claim to be the perfect personification of Lucifer, but I try my best; whereas you seem to be
trying your best to personify an apologist for a savage and primitive Bronze Age tribal deity; if I were you, I would be so ashamed that I would bury
my head under the nearest rock and beg the gods to disown me.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis
edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting