March 1, 2015

Do you want me to believe that anybody was just corruptible by money? 01'29 pic* "someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. well, sure. here is one. it is called the political system. it is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population."
@JohannesDreijer @susan_bell1212 well put 01'30 @LynnMcMillan123 no, not at all. but it shows you why conspiracy theorist is an absolutely appropriate term @JohannesDreijer @susan_bell1212
  @cosmopinciotti well, I for one believe the political system in this country is the problem. 01'30 @LynnMcMillan123 sure °tweet but a vast majority bets on it: wants to be part of this "conspiracy". °tweet 01'30 @LynnMcMillan123 Our inculturation experts responsible for a "9/11" future also draft complete societal models and are able to perfect them. 01'30 @cosmopinciotti each to their own beliefs... 01'30 @LynnMcMillan123 that's what I'm talking about: who believes it's a conspiracy when in fact it's not can appropriately be called that way. 01'31 @LynnMcMillan123 why do you think did they design "9/11" as that much of a controversy? conspiracism accomplishs a crucial tactical purpose… 01'31 @cosmopinciotti Yes, I agree. @LynnMcMillan123 01'31 @JohannesDreijer with a divide between a corporate and a conspiracy mindset they'd achieved a new frontline like the Left vs. Right paradigm 01'31 @JohannesDreijer a new, artificial, pietological abyss giving birth to endless additional confusion… @RealAlexJones @raymcgovern @davidicke
        @cosmopinciotti Not my cup of tea. @RealAlexJones @raymcgovern @davidicke 01'31 @JohannesDreijer and the more this "9/11" chasm expands, deepens, and hardens, the more we will observe cognitive dissonance at its finest…
          @cosmopinciotti @LynnMcMillan123 Edward Bernays, Pioneer of Corporate PR and Propaganda
 01'31 pic* @JohannesDreijer although all this conspiratorial secrecy in fact exists within our corporatism, it can't be seen as a conspiracy as a whole 02'03 @JohannesDreijer "you people are a bunch of hopeless fucktards. it is so easy to believe all of this sordid bullshit. when you all have so little control over your own lives. anybody who would even lean toward believing this imaginary crap with no proof other than what other fucktards are telling them, is being gang-banged by the tooth fairy on a nightly basis. good luck to all you pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theorists." -comment 02'25 conspiracy theory is a strong belief... as is the faith in corporations. blinders are a form of corruption, which is always based on hope... 01'31 @JohannesDreijer to make it a bit more clear: what Jeffrey would call conspiratorial, most lawyers and businessmen would call it sport or something of that ilk 01'31 pic* @cosmopinciotti This is the problem. 01'31 @JohannesDreijer in other words, your ethical standpoint isn't representative for the system. it's an aspect, but no sufficient explanation. 01'31 @JohannesDreijer pyramids of power are the most normal thing in all lines of business. do you really want to call a corporation a conspiracy?
  @cosmopinciotti romantic? 01'31 @JohannesDreijer yes, extremely romantic. to the extent that it gets counterproductive. just think about what you believe: you really think..
    @cosmopinciotti I believe I was borne and one day I die. #ThatsIt 01'31 @JohannesDreijer that "truth" could change a system with several 1000 years of tradition which basic mechanism you don't even try to explore 01'31 @JohannesDreijer this is quite a stunt… not to say crazy. propaganda is no solution °tweet I prefer diligent investigations 02'02 @JohannesDreijer my point is not that the conspiracy not exist. my point is, is the secrecy really that important? °tweet
    @cosmopinciotti the question is, what is the purpose? 02'02 @JohannesDreijer to take Jerusalem back. to destroy free will. to restore the papal earthly kingdom. °tweet "Bring 'Em On!" 02'02 pic* Great Israel's Border 02'02 @JohannesDreijer it makes sense to partly include both ex-empires into the future Holy See for our piety scientists. °tweet 02'02 @JohannesDreijer yes, but shepherds don't conspire against their herd. they give them what they need and want. period. secrecy's unnecessary.
        @cosmopinciotti That's the point: I'm not a sheep. 02'02 @JohannesDreijer no shit! and no shepherd either? but what's the big deal with the Jesuits being able to kill Americans en masse live on TV? 02'02 @JohannesDreijer I mean, Christian Satanists already rule the world, and free will means next to nothing for a passionate television audience.

"the top two most liberating things you can do:
1. stop watching television
2. stop mindlessly defending a political party."

"World bankers are the real terrorists." 01'31 @JohannesDreijer "Are they really the bad guys?" )blog post money doesn't rule the world, our beliefs do )blog post 01'31 @JohannesDreijer can you answer this question? °tweet do you want me to believe that anybody was just corruptible by money? 01'31 @JohannesDreijer why do you think they're running colleges instead of banks? just to keep their company out of Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope"? 01'31 @JohannesDreijer they produce all kinds of agents… also conspiracy artists who point their fingers at the Jews, or banks, or bloodlines etc. 01'31 @cosmopinciotti Zionists, not the Jews. 01'31 @JohannesDreijer good! °tweet but Larry Silverstein, for instance, is obviously just a curtain Jew. °tweet 02'01 @JohannesDreijer "Jeff Rense thinks this is a 'Jewish conspiracy'." )blog post 01'31 @JohannesDreijer there're many #SkullAndBones-like academic clubs as well as various #BohemianGrove-type confidentiality lodges and mansions

@cosmopinciotti The system is a fact. 01'31 @JohannesDreijer of course it is. and a very popular one. and why? if it was indeed a conspiracy anybody could have understood it already… 01'31 @JohannesDreijer there are more facts to it than your selection. "people ask me if this stuff keeps me awake at night" °tweet 01'31 @JohannesDreijer as long as you believe to know "the truth" already and don't dig deeper to really and fully understand the situation, you.. 01'31 @JohannesDreijer behave precisely as they have foreseen and planned it: you're doing your job... °tweet °tweet 01'31 @JohannesDreijer is it a conspiracy if your father, or boss, or commander doesn't let you in on anything that could be important to you? no. 01'31 @cosmopinciotti It's all about the puppets and their puppetmasters. 01'31@JohannesDreijer it is. but that's a complex and very complicated issue. how far are you willing to delve into it to make it understandable? 01'31 @JohannesDreijer "9/11" truth itself will become a myth, if it doesn't include every single opinion about it besides all the technical stuff 02'02 @JohannesDreijer "I have come to the sad conclusion that '9/11 truth' as a general movement is not going anywhere." )blog post 02'02 @JohannesDreijer "I haven't bothered much with exposing Jones, except for occasionally pointing out the obvious:" )blog post 01'31 @JohannesDreijer many patriots, for instance, secretly support this bloody chess move, okay? °tweet °tweet 01'31 @JohannesDreijer there's a lot of unuttered politics going on which has to be just as well thought through as are its visible official parts 01'31 @JohannesDreijer if we want our ethics to be respected we must truly accept any others. calling them liars, sheeple, or puppets doesn't help 01'31 @JohannesDreijer can you imagine, for instance, that some are unable to grasp how it works that you aren't cynical? °tweet 01'31 @JohannesDreijer who really does want to bring the Jesuit theater to an end has to stop blocking, censoring, or demonizing others on the web 01'31 @cosmopinciotti The government is a giant puppet.
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." )blog post 01'31 @JohannesDreijer "myths drive our politics because people don't know enough facts. they wind up being driven by myths." -video "Just How Stupid Are We" author Rick Shenkman on The Alcove 01'31 @cosmopinciotti How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power )article 01'31 pic* "the greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules but by people following the rules. it's people who follow orders that drop bombs and massacre villages." -Banksy 01'31 @JohannesDreijer you're right and also wrong simultaneously. it's just not that simple compared to criminal cases... °tweet 01'31 @JohannesDreijer the more power, the bloodier the secret oaths… °tweet the land of the free was occupied by the most unfree

*  *  *

"A Century of US Presidents Marching to the Beat of the New World Order" 02'27 @donaldpirl way too conspiratorially... not thoroughly, not deeply enough °tweet

@cosmopinciotti You don't believe there is an anti-liberty conspiracy on this planet? Really?
1. 02'28 @donaldpirl conspiracy ~15%, complicity ~75% a corruptocracy is so much more complex than just a conspiracy.
  @cosmopinciotti many useful idiots don't know they're filling a role in conspiracies. 02'24 @donaldpirl apropos... I think the "9/11 truth movement" was part of the project regarding its design as a controversy. °tweet

2. 02'28 @donaldpirl The idea of a conspiracy on the cultural level is simply too inexact and therefore wrong and misleading. °tweet
    @cosmopinciotti Spunds like your idea of a conspiracy is that all involved know the big picture of them. That's simply naive. 02'28 @donaldpirl that's your hasty and simplistic interpretation... the complicity phenomenon is being uninvestigated and unknown for the most part
      @cosmopinciotti I have given this whole arena much thought, so it's not hasty nor simplistic. 03'01 @donaldpirl do you think that your considerations about this very issue were that well advanced that you could survey its true significance?
      @cosmopinciotti to deny conspiratorial designs is to let the worst sort of evil off the hook. 02'28 @donaldpirl who is denying them? I'm trying to find out how realistic their assumptions are. °tweet °tweet
        @cosmopinciotti I read your tweets saying you found the ideas of conspiracies offensive. 03'01 @donaldpirl and I do! #OWO to the extent that I find them one-dimensional and inapplicable... °tweet °tweet

3. 02'28 @donaldpirl policies are secondary, pieties (beliefs, hopes) primary. °tweet °tweet
  @cosmopinciotti Disagree. True conspiracies are very compartmentalized. Low level do not know they're used by those at top.
    @cosmopinciotti Unless you're naive, you understand those corporate structures are created by law compliant with consolidation conspiracies. 02'28 @donaldpirl and unless you're naive, you understand these corporatocracies are extremely popular and highly admired by most educated people...
      @cosmopinciotti and those admiring corporatocracies are complicit with anti-liberty conspiracies. 03'01 @donaldpirl from my perspective, the worst criminals are clearly professional journalists... °tweet °tweet

4. 02'28 @donaldpirl conspiracism is rather religious than scientific. the #RealityBloger is different °tweet we need more efficiency.
  @cosmopinciotti conspiracy to rob a bank doesn't sound very religious. 02'28 @donaldpirl well, that's exactly my point: world government is not a bank robbery. this does require cultural dominance in every department.
    @cosmopinciotti Nope. Requires only technical compliance and high level of compartmentalization concerning end results. 03'01 @donaldpirl and why should this be called conspiracy instead of just business... because if that's a conspiracy every corporation would be one 03'01 @donaldpirl the power structures made out of esoteric and exoteric knowledge across-the-board are typical for our civilization for millennia 03'01 @donaldpirl this is no conspiracy, that's common (dominator) culture… and culture is much more complicity than conspiracy. even post-"9/11". 02'28 @donaldpirl Walter Burien adresses the main problem in the listen-carefully link again and again: people have simply no sense of perspective
  @cosmopinciotti I've heard Mr. Burien before. People don't understand how banking elites use compartmentalization of their grand designs. 02'28 @donaldpirl so you're not familiar with his findings, I guess. everybody understands conspiracies, it's the most trivial entertainment product

@cosmopinciotti don't think that all those supporting conspiracies know they are doing so. They would stop if they did and could. 02'28 @donaldpirl alright. then how would you assess the political motivation of Mr. Intensity and the "Bay Street Broker"? )blog post
  @cosmopinciotti individuals and corporations complicit with the "America needs a war" mentality aid the conspiracy. 03'01 @donaldpirl and this complicity is happening in many different variants, which in my opinion do play a far bigger role in the whole scenario
    @cosmopinciotti bigger than what? 03'01 @donaldpirl bigger than the conspiracy part: 75 > 15. imagine truth as a marketplace, a WTC! °tweet °tweet 03'01 @donaldpirl for instance, do you believe that these two parties, Mr. Intensity, the broker guy, would kind of wake up some day or something?
    @cosmopinciotti The more fully they wake up to big picture evil intentions, the better their decisions. But not all will fully awaken. 03'01 @donaldpirl while criminology is mostly about secrecy, I'm focussing on piety/complicity… #IntegrityOrComplicity 03'01 @donaldpirl and why? because you don't need secrecy at all for secret fans of Zelikow and Cheney, or "patriots" like Mr. Intensity, you see?

December 31, 2010

Fire in Mr. Melanson's mind

08/07'07 Cadeveo) Fire in the Minds of Men – Fascination and Symbiosis

On the basis of Terry Melanson's recommendation awhile back, I've tracked down copy of Woodrow Wilson Center historian James H. Billington's "Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith."
His basic thesis is that the "belief in revolution was a new kind of religion" that fascinated millions in Europe and beyond in the wake of the American and French revolutions. This faith, he contends was shaped not by Enlightenment rationalism, but by occultism and German proto-romanticism among a subculture of "literary intellectuals who were immersed in journalism, fascinated by secret societies, and subsequently infatuated with ideologies". It's a fascinating read and he makes a strong case for his thesis as he ranges over the fascination of such early French revolutionaries as Saint-Just, Illuminist Benjamin Bonneville (the protector of Tom Paine in France), Robespierre, Restif (a French journalist and minor revolutionary who coined the word communism), Filippo Michele Buonarotti and Sylvain MarĂ©chalJoseph MarĂ©chal SJ – with such things as the ancient mystic-philosopher Pythagoras as the model of the ideal revolutionary. He also focuses on these early revolutionaries' devotion to symbolism and ideas gleaned from Masonry, and their romantic view of nature.
Billington also outlines how the conflicting ideals of fraternity and egalitarianism (in contrast to the American emphasis on liberty) gave birth to competing nationalist and socialist revolutionary traditions. Moreover, he details the cross-pollination of ideas between the extremes of the Left and Right of political ideology.
All of the above-mentioned revolutionaries make fascinating figures in and of themselves, but focusing on them too much would distract from my main interest in this article. (If you're interested in these figures, most of whom are probably little known to all of you stateside, you should look into them.)

What I'd like to focus on right now are some of the implications I derive from the following passages from page 117 f. of Billington's book (emphasis added):

The dialectic of Left-Right interaction began as we have seen – like so much else in the "French" Revolution – in Germany well before 1789. Adam Weishaupt [founder of the Bavarian Illuminati] had derived his concept of hierarchical organization in pursuit of a global mission directly from the [right-wing] Jesuits, and Knigge had described the Illuminist program as one using Jesuit methods to combat Jesuit objectives, a "counter-conspiracy of progressive, enlightened forces". Subsequent Illuminist propaganda contended that there was a secret Jesuit conspiracy, and that the nominally abolished order had established underground links between Bavarian Jesuits and Berlin Rosicrucians. As the conspiracy mania grew, Weishaupt himself was accused of being a secret Jesuit. The Illuminists became more revolutionary in the course of the 1780s precisely in the process of winning converts from conservative Masonic lodges of Strict Observance.
The anti-Illuminist campaign of German conservatives in the 1790s was in many ways an echo of the anti-Jesuit campaign that the radical Illuminists themselves had launched in the 1780s. Revolutionaries began to take Illuminist ideas seriously (long after Illuminism as a movement was dead) because of the panic that the Illuminist label seemed to produce among conservatives. Buonarroti appears to have first discovered the Illuminists through an antagonistic expose by the archconservative Elector of Bavaria. The "great fear" of an "aristocratic conspiracy" in the summer of 1789 in France helped create the conspiracy it assumed, and conservative fears during 1790 of an "infernal cabal" of revolutionaries may have helped shape Buonarroti's first plans for forming such a cabal.

So what we learn is that (surprise surprise) the nascent French revolutionary left borrowed their methods, particularly the organization of hierarchical, secretive cells from the structure of the Jesuits. Since the revolutionaries in France were a hodge of mystically-inclined humanists, atheists and pantheists, one would not expect that they would be in cohoots with the Jesuits (and appears very doubtful that they were). However, by borrowing the same organizational structure and similar means of action for their projects, this perhaps made it easier to recruit conservatives who were familiar with similar fraternal groups from their affiliation with Masonry and thus might have assumed an affinity between them.

It's interesting, too, to consider that conservative fears of Illuminist-inspired organizations made the idea of such groups much more attractive to those on the Left than may otherwise have been the case. That this in turn inspired the creation of such groups only seems natural and one wonders if, perhaps, this would not have been expected. Should we suspect some social-engineering here or simply the principle of attraction (what is focused upon and obsessed upon tends to manifest)? These two propositions are not mutually exclusive, by the way, neither are they the only possible processes at work. And finally, I'll quote this heavy-hitting paragraph in full:

The Illuminist myth both "crystallized" the anti-revolutionary forces of central Europe and – paradoxically – revived hopes among some revolutionaries. How the fears of the Right dialectically became the fascination of the Left is illustrated by the case of Hungary. Ignatius Martinovics, a Catholic priest and physics professor, was hired by the Hapsburg police to report on the alleged Illuminist danger in Budapest. He became absorbed in his subject, however, and soon drew up plans to provide Hungarian radicals with an Illuminist-type, hierarchical organization. Martinovics wrote separate catechisms in May 1794 for both the open Association of Reformers and a secret, inner Association of Liberty and Equality. The first organization was to accomplish a political revolution for national independence, the second, a social revolt on behalf of the serfs. Martinovics, the self-proclaimed Democritus of the Mountain, was soon arrested along with many of the two hundred to three hundred conspirators.
(Despite a final reversion to collaboration with the police, Martinovics was beheaded in May 1795.)

There's all sorts of provisional conclusions we might make of the case of Martinovics and the symbiosis between the extremes of Left and Right in the revolutionary period in France. One easy conclusion is that for better and worse, those who focus (obsess?) upon a thing too much, whether it's an idea, a movement or a perceived enemy, are susceptible to seduction by it. Another possible conclusion is that, whether an agent provocateur remains an agent provocateur or genuinely converts to the faith of those s/he's infiltrated, s/he still might get used in the same way – as a tool of entrapment. And once a tool has served its purpose, it's often discarded.

Further thoughts: The above historical facts may show us a pre-cursor to the later red-brown alliances that have shown up since at least WWII, with elements of totalitarian left groups (Wilhelm Reich's "red fascists") and right-wing fascist groups existing in symbiosis, borrowing from each other both ideas, tactics and members ...
Pop quiz: What is the underlying agreement in these reality maps that makes this Left-Right symbiosis both possible and, perhaps, inevitable?
For extra credit: Can you describe these extremist interactions from the viewpoint of Hegelian dialectics and from the perspective of Taoist philosophy? What other maps cover aspects of this terrain? Discuss.


Ted) I think, its centralized control that ties the two sides together. Power, basically. I think, people out for power as a thing in and of itself are beyond belief. They don't believe in ideas, they believe in power. Left, Right doesn't matter. But people can manipulate groups and play them against each other. Divide and conquer.

Terry: I'm not comfortable leaving the first comment, since you have mentioned me in the post.
However, I can't resist! I'm glad you've picked up a copy of Fire in the Minds. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he'd been researching the book for nearly 20 years. Judging by the amount of information in it, I can certainly see that that might surely be the case.
Your first question was answered by Billington himself on page 119:

"Extremists tended to share a common opposition to moderation that was more intense than their opposition to one another. This attitude was a legacy of the revolutionary era and its basic drive toward radical simplification. Moderate positions tended to complicate political calculation – and they inspired contempt among activists on both sides."

This is a very succinct and valid explanation. We see the results of this even today. One need look no further than the example of David Horowitz and his effortless move from extreme Left to extreme Right.
Using Hegelian Dialectics, both extremes can be manipulated by others higher up in a hierarchic system, if indeed the superiors are aware of this "common opposition to moderation". From the standpoint of the Illuminati, they would weave a tale specific to each initiate and play on his particular politics or mystical inclinations. That's where the techniques of the Jesuits came in handy. The Jesuit-influenced Quibus Licet letters were passed up the chain of command. They contained all the candidate's secrets, hopes and dreams – even those of his intimates. Weishaupt would say, "for men may be turned to any thing by him who knows how to take advantage of their ruling passions."

Angela) Well, professor, (great post by the way, excellent information here) as you know, though history records many examples of infighting within the illuminist ranks. This group, along with their methods as demonstrated here, has truly been the underlying driving force of nearly all of our wars, political theories, fiscal structure, religious dogma, corporate agendas, not to mention socio-cultural development. They've done this through many different political, cultural and religious avenues – whatever works for the time, whoever has the most power and influence at the moment. They've always inhabited both sides of any conflict, and their long-term plan is really long term – I mean, they think in terms of centuries and millennia. It's their way.
Hegel would indeed be proud. As would Machiavelli.

Taoism, at least as I see it, is so far removed from this philosophy, it's almost difficult to even find an appropriate response. Taoism is about as opposite from manipulation as one can get. It's far more about allowing things to flow naturally (with peace and harmony in mind, of course.) A Taoist might say: "If you want to learn how to govern, avoid being clever or rich. Content with an ordinary life, you can show all people the way back to their own true nature." (#65 TTC) Or perhaps: "Those who try to control, who use force to protect their power, go against the direction of the Tao." (#77 TTC) Thx for your comments to me too, btw :) Aloha

Cadeveo) The radical simplification thing is one of those huge points Billington keeps making, so I'm glad you brought it up, Terry! But I felt I had to cherry pick my focus and the quotes so that I wouldn't just end up pasting a whole chapter of FMM entirely. The info about the Jesuit structure is good, Terry. I've got a long way to go before I get finished with the book, but it's already making a big impact.
I tend to agree with you, Ted, on what unifies the extremes of right and left. And I also see that tying in to the opposition to moderation ... if moderation is perceived as weakness or a hindrance to total power.
The Taoist thing I feel speaks to a very important matter. Because the Hegelian Dialectic and the Tao look exactly the same from one level of understanding (a fairly superficial one), same way fascist so-called Ascended Masters somehow get mistaken for the truly beneficent spirits time and time again.
But of course, once you begin to distinguish the difference in results, you start to discern the difference in the methods and the spirit of the counterfeit and the genuine article.

Angela) The best lies contain the most truth. Even the tiniest bit of untruth, misinformation or misinterpretation can tarnish it – and the more subtle, the better, often truth and untruth being mirror images of one another. Discernment is necessary in large doses.

Ted) It's easier to see this dialectic further back in time, than it is to see it going on now, but it is. I am going to be examining how I think the "peak oil" community and Green anarchy are tools of the elite. Daniel Quinn owes his success to Ted Turner, and the main reason Turner puffed him up, was because of Quinn's stance on population. Elites want to reduce the Earth's population by at least half. Global elites are not being caught off guard by the coming oil shortage either. Nor do they oppose efforts to stop Global Warming.
On the contrary all these things are playing into their hands to set up a neo-feudal world dictatorship with an enslaved microchipped population. I would say "moderation" in this case would be a type of populism characterized by civil liberties and freedom, the inherent dignity of every individual.

Terry) "Subsequent Illuminist propaganda contended that there was a secret Jesuit conspiracy, and that the nominally abolished order had established underground links between Bavarian Jesuits and Berlin Rosicrucians." Actually, it wasn't propaganda or conspiracy theory, as Billington surmises, but the reality of the situation. Friedrich Christoph Schlosser (History of the eighteenth century and of the nineteenth till the overthrow of the French empire, Vol. IV) in 1845, and Klaus Epstein (The Genesis of German Conservativism) in 1966, have proven it beyond a doubt. In fact, the Original Writings of the Illuminati, which were confiscated by the Bavarian Elector in 1786/87 (himself controlled by Jesuits), were handed over for editing to a "former-Jesuit" who just happened to be the head of the Berlin Rosicrucian circle.
The Rosicrucian (Jesuit)/Illuminati feud was legendary even before the Illuminati were definitively proved to even exist. With the discovery of the Illuminati's internal documents, the conservative Jesuits/Rosicrucians were well positioned to strike the final blow. The Illuminati were finally rooted out in Bavarian and the adjoining catholic territories in greater Holy Roman Germany.

Cadeveo) Thanks for that information, Terry.
How difficult or easy is it to find a copy of Schlosser's or Epstein's respective books?

Terry) Schlosser's 4th volume is extremely hard to get, but Google books has a scan in full view:
The last chapter in the book has some rare info on the Illuminati and the Jesuits not found anywhere else.
Some pages are badly scanned though and impossible to read.
I can't find a copy of the book anywhere, even with antiquarian sellers.
Epstein's book can be bought at Amazon. He goes into detail on the Illuminati, Rosicrucians, and the subsequent anti-Illuminati industry instituted by the "conservative" occultists against the rationalist Illuminati.
He's an academic of the caliber of Billington, and has read and consulted nearly everything in existence pertaining to the emerging conservatism during the German enlightenment.
It's a specialized book, but there's quite a bit of explosive material scattered throughout.

08/18'07 The contradictions of the conspiratorial thread – more from FMM)
I'm nearly finished reading historian James Billington's book Fires in the Minds of Men and it's been quite an education. One of many recurring patterns one finds in the history of revolutionary movements and conspiracies, from the French in the late 1700's through to the Bolsheviks, is the contradiction between stated aims, fanatically believed in, and methods that appear diametrically opposed to them. For example, the Illuminati utilized a highly secretive and hierarchical structure somehow meant to ensure a liberation from autocratic religious and government authority, yet in practice tended to lead to a variation of the same.
This same contradiction was seen in the fatal leadership of Robespierre who sought to defend a revolution instigated for freedom, liberty and equality through dictatorship and the murder of many.
After Robespierre's fall, this trend continues through Noel Babeuf, a revolutionary conspirator whose influence is as large as his obscurity to the non-historian stateside:

Just as the greatest Christian theologians had defined God as the "coincidence of opposites", so Babeuf took the new faith in revolution to the level of sublime paradox.
The justification for launching a new revolution was to "terminate the revolution". The means of ending the "spirit of domination" was to obey an elite hierarchy. And the way to avoid the tyranny of "factions" was to accept a single leader. (p. 77)

The revolutionary socialist Buonarroti wrote a biography of Babeuf, so deeply influenced was he.
Like Babeuf, Buonarroti took inspiration from the example of Illuminism (p. 97), the model for his own, secret revolutionary order:

This radical secular occultist movement was organized on three levels in a secret hierarchy: church, synod and aereopagite. (p. 93)

Writing in 1828 after decades of dashed revolutionary dreams in France and beyond, Buonarroti looked again to a hierarchy of elites as the solution:

The failure of all revolutions since 1789 had, in Buonarroti's view, been caused by a lack of strong leaders prepared in advance to give power to "a revolutionary government of sages". He harkened back to Babeuf's idea of delegating authority immediately to "general commissioners" [...] trained in revolutionary "seminaries" and insisted on the need for a "provisional authority charged with completing the revolution and governing until popular institutions come into active being." (p. 173)

Does this sound familiar at all to anyone? Billington continues:

Buonarroti urged that the revolutionary regime not submit itself to popular elections, while initial revolutionary changes were being effected, but fulfill three functions instead:
1) "direct all the force of the nation against internal and external enemies,"
2) "create and establish the institutions through which the people will be imperceptibly led really to exercise sovereignty," and
3) "prepare the popular Constitution which should complete and close the revolution."

Through the influence of a revolutionary successor to Buonarroti in France, Auguste Blanqui, and his followers, we arrive at Karl Marx:

Marx first related the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to his theory of history and class struggle in 1852. The Buonarrotian idea of a transitional elite dictatorship as the necessary preliminary to a classless society. (p. 282)

Marx, in fact, likely swiped his famous term, as well as another, from Blanqui:

Blanqui's influence on Marx during this period is further illustrated by Marx's taking over of another term that was to become important in revolutionary history: permanent revolution.
Marx had rejected such a concept when it was suggested by working-class leaders in Cologne during 1848-1849, but he embraced "revolution in permanence" as the "war cry" of the reorganized Communist League in March 1850. Marx saw permanent revolution as a necessary condition of any future "dictatorship of the proletariat" if it was to be different in kind from the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." (p. 283)

The big blind spot in this theory comes because it lacks to acknowledge the tendency of organizational structures and the privileged classes at its apex to protect, expand and entrench their own personal benefit to the detriment of those beneath it. Perhaps, subconsciously, the notion of "permanent revolution" merely meant to justify this inevitability, should the authoritarian thread of contradiction within the revolutionary faith one day find its true believers victorious, as it later did in Soviet Russia.
Perhaps the pyrrhic nature of that victory should have been already apparent from the moment Marx repeated one other aspect of that conspiratorial thread where means contradict aims:

The circulars sent from the London Central Committee to the German members of the Communist League in March indicated that the classical Illuminist-Buonarrotian-Blanquist type of conspiracy had taken root among Germans. Emissaries from London were instructed to recruit people to the league from within existing revolutionary organizations. There should be two classes of membership: an outer circle of local and provincial groups that knew nothing about the inner circle – it alone was to be told of "the communist consequences of the present movement".
The secret, hierarchical movement was to be entirely manipulated by the London Central Committee, which would sanction selective terror against "hated individuals or public buildings associated with hated memories".
The leadership suggested that the Communist League should prepare Germans to fight even more against petty bourgeois democrats than against reactionaries in the next phase of revolutionary warfare. (p. 284)

09/29'07) We've got a lot of doing to do. Let's start with: thank you!)
[...] I want to thank Tim Boucher, that grizzly bear Ted Heistman, HCE, Speedbird, Angela and every single person that reads my writings and feeds me necessary nutrients through their feedback. Thanks to Joshua from Realm of Connections – This blog will self destruct in ... – for the words of encouragement.
Thanks to Terry Melanson for the research leads, especially the impetus to read FMM. I thank him also for the free source-checking and the free exposure via his excellent conspiracy archives. [...] Seriously, I'd like to thank all the dead anarchists with good hearts that didn't ever hurt nobody. You might not know who they are, but I think I do.

HCE) Mark Treza, the guy who took me as his little brother, gave me the blessing-curse ("No matter what ever happens to you, you'll always be okay." And he seemed to really know this about me somehow. It came through and still sticks with me decades later.) and took me to an honest to god real-life sweat lodge, which exposed me to experiences that I cannot explain and without which would have become an Arch-Skeptic years ago. My wife, for being my friend first and putting up with me through all of my outrageous up and downs, when others abandoned ship. My four dogs for comfort, and giving me things to laugh at when I was having a hard time finding anything to laugh at. Life, for remaining consistently weirder than I can suppose or than Michael Shermer or James Randi can explain. And Terence McKenna for giving me access to thinking The Big Ideas that make Life mind-expanding even without all the plants and chemicals.

comment agency) Piety is the key. Even from Ted's perspective.
The most effective "lies" contain the highest possible amount of "truth" ... Excellent statement, Angela, thanks!
According to, for instance, Haffner's Anmerkungen zu Hitler the principle of permanent war was also very typical for the German Nazi regime after signing the Reichskonkordat.
Hitler "saw permanent revolution as a necessary condition", too.
'Perhaps, intentionally,' Marxen's "big blind spot" wasn't a matter of inability at all.