In Defence of Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati.

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
In Defence of Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati.

Lucifer
Aeon of Light, 2011
Word Revolution of Economic Communism.


...the human race will then become one family, and the world will be the dwelling of Rational Men.....This is the great object held out by this association; and the means of attaining it is illumination, enlightening the understanding by the sun of reason which will dispel the clouds of superstition and of prejudice. .....When man lives under government, he is fallen, his worth is gone, and his nature tarnished." Adam Weishaupt

The Internet is filled with Christians, assorted religionists, anti-NWO activists, conspiracy theorists, Muslims, Neonazis and others who essentially claim to be 'anti-Illuminati,' and who consider Adam Weishaupt to be the forefather of the modern police states and the current “International Dictatorship of Capitalism;” they further consider the various establishment secret societies to have been infiltrated by this alleged “Illuminati.”

When one researches the alleged political philosophy of Adam Weishaupt, much of which can be sourced from polemical writings attacking him (particularly John Robison's “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against all the Religions and Governments of Europe(1798)),” one finds that his "Illuminati agenda" was entirely revolutionary and generally opposed to the tyranny of government and organised religion.

Although allegedly idealistically “anti-statist” the Illuminists of the 18th century seem to have been in “practice” pro-Republican, a form of political idealism which, in the monarchies (dictatorships) of the 18th century was considered both politically revolutionary and anti-Christian.

The Alleged Objectives of the Illuminati

1) Abolition of monarchies and all ordered governments,

In contrast to the idea of eradicating government, it seems to me that many of the alleged opponents of what is referred to as the “New World Order (i.e., the International Dictatorship of Capitalism)” are actually Capitalists and statists themselves. Further, many of the “Illuminati conspiracy theorists” are religious fanatics, particularly the Muslims and the Christians, who both have “End Times” prophecies predicting the triumph of their respective theocratic dictators (i.e., the Imam Madhi and the Second Coming of Christ), which would certainly be much more regressive and primitive systems than modern Republicanism, which represents a stage in political evolution away from absolute tyrannies.

The Christian ideal of a “king of kings” is essentially that of an anti-democratic, anti-republican, global theocratic dictator who imposes Biblical Law, defeats his enemies and who subjects humankind to a holocaust of non believers; thus it is not surprising that the Christian Neofascists would oppose Illuminist politics which are entirely contrary to the idea of absolute monarchs.

A Marxist position is that societies can be expected to progress from slave societies to Capitalism to Socialism to Communism and eventually ultimately to stateless Commuinsm; the idea of a “stateless” world however need not mean an immediate transition into Anarchy in the most “negative” sense, which would simply be “chaos” and “disorder;” as opposed to political Anarchism, which is simply a form of stateless collectivism and syndicalism.

An ideal society would require ideal people; people who conformed to Nietzsche's definition of the superior man (and woman); in other words, modern, rational, educated, scientific, ethical human beings who have dispensed with the “slave morality” of religion; sadly we have not arrived at such a point in our evolution yet, and thus some temporary form of police state seems necessary to avoid the descent into primitivism and barbarism.

(2) Abolition of private property and inheritances,

This is a common agenda of all Communists ( Marxists, Anarchists, etc.); to simply disempower the current economic elites and to leave them with their current wealth would not resolve very much. It should be pointed out that the absence of private property is not quite the same as the absence of the produce of labour in a collectivist society.

(3) Abolition of patriotism and nationalism,

Nationalism is simply another disease like 'racism,' or 'tribalism;' it is a 'my nation / race / tribe is better than yours' attitude; it is a common Communist and Anarchist agenda is to eradicate all borders and all nations.

(4) Abolition of family life and the institution of marriage, and the establishment of communal education of children.

These are the objectives of Anarchists and “should” be the objectives of all Thelemites and Nietzscheans; human beings are naturally sexual communists (polyamorists) and promiscuous; monogamy is unnatural and is a remnant of slave societies; it is a major cause of heartbreak, human suffering and sexual boredom. It is entirely natural to wish to have more than one lover; generally monogamy is the desire to possess a person's body and mind and to keep them as private property; marriage is no more than legalised prostitution, and especially in the Hindu and Islamic worlds, it simply reduces women to the status of slaves; it is simply sex slavery.

(5) Abolition of all religion

Since Weishaupt was a Deist, here we are speaking only of organised religion. People will probably always have personal 'spiritual' beliefs, but that is an entirely different matter to the memetic virus of organised religion and the existence of the professional priesthood of the multi-billion dollar religion business.

Organised religion seems to be a form of religious hypnosis and a tool by which the political and religious elites have controlled and subdued humankind throughout history. An intelligent, educated, free thinking, free willed individual has no need of a religious master. A religious “master” is simply another Archon (a tyrant) and the god of the theists is the ultimate sadistic Archon.

The Illuminati in 2011.

If the alleged objectives of the Illuminati (as stated above) were being carried out in the world, we would see an entirely different type of world; a world without government, without Capital, without private property and without organised religion. The general conspiracy theory view that the various secret societies of Capitalism are committed to Adam Weishaupt's objectives thus appears to be entirely false.

If there was an attempt by Adam Weishaupt and fellow revolutionaries to infiltrate Masonry and the various secret societies with an entirely revolutionary agenda, it is my analysis of modern history that this attempt entirely failed, and that the current agenda of the economic elites is entirely a Capitalist agenda and that of a world Capitalist police state; the current 'New World Order' agenda spoken of by George Bush Sr. and others is entirely an anti-Communist, Capitalist, statist world order and appears to be entirely the anti-thesis of the agenda of Adam Weishaupt.

Correct Politics.

Philosophers have the power to change the present and future history, 100, 1000 and 10,000 years from now when the tyrants and kings of this age have long been forgotten and despised. Words are weapons, and more rivers of blood may flow from the pens of philosophers than any tyrant or general. In time the tyranny of the Enlightenment philosophers of the Age of Reason will prevail over the tyranny of kings and priests.

Revolutionary Propaganda is the first stage of war.

The 'New World Order' of the International Dictatorship of Capitalism shall in time be swept away, however the alleged key points of the Illuminati revolution,as stated above are simply the product of the progressive and revolutionary political philosophies and the humanist ethics and values of the Enlightenment; they represent the current apotheosis of the evolution of human thought.

"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation".

In this age, the legacy of Adam Weishaupt is a philosophical one, and the inheritors of that political philosophy are the Anarchists, Socialists and Communists; there is no religion, political party or secret society to join; the Revolutionary Vanguard are simply bound by a common philosophical agenda. We are legion. We shall prevail.

. "The grand object of the Order must be more particularly inculcated into him, namely, that of teaching the whole universe to set aside all government, laws, and altars; and he must perpetually attend to the grand interests of human nature. His zeal is to be stimulated at the sight of every man who is subjected to any authority. It is to reinstate the inhabitants of the earth in their original Equality and Liberty that he is constituted General of all the Illuminees that are or will be spread over the world during his reign, all labouring at the accomplishment of the grand revolution of the Man-King."

If we set aside “political philosophy” it is quite clear that the Weishaupt was simply a representative of the Enlightenment philosophes of his age, which emphasied reason, humanism, humanist ethics, socialist politics and the rejection of religious values; values which today are still at odds with the economic, political and religious Archons of our world.


Lucifer

Blasphemy, Heresy, War, Revolution, etc...

"Until the last tyrant is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" .


See also:

What Is Communist Anarchism? Alexander Berkman (1929) on: dwardmac.pitzer.edu...
and:


Bavarian Illuminati: Home of the original writings of the Illuminati.
www.bavarian-illuminati.info...

edit on 13-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis




posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Complete and utter delusional madness. You shall not prevail.
If you only knew, the amount of true dissociation from that which you speak, you actually are.

The breadth of your irrational venerability would enlighten you to the fact that amongst those who are them, are your true enemy, and that you fine sir have undoubtedly fallen at the feet of those with hooves.

To stand upon an idea which at the base is confusion. Is like dancing to a George W. Bush speech.

" Listen not to a man who rides in on another mans coattails". me



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


what? you bring facts about the Illuminati to a site who knows almost nothing about them? How dare you. These "facts" seem to be verifiable. Blasphemy!

Just kidding. Thanks for posting a bit of real history about a group that has been demonized by the incredibly ignorant for decades.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatuscadabra
Complete and utter delusional madness. You shall not prevail.
If you only knew, the amount of true dissociation from that which you speak, you actually are.

The breadth of your irrational venerability would enlighten you to the fact that amongst those who are them, are your true enemy, and that you fine sir have undoubtedly fallen at the feet of those with hooves.

To stand upon an idea which at the base is confusion. Is like dancing to a George W. Bush speech.

" Listen not to a man who rides in on another mans coattails". me



I don't think I've seen you at any of the meetings or hanging around the bunker.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatuscadabra
Complete and utter delusional madness. You shall not prevail.


Contradiction and abuse are poor substitutes for intelligent argument, and often the last cry of the desperate in debate.

In the world of religious fanaticism and of the more bizzare aspects of "conspiracy theory-ism" it is quite normal for a person who has abandoned the philosophical method and the application of reason to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Thus to simplify and summarise the essay above:

The contradictory views of anti-Illuminists

1: Certain conspiracy theorists believe that that there is an "Illuminati" agenda to impose an International Capitalist Dictatorship (i.e., the New World Order); this being a global authoritarian Neofascist police state.

"Some" conspiracy theorists allege that there is also an agenda to impose an allegedly "Luciferian" One World Religion."

2: Often the very same conspiracy theorists then allege that the 18th century Illuminists were anti-statists (though in practical terms they were also Republicans), who were opposed to the institution of the governments of the age (which in Europe were mostly theocratic Christian tyrannies / monarchies) and that the Illuminists were Enlightenment philosophers and Deists who were opposed to the institution of organised religion,

These two views would seem to be entirely contradictory.

The contradictory political philosophy of American Christians.

It should also be pointed out that the the political system imposed on humankind for most of history has been various forms of monarchy (tyranny), while the American and French revolutions of the 18th century, were in their age progressive revolutions; albeit "armed violent revolutions" against theocratic tyrannies. Yet many Christians on the Internet are theocratic monarchists who are awaiting the return of a theocratic dictator, while complaining about the current Republican system in America and the alleged economic dictatorship of the NWO.

It seems to me that many Christian Internet propagandists of the "Henry Makow" type are not really opposed to dictatorship; they simply wish to impose a Christian theocratic dictatorship and the imposition of the Biblical Law of a tribe of Bronze age genocidal religious fanatics.

Discuss and explain?

Lux

edit on 14-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1

I don't think I've seen you at any of the meetings or hanging around the bunker.


My father is a lifelong Scottish Freemason, and I am an evangelical Thelemite. I consider the "Jesus of the Gospels" to be a fictional character who is portrayed as a primitive schizophrenic religious fanatic who promoted a fundamentalist adherence to the genocidal and savage Mosiac Law, and who is portrayed as a religious charlatan, a "fake healer" and a "fake miracle worker" whose legacy has given birth to the multi-billion dollar Jesus business whose modern prophets (or "profits") prey on the sick, the disabled, the vulnerable and the irrational; in contrast I consider Crowley to be the prophet of the New Aeon.

We are all Satanists to the Christians anyway, though an objection I would make with regards to the Scottish Freemasons in general is that they seem to consider themselves to be "Christian Knights" and that they are not radically anti-Christian enough.

There are of course many Freemasons who are entirely Illuminists and who are a product of Enlightenment philosophies, and who frequent forums such as this, but I don't think that they speak for the majority of Masons; however the Illuminist Masons "are" the philosophical inheritors of the the 18th century Illuminists; so perhaps I should revise my position in the OP essay and state that "some" modern Masons are Illuminists, but that they are unfortunately a "minority."

Regards.

Lux
"We are legion. We will prevail."


edit on 14-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


I almost wrote a thread on Blasphemy, as seen in the eyes of a zealot. I thought it was in bad taste after thinking about it and I abandoned it. But your post is a good example of what I was tying to say. On first glance, a Christian might feel obligated to throw out that word and have no further discussion with you. But upon further discussion, one might find out that your beliefs may not be all that different than other religious beliefs. I think it can be viewed like most things, ignorance breeds ignorance, but knowledge can bring nothing but light, no matter the outcome.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
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. 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.

What you are trying to do is take everyone back to a time when these philosophies were pretty hypotheses that hadn't been implemented yet. This is dishonest and disinformation at it's worst.

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. 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). 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.


National Socialism   –noun the principles and practices of the Nazi party in Germany.




fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide] —n 1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism 2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc 3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Thank you dictionary, so that's what Fascism is, oh wait! That doesn't explain anything! How did Hitler run on a platform of "an ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, and authoritarian" that must have been easy. Actually National Socialism is pretty much self explanitory. 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 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.

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.

Never in the history of Illuminist or post-Illuminist thought have these ideals been implemented in a "stateless" manner and have been notoriously genocidal. 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 activity). 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.

I think your ideals are impossible, destructive, and dishonest. I've even caught bits of genocidal rhetoric in your Christian bashing thread:


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, then turn around and make apologies for amoralists like Weisshaupt and Crowley. 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. 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).

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. 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 side.

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 yourselves from?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


I almost wrote a thread on Blasphemy, as seen in the eyes of a zealot.


I would think that most modern people who live in the First World are probably quite blasphemous anyway, by default. The ancient description of the primitiive tribal deity of the ancient Israelites is quite anathematic ("loathsome, disgusting, hateful") to most modern people. The idea of executing people for blaspheming, for not respecting the Sabbath, for adultery, for homo-erotic relationships, for slaves who disobey their masters and so forth is not really part of the modern moral Zeitgeist; the Biblical fanatics are really just in denial of this.


. But upon further discussion, one might find out that your beliefs may not be all that different than other religious beliefs.


Certainly I do have personal "beliefs" which could be described as "metaphysical," but they are only my own personal views; I don't belong to any organised religion nor adhere to the beliefs of any religion. I do often make rather extemist comments in response to religious fanatics, but they are merely satirical and dialectical responses.

Lux



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


You have to go back to Psychology 101. These people that want a communist, all powerful central government tend to be sociopaths. Look up how behind the iron curtain during the cold war all information on sociopaths and psychopaths was kept hidden. Polish and other Eastern European psychologist's didn't even learn of these conditions until after the communist's where deposed of.

Sociopaths have no real emotions. Sex to them is just a thrill, an act of pleasure. They don't feel the same way towards it like normal people do. What these sociopaths are trying to do with this concept of an all powerful government is to create a government for sociopaths, by sociopaths and with the purpose of expanding their sickness to others so they can be the "normal" again(like during the dark ages of Humanity when human sacrifice, slavery and other abominations against the soul where committed regularly).

If you have to understand these last 200 hundred years normal/empathic people marginalized, criminalized and effectively broken the chains of slavery that the sociopaths had fastened on humanity for thousands of years.

These sociopaths are such control freaks that they aren't content with building their own communities and living their own lives. They have to expand their sickness to every corner of the globe. They are total control freaks and a threat to the survival of our species.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

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 private Capital?

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? Sources?

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 notoriously genocidal.


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 activity.


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 hypocrisy.


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 primitive barbarism.


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 side.


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 yourselves from?


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 Enlightenment.

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.

Lux

edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis

edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatuscadabra
Complete and utter delusional madness. You shall not prevail.
If you only knew, the amount of true dissociation from that which you speak, you actually are.

The breadth of your irrational venerability would enlighten you to the fact that amongst those who are them, are your true enemy, and that you fine sir have undoubtedly fallen at the feet of those with hooves.

To stand upon an idea which at the base is confusion. Is like dancing to a George W. Bush speech.

" Listen not to a man who rides in on another mans coattails". me


Looks like someone forgot to take their crazy pills today.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by kallisti36
 


You have to go back to Psychology 101.


Rather than just repeating myself, I refer you to my essay: "The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam." on: www.abovetopsecret.com...


These people that want a communist, all powerful central government tend to be sociopaths.


Socialists are Sociopaths? With regards to Communists wanting an all powerful central government, rather than just repeating myself see Alexander Berkman's "What is Communist Anarchism (1929)" on: dwardmac.pitzer.edu... rkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html


If you have to understand these last 200 hundred years normal/empathic people marginalized, criminalized and effectively broken the chains of slavery that the sociopaths had fastened on humanity for thousands of years.


The various forms of Republican Revolution which have occurred since the French and American Revolutions at the end of the 18th century have been a product of Enlightenment political philosophies which rejected theocratic (God government) dictatorships (monarchies). Republicanism has evolved into the the modern European socialist state; we still have 12 monarchies in Europe, but they are all socialist parliamentary monarchies; this form of government is still evolving and it is still early days; ultimately the European parliament, which is entirely secular (non theocratic) and anti-monarchist intends to totally supercede these nation states; states which will become much like the US states who are under Federal authority.

Essentially the Marxist analysis is that society has "evolved" from primitive tribal societies to slave societies (inlcuding Fuedalism), and this has been almost "all" of human history, to Capitalist societies, to Socialist societies, (modern European Socialism is still far from Marx and Engels' idea of an interm Socialist state) and will eventually transform into Communism and stateless Communism. This is entirely progressive; the main regressive competing religious / political ideologies are those of Christian / Islamic theocratic fascism and Libertarianism / Anarcho-Capitalism, all which are entirely regressive and backward models and whose adherents do not consider socialism as a "progress."

The theocratic fascists should consider emigrating to Saudi Arabia and the Anarcho-Capitalists should consider emigrating to the Sudan or the Congo and becoming war lords with their own private armies (though they would probably end up dead or enslaved).

Lux

edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


So they were sociopaths who implemented Illuminist philosophy with their own innovations. How is this relavent?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Hey there buddy, have you bothered reading Lucifer777 OP?

How can you say it is irrelevant when it clearly states that Adam Weishaupt is one of the most misunderstood man in history? I'm thinking you don't see the big picture yet, you are still confined in your comfortable zone that the Illuminati are reptillians, seeking mass de-population and what not.

Read the OP and decide for yourself.



Also here's another site that's defending the real Illuminati, the Ancient benevolent Illuminati.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Oh, I see, so these Socialist countries just have to "progress" towards statelessness. I suppose that once they implement perfect socialism (through an immense bureaucratic behemoth centralized state) they will tear down all of the bureaucracy, useless posts, petty power positions, and regulatory commissions and just leave the people to live in their beautiful socialist paradise? What about the people who still want private property and free trade? Who will make them stick to socialism? How will everyone get their universal healthcare if there is no state to pay for and regulate it? How can you assure everyone has housing, a job, health care, and a comfortable retirement plan? Oh, and who's to stop some demagogue from coming along and establishing a feudal society? This is why you will never see stateless communism/socialism. It doesn't exist, the very term is an oxymoron. The concept has more holes than a sponge.

I happen to be Libertarian and a Christian. I believe that everyone has the free will to do whatever they wish lest it infringe on another person's rights. Personal iniquities are between God and the individual.

You see, Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism can actually work, because the trading of goods and services has been an integral part of human society for thousands of years and you don't need a government to do it. Forced equality does not work, it is unnatural. You can pool resources and give "to each according to his needs", which is actually how the apostles lived, but this will never work beyond a small community.

Oh, and while on the subject of sociologists like Marx and Engels, let me just say that I hate sociology and psychology and their bureaucratic simplification, classification, and filing of aspects of the human condition. People are not simple, they cannot be summarized and catalogued for easy reference. But of all the sociologists who oversimplified life, Marx is most certainly the worst. His view of the world through the rose-tinted glasses of conflict theory is infantile and stupid.

The world would be so much better if people learned to observe the human condition without spewing the bland porridge philosophies of ancient men who observed life from their armchairs.
edit on 15-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lateralussicksicksick
 


I have read his OP and I know all about the benign intent of the Illuminati. I was pointing out that their philosophy requires world domination and once it was put into practice it got real ugly, real quick. I'm not going off on a conspiracy tangent about reptilians, so you can put away your appeal to ridicule, thank you. I've pointed out that nice intent doesn't mean anything and some of the worst dictators in the history of the world thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler was positive up until the end that what he was doing was right for Germany. "You will know them by their fruits" and Illuminist fruit is rotten.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by korathin
 


So they were sociopaths who implemented Illuminist philosophy with their own innovations. How is this relavent?


It seems to me that the term "sociopath" is just thrown around and used as an arbitrary ad hominem, like terms such as "Bastard" or Mother******". Such terms are merely arbitrary insults since they do not refer to people whose parents were not married or persons who had sex with their mother.

"A socipath is term used in psychiatry to describe a person who has a "psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." A fuller definition appears on: en.wikipedia.org....

It could be argued that "Capitalism" essentially encourages sociopathic qualities, however the Bavarian Illuminists were essentialy political radicals who sought to overthrow the European tyrannies and the Christian religion; they were Deists, intellectuals and philosophers who were the product of the Enlightenment.

Of course if a person is a believer in absolute theocratic monarchy (which is the default Biblical political philosophy) and Biblical Law, then any persons who oppose such tyranny are likely to be described in numerous derogatory terms, such as Blasphemers, Heretics, Satanists etc, and "sociopath (which is certainly a more appropriate term for the genocidal Biblical deity)" seems to now be just another term used to insult an "enemy," irrespective of whether it is descriptive or not.

Lux

________________



Thomas Jefferson on Adam Weishaupt


Wishaupt [sic] seems to be an enthusiastic Philanthropist. He is among those (as you know the excellent [Richard] Price and [Joseph] Priestley also are) who believe in the indefinite perfectibility of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their powers over him, & of course to render political government useless....

.... Wishaupt [sic] lived under the tyranny of a despot & priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, & the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object & to make the objects of their institution the diffusion of science & virtue. He proposed to initiate new members into his body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the masonic order, & is the colour for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel & Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men. This subject being new to me, I have imagined that if it be so to you also, you may receive the same satisfaction in seeing, which I have had in forming the analysis of it: & I believe you will think with me that if Wishaupt [sic] had written here (i.e., in America), where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise & virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose."


edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis
edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: link changed



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Lateralussicksicksick
 


I have read his OP and I know all about the benign intent of the Illuminati. I was pointing out that their philosophy requires world domination and once it was put into practice it got real ugly, real quick. I'm not going off on a conspiracy tangent about reptilians, so you can put away your appeal to ridicule, thank you


World domination? It is never their intent to dominate the world, they just want to abolish the structures that it currently depends on, to start a-new like a phoenix being reborn from it's ashes, they never have thought of ruling the world, as they have said it they cannot walk the path for you they can only steer you to the right direction so they never wished to control this world.

And how would it get ugly real quick? Their point is to have every human capable of sustaining himself so he would have no need for a governance of others, that is what they want, a human living freely.


I've pointed out that nice intent doesn't mean anything and some of the worst dictators in the history of the world thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler was positive up until the end that what he was doing was right for Germany. "You will know them by their fruits" and Illuminist fruit is rotten.


Oh come on, don't bring Hitler here. If you think you already know him think again brother, he never wished to kill the Jews, he was compelled to do so.

And I'm assuming that you are getting this image of Hitler from our recorded history right? Remember History is written by the winners if Hitler would've won it would be entirely different. There is more to it than what the History books are offering.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
This is a good thread to help flush out the truth. I read some of the archive link you posted, and the writings do seem to be rather benign. I still have yet to find a full translated body of work from Weishaupt. It is unfair to make an intellectual case without reading the works in entirety. I do appreciate the importance of dissecting the assumption that the illuminati are an evil organization bent on world conquest.

I have a few points to the OP. I am not attacking, but making some observations. You seem to have a dog in this fight so to speak. It clear to many that institutionalized religion is tyrannical in many ways. That does not mean that one should attack members of a faith as if they are intentionally responsible. The points you make that challenge theocratic hypocrisy, and biblical inconsistencies are valid. I fear though that the tone, and pointed wording you use prevents many from addressing the contents of your points. Christians that become angry when faced with challenging ideas are responsible for their own emotional reaction. It is not your fault they cannot handle these ideas. That acknowledged, if you wish to encourage a new way of thinking it is not best to attack something so important to many people.

Whether lucifer is an archetype, or a symbol does not help the case either. It immediately causes a negative reaction from many, and an assumption that you are a bad guy. That is THEIR assumption, but will prevent many from genuine attention to the points you present. I am unconcerned by it, but I can see how it would cloud the judgments of others.

Finally, I am a political anarchist. I think the state is based on violence, and must be removed. I do not believe that a destruction of property, religion, and personal institutions is a requisite. Personally, I find institutionalized religion as a negative restrictive force. I cannot abdicate their removal because then I have become what I oppose. If you try to destroy these things you must form an institution with the underlying threat of violence. This means you have only replaced the state as an immoral force just as dangerous to liberty.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join