Illumination: the Secret Religion - Robinson and Barruel

The New Danger

Barruel defined three types of conspiracy:

1)   "Conspiracy of impiety" - against God and Christianity.
2)   "Conspiracy of rebellion" - against monarchs.
3)   "Conspiracy of anarchy" - against society in general.

He said that the conspirators desired the "overthrow of the altar, the ruin of the throne, and the dissolution of all civil society." (He considered "civil society" to be a function of a divinely mandated order based on the rule of kings chosen by God. He said people must choose between monarchy and the "reign of anarchy." Barruel was no democrat or supporter of the masses.)

Barruel's book offers a right-wing interpretation of the French Revolution, attempting to put the main cause down to subversion by secret societies rather than the legitimate fury of oppressed people. He wanted to present the Jacobins and the Illuminati as criminals and traitors, with the latter as a hidden group standing in the background, orchestrating events via the Jacobins.

Robinson and Barruel are the fathers of modern conspiracy theories. Their central thesis was:

1) The Illuminati are anti-Christian. Yes, this is absolutely true.
2) The Illuminati are anti-Monarchy. Yes, this is absolutely true.
3) The Illuminati conspired against Christianity and monarchy and used every tool at their disposal, including Freemasonry, to overthrow priests and kings. Yes, this is absolutely true.
4) The Illuminati sought a New World Order where conventional religion was abolished, and all monarchs, aristocrats and priests were overthrown. Yes, this is absolutely true.
5) The Illuminati worked with the Jacobins. Yes, this is absolutely true. (Several prominent Jacobins were members of the Illuminati.)

So, yes, the thesis put forward by the two men was correct, though it completely failed to emphasise that the Revolution succeeded, in the last analysis, because the people were sickened by the tyranny and arrogance of Louis XVI and his aristocratic cronies. No one should forget what Louis's wife Marie Antoinette joked when told that the French people had no bread and were starving. "Let them eat cake," she said. Could there be any clearer example of the callousness of these privileged people?

The simple question that all of the enemies of the Illuminati and New World Order, all of those following in the wake of Robinson and Barruel, should ask themselves is this: why, ultimately, are you opposed to them?

To be opposed to the Illuminati and New World Order implies that you are an advocate of Christianity - such as Barruel (a Jesuit), and a supporter of monarchs and aristocrats, like John Robinson. (Robinson said, "Weishaupt took the name of Spartacus, the man who headed the insurrection of slaves, which in Pompey's time kept Rome in terror and uproar for three years." Unlike Robinson, most people regard Spartacus as a great hero, fighting to free men from slavery. Robinson preferred to characterise Spartacus as a terrorist. Bear that in mind the next time you hear the Old World Order's propaganda about the War on Terror.) It implies you support anti-Enlightenment values. It implies you are on the side of the establishment, that you're conservative, right wing and reactionary. It implies you support privileged elites, dynastic families and the super-rich who have wielded power over this world for millennia. Above all, it implies you are a supporter of the Old World Order, as Barruel and Robinson certainly were.

Weishaupt said of the Illuminati, "Its object may be said to be the checking the tyranny of princes, nobles, and priests, and establishing an universal equality of condition and of religion:" Are these not laudable aims? What manner of person would condemn them? - only the Old World Order and their fellow travellers who have everything to lose if the Illuminati come to power.

One anti-NWO website says: "Certainly the twenty-first century attempt to turn everyone away from politics and Jesus Christ's message of peace has been mightily successful. This tract [Robinson's book] looks at the eighteenth century origins of this ambitious project. The idea was and is to make democratic government, through Masonic infiltration, so unworkable as to be rejected by the people. In exchange we get a global state apparatus run by private banks, global media barons, security and telecommunications companies."

Firstly, there was no democracy in France under Louis XVI. Secondly, democracy is now a tool of the Old World Order. (The Illuminati will replace it with meritocracy.) Thirdly, the Illuminati want to smash the power of private banks, stop global media barons, and make sure that security, telecommunications and other types of company wield no power over the people. Therefore, this anti-Illuminati propaganda bears no relationship to the truth of the Illuminati's objects. (Global capitalism, the basis of the power of the Old World Order, is the vehicle for private banks and global media barons to rule the world. Isn't it odd that anti-NWO conspiracy theorists rarely criticise capitalism and are frequently fervent supporters of this materialistic ideology.)

But something remarkable has happened in contemporary times. It is no longer monarchists and devout Christians who eagerly embrace the right wing conspiracy theories of Robinson and Barruel. Instead it's a disturbing new group of fanatical right-wingers. They are supporters of libertarianism and, more particularly, anarcho-capitalism.

Libertarians hate any interference by the state in their lives. They hate taxation. They hate government, especially "big" government. They detest left wing politics. They hate anything that is different from them. They are racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, illiberal. They hate privileged elites and big business. They hate Wall Street. They hate monarchy. They hate the banking system. They hate carpetbaggers. They hate authority. They hate the establishment. They hate science and technology. They hate the European Union. They hate mainstream religion and usually belong to radical Protestant sects.

Their origins lie in the many Non-Conformist and Dissenter sects that fled persecution in Europe centuries ago to find a new life in America. Their ancestors were in conflict with the Church, the State, and the Monarchy. Nothing has changed. These libertarian radicals, in past years, were the sort of people who joined the Ku Klux Klan and now join angry militia and survivalist groups.

The libertarians are opposed to the Old World Order in some respects, and to the Illuminati in others. So they have conflated the two. In their eyes, the Old World Order and the Illuminati are the same thing. In their weird world, the Old World Order and the New World Order are one and the same concept, even though they are complete opposites. That's why you often hear these people saying that the Illuminati are bankers, monarchists, socialists, communists, Jews, Freemasons, atheists, Jesuits, even Reptilians i.e. everything they dislike and fear. That's why the ranting nonsense that is directed against the Illuminati is preposterous. For instance, the Illuminati are frequently said to be Jewish and running the banking system. Anyone who has read the material on this website will know how ludicrous these assertions are. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the libertarian conspiracy theorists aren't bothered about the truth. They have concocted a laughable, ridiculous edifice that comprises two entities that are diametrically opposed: the Old World Order and the Illuminati. Because their central thesis is groundless, all of their conclusions are absurd. The entire grand libertarian conspiracy theory represented by people such as Alex Jones, Henry Makow, David Icke etc is nonsense from beginning to end and it's therefore not surprising that it starts to fly off into science fiction and fantasy with lizards, aliens, Nibiru etc all making an appearance in their increasingly bizarre freak show, their cosmic circus where only clowns are welcome.

Don't listen to any of their rubbish. The libertarians are a gang of dangerous cranks who despise community and government. They are extreme anarchists. The anarcho-capitalists want to abolish the state, privatise everything and run the whole world according to dog-eat-dog free market capitalism. Law and order, and the very defence of the nation, would be run according to free market principles. It's lunacy.

Some members of the Illuminati have argued that the Old World Order are planning to create chaos throughout the world by adopting many of the ideas of the anarcho-capitalists. In the last thirty years, there has been massive deregulation of markets, exactly as advocated by the anarcho-capitalists. In countries like Britain, free market principles are being introduced into schools and hospitals, again exactly as the anarcho-capitalists desire. There is an ongoing debate in many countries about massively reducing taxes, again as the anarcho-capitalists want. Anarcho-capitalists are supporters of negative liberty rather than positive liberty, and the whole trend of contemporary society is towards negative liberty. Yet we have already seen where the free market and negative liberty lead us - to the credit crunch, the domination of the super-rich, the breakdown of community and the erosion of all spiritual values.

One senior member of the Illuminati now considers Jones, Makow and Icke to be active agents of the Old World Order who are obstructing and sabotaging the creation of a New World Order of positive liberty and meritocracy. They are enemies of the people.

You have a clear choice to make.

Anarcho-capitalism.

Or the Old World Order.

Or the Illuminati and a New World Order.

Which is it going to be?

Split or Steal?

"Golden Balls" is a moronic, junk TV game based on The Prisoner's Dilemma. Yet it illustrates the workings of the Old World Order better than anything else.

In the game, a pot of money is built up and two contestants must then decide whether to "split or steal" the prize. If both contestants choose the "split" option, they each take home half of the money. If both choose "steal" then neither gets anything. If one chooses "split" and the other "steal", the stealer takes it all.

Before the final decision is taken, both contestants have a chat where they declare their apparent intentions. Of course, no one ever openly says that they are going to "steal". The discussion invariably revolves around both contestants swearing that they can be trusted, that they would never dream of stealing and that they will definitely split the prize.

In the event, many contestants then choose the "steal" option and often reveal that it was their intention to steal right from the beginning.

This crass TV programme goes to the heart of the human condition and reveals the repulsive nature of much, and perhaps most, of humanity.

Imagine the sort of person who sets out to steal rather than share a lucrative prize. He knows he will have to lie through his teeth to deceive the other contestant, yet it doesn't deter him for a moment. At the end of the show, if he is successful in his deception, he is delighted and considers it a job well done i.e. he is ecstatic that he has duped a good, decent person who was eager to do the right thing and share the prize. He considers the other person a sucker, someone who had it coming for being so gullible and trusting. He sees himself as a master of the universe who has shafted a naïve dreamer in need of a reality check.

A feature of the show is that the audience is always delighted when two contestants share the prize, always condemns anyone who chooses the steal option and is always immensely sympathetic towards someone who chooses the "split" option and then has the prize stolen from him by the other contestant. Yet there can be no doubt that if many members of the audience were participants in the game, they too would join the "steal" gang.

What does that signify? People in a community (the audience is a community), support community values, most important of which is sharing. But people in a private capacity don't care a damn about the community and will maximise their own self-interest, at the expense of other members of the community. Stealers obey their private will, not the general will of the community.

The show reveals another dramatic phenomenon. People who would instinctively belong to the "split" party, start worrying that the other person will steal from them and they become suspicious and distrustful. They don't want to be a victim. So, despite their best intentions and natural inclinations, they end up choosing the "steal" option, not out of a desire for self-gain but to thwart the stealer. They know they will probably leave with nothing but at least they will stop the stealer leaving with everything. In other words, good people become corrupted by the presence of the "steal" gang. Their nature changes. They no longer trust their neighbours. Community spirit is corroded and finally destroyed.

The members of the Old World Order all belong to the "steal" gang. If they come up against each other, they leave with nothing because, reflexively, they steal from each other. So, they turn their attention to the splitters. If they find themselves amongst nice, innocent, good people, they can fleece them every time. If one stealer were amongst ninety-nine splitters, he could take everything from the whole lot of them. He's the rotten apple that spoils the barrel. He ruins everything for everyone else, but he gets everything he wants.

A stealer is someone who, instead, of sharing with his neighbour - meaning that both go away happy - takes it all, leaving his neighbour with nothing. The stealer will become the richest man in town, the person with all the power, yet he has shown by his actions that he is completely unfit to be a member of the community. The Wall Street fat cats are classic "stealers". They always take and never give. They don't want to share with others, they don't want to help others, they don't want to do anything that isn't all about helping No 1.

The stealers are selfish, egotistical, and contemptuous of others. It's not too strong to describe them as evil. They should be banished from the community rather than being allowed to lead it. A community can't function if the people leading the community don't possess community values. That's exactly the situation we have today. The Old World Order hate society and yet they are in all of the top positions in society. The former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a truly evil person, brazenly declared, "There is no such thing as society". Thatcher was the champion of the British steal gang. She did everything in her power to destroy society and transfer as much money as possible to the stealers. Ronald Reagan, at the same time, did a similar job in America. Those two monsters were the true authors of the credit crunch we are now enduring. They started the greed train that has only just hit the buffers. (But already the train is getting back on clear track, and it will travel faster than ever.)

No community in its right mind should ever elect anyone who is not entirely committed to the community, yet, over and over again, enemies of the people are elected to highest office.

The Old World Order are out for everything they can get. Theirs is a "fuck you" approach to life. They are all sharks, carpetbaggers and robber barons.

Stealers corrupt the whole of society.

But stealing can take another form. In the former Communist nations of the defunct Warsaw Pact, lazy, inept workers stole, in a moral sense, from hard-working, talented workers. They stole by wanting and expecting to be paid exactly the same as the hard workers even though they themselves had not worked hard. This insidious form of theft is as corrosive to a healthy community as the more explicit type of stealing.

The Illuminati seek a New World Order and that means that stealers will, by hook or by crook, be removed from the community. If stealers are present in a community, they always poison it. They cannot be permitted to contaminate society. The greedy, the stealers, the Old World Order must be driven out. They are the damned.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, "In order that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free."

For any community to succeed, everyone must abide by community values. Those who do not subscribe to those values cannot be tolerated. The Old World Order are the enemies of the people. It is because of their greed and selfishness that we live in societies where crime, poverty, cruelty and lack of compassion are rife. Most of us are natural splitters but we have been turned into callous monsters by the stealers amongst us.

A community can and should have liberal values - anyone can do anything they like as long as it brings no harm to others - but it should have zero tolerance towards those who do harm. The stealers are, by definition, those who take from others rather than sharing. That's the antithesis of community. It cannot be tolerated.

In a New World Order, there would be only splitters and no stealers. Everyone would get their fair share. Everyone could trust everyone else. No thief would walk away with everyone else's money.

The stealers are liars, cheats and crooks. Do you want people like that leading you? That's what we have at the moment. Our system actually rewards the stealers. When they steal our money, they become more powerful and are then able to steal even more from us. Everyone in any position of power in this world belongs to the steal gang and all of the world's problems stem from that single fact. We need leaders who are natural sharers and wouldn't dream of stealing. One sure sign would mark out such people - they would never be conspicuously rich, and neither would they seek great wealth. Of how many of the world's leaders can that be said? It's time to depose the Old World Order. It's time to build a New World Order of fairness, justice and sharing.