Nothing is more exotic than MKULTRA
The reality is that fundamentalism of any stripe doesn't tolerate competition well, and in it's most extreme forms not at all. The danger is always like that of any other sort of cult, that a lack of tolerance itself begins to breed extreme intolerance. This in fact has been proven in psychological testing where students would eventually increase the amount of physical discomfort for wrong answers given by others well past the safety margin even if instructed never to do so. It happens incrementally. If a little intolerance is good, more is better and absolute intolerance will then lead to perfection.
Understand that I have very intentionally used the word "cult" to describe this sort of psychological phenomena. Theologians of the academic variety understand the word to simply mean "new religious movement" and this is precisely what happens when we begin to blend politics and religion in new ways, it results in the formation of new religious movements, i.e., cults.
While fascism is generally considered to be a political ideology it becomes cultish straight away whenever it begins to encroach upon religious thought, which it will do by nature because it embraces a philosophy of promoting anything which favors the fascist movement in question while displaying increasingly less tolerance for any competing memes. Historically, alliances are formed between fascists and other segments of society by building and promoting a platform of intolerance around which is formed the beginnings of the camp of political and religious intolerance which will also typically begin eventually to become increasingly less tolerant of other nations and races. This because fascism thrives on divisive tactics alone due to the fact that it will always be found in the end to serve a very small minority of people. Fascism must then take steps to assure that it's purpose of empowering a very small minority of persons is not discovered too soon as it continues to try and recreate society in it's own likeness after having gained power by building the platform of intolerance. Such a platform by it's nature exists via negativa, that is, they need not offer anything constructive as long as they promise, however falsely, to save us from our competition, real or imagined.
Since fascists must employ asymmetric political warfare they always make the best use of any lying propaganda which will further their cause. In their view, reality is shaped by perception and not the other way around, at least for their political movement if for nothing else, realities must not shape perceptions. On the whole fascism which supports a minority control has already been dismissed by most societies as inherently dangerous to society itself and unconscionable in that it always leads to the most horrific forms of government and violations of social norms e.g. human rights. This means that from the very start the fascist movement must gain political capital by deception, particularly, but not limited to the fact of the fascist nature of the movement. Here we might surmise that fascism then becomes the perfect breeding ground for any and all things sociopathological including persons given to sociopathological thinking. Before we continue further with this examination of how fascism results in political religious cultishness, then, by necessity we must take a closer look at sociopathological tendencies.
Sociopaths are by nature very manipulative, they are precisely the sorts of persons who see manipulation of others to be a form of personal empowerment. Here, in order to define our terms, the act of being manipulative is not in and of itself sociopathological since at some time or another all persons will be at least a little manipulative in getting their way about something and this is quite common to the human condition. At the extreme, however, pathological liars are so because the act of manipulation itself is somehow as emotionally rewarding as any result that it produces, a sense of empowerment and control derived by the fact of gaining trust where none is deserved, and that this, in essence, describes the sociopath well enough for our purposes.
It may be fair to assume that the harsher and more psychologically abnormal a family upbringing the more an individual would be apt to learn manipulative skills for the purpose of survival, and that such individuals would be among the first to exhibit sociopathological tendencies as a behavior learned in early childhood in order to avoid such things as harsh punishment or abuse, whether physical or psychological in nature. Manipulation then becomes a learned behavior which may or may not become latent in many adults once they have found themselves in relationships which do not necessitate it's use. But if necessity, in this case, is the mother of such learning and inventiveness it would be safe to assume that the greater the need the more one would both acquire and perfect sociopathological tendencies, and that this would especially be true in children born in families where one or both parents are sociopathic. It simply becomes a matter of emotional survival to keep up with the rest of the pack, and it may be that in fact no other sorts of intimate relationships will thrive for such individuals apart from this "survival of the fittest" framework.
Pathologies by their very nature, and almost serving as an accurate definition, discount the importance of others in favor of self. Thus the psychopath really believes that all others exist simply for his pleasure, whether that pleasure is sexual, homicidal or both. Indeed an argument could be made that all pathologies are inherently sociopathological, which would explain the frequency with which persons who knew serial killers thought them to be very nice people and could not imagine them at all to be serial killers. And while not all sociopaths become killers, that it would be fair to think that all homicidal psychopaths were sociopathic at the outset and that perhaps homicidal tendencies are an extreme form of sociopathology. That is, that whatever need was being fulfilled by control via manipulation was no longer being satiated by lying successfully, but rather became a need to control and dominate by physical force. Here however, we come up with the sort of hybrid phenomena which I am attempting to address, a sort of socio-psycholpathology in which the abnormal thoughts are extended outwards into society wherein it is no longer sufficient to deceive and manipulate individuals, the real prize becomes to deceive and manipulate (or even destroy) as many persons as possible at any one time. This may then take a similar route wherein the need for control and domination is no longer satiated by manipulative behavior and progresses to a need to employ physical force by warfare. It is also easy to think that the tendency to employ physical force which has moved an abnormal psychological view from sociopath to psychopath has resulted from early childhood trauma, particularly sexual abuse, and that this would explain the psychosexual nature of many serial killers.
Most persons simply are so repulsed by thoughts of child sexual abuse that they spend little time considering the importance of it and how it begins to form psychosexual abnormal psychology in the formative years when the child is left, almost exclusively to themselves or worse, to their abuser, to make sense of the abuse and the world which they have yet to know very much about. Since absolute disaster would result for the abuser should the abuse become either widely known or known to authorities, the abuser is then in a position where they must control the victim fully in order to feel safe from exposure. This begins a never ending series of manipulations designed to keep the abuser safe from exposure. Statements made by abusers such as "You are everything to me" or "It's because you are so special" are not uncommon and would easily explain the inability of the child to adequately differentiate between issues of love and hate or sex and violence. The psychological impact of rape, say, on a two year old, would be that their world view, in essence, would grow up around the trauma much the same way that a tree trunk grows up around an injury which has left that particular area stunted. It isn't that growth doesn't occur, it's simply misshapened growth around the sustained emotional trauma. It would be an extremely adult bias to assume that such trauma would seem to be taken with adult proportion rather than being the single most formative event for someone of such tender years as two or three.
Here I will attempt to expand on the theoretical works of others with regard to generational abuse, although it is a difficult field at best because of it's very nature, which is that it is far and away more likely to occur within the upper classes which not only have extraordinary means to sustain it, but every reason to perpetuate it, and to keep it's secrets.
As we have already noted, abusers stand to lose everything should they be discovered and therefore need to retain extraordinary controls over the victims, and psychological manipulation would no doubt be the most efficient and secretive means of doing so. In the case of very wealthy persons there is not only much more to lose, there is also that the fates of so many others will come to depend upon the continued secrecy. Moreover, it is far easier for wealthy persons to give rewards for silence to victims, witnesses or conspirators, as well as to make serious problems for them should they pose any threat to the abuser. There is also that people of great wealth and power are typically spared any close examination, residing as they do in surroundings which are at any time as private as they wish to make them. There is also that persons of such a status are often regarded with undue respect and admiration as if they were above suspicion in any and all matters, this in part because they have it within their means to either persecute anyone who might draw suspicion towards them or to reward their silence.
Since persons of great wealth and power are generally operating within what we would think of as the safest of surroundings for abuse to occur, and since such persons are routinely able to fulfill their every desire, the stage becomes set for a sort of despotism in which not only are excesses not challenged, but are also either overlooked or even embraced by those who have very much to gain from their relationship with the abuser. If we understand the cycle of abuse to be that victims are the most likely to become future abusers and couple this with an abnormal psychological mind set which embraces sexual perversions as merely enlightened or sophisticated we have the circumstances most likely to give rise to generational abuse. Pedophiles, for example, routinely explain away their sexual proclivities as "only natural", even though they cannot explain how that is responsible to a child which has yet to discover sexuality on their own and would not be capable of making such decisions at all, especially given their absolute ignorance of the issues. We also know that pedophiles organize and network amongst themselves and we might consider for the moment that the most wealthy and powerful among them would be able to do so all the more extensively and seriously. We might also entertain the notion that members of such pedophile social networks are residing within a system of mutual blackmail wherein exposing anyone would be mutually devastating, or where those in power could expose by proxy those who have fallen into disfavor so as not to reveal who actually ordered their exposure.
Understanding any secret society of child abusers would necessitate not only a review of what would seem to be rational, but also the sort of abnormal psychology that is bound to be prevalent among it's members, where one lives with both the comfort of many concealments and the sheer terror of being publicly exposed and the severe losses which would no doubt follow. In this circumstance, fear becomes an abnormally powerful motivator, i.e., how safe or how threatened the abusers feel at any given time would substitute for more rational thought processes. This in fact would seem common to their early childhood experiences as victims, that cause and effect are more tied to the feelings of the abuser than the actions of the victim, and perhaps this the best explanation for the development of sociopathological skills from an early age. The victim learns that they cannot reason with the abuser, rather they must manipulate their feelings prior to manipulating their thoughts and actions. And for all they know their very survival may depend upon their ability to do so, and in some instances it might in fact since the abuser may also exhibit homicidal tendencies.
So far we have seen that generational abuse could easily occur among wealthy persons who have the means to sustain it, we have seen that there is every reason then that it becomes self perpetuating, and we have seen how it could be that abnormal psychology can enter into any sphere of influence and that some forms of sociopathic thinking will feed on manipulation of the masses. But we have yet to address what is primarily an unknown concerning such posited secret societies as institutions. The beginning of such a preponderance is not greatly difficult as we might surmise that institutionalism itself breeds certain phenomena likely to be found within any such proposed institution, and in this case, perhaps, especially so.
Hazing within institutions is quite common and when ceremony is added hazing may become an institution in and of itself. It's common in schools, universities, the military and sometimes even in places of employment. While it often is simply good natured fun at someone's voluntary expense as the price of entry into some exclusive group demanding loyalty above all else, it can become deadly when it goes too far. Hazing is inherently abusive and meant to leave a psychological impact upon the people doing the hazing as well as those being indoctrinated, which usually at least portends to be about camaraderie. The underlying social statement, we might suppose, is that one had best learn to fear and obey one's betters if they are to get anywhere in the world. What I am proposing is that, most likely, ritual abuse within secret societies both first exhibits the same features as common hazing and then masquerades as being the same sort of event, the primary difference being the harm done to aspirants, initiates and/or other victims of the abuse.
One can imagine, for example, that religion would pose one of the greatest threats to such a society of child abusers. At any given time a conversion might mean that someone who knew about the abuse might turn against the abusers and expose them as a matter of conscience. At this point, retaining control over all of the abuse victims in the secret society takes on greater importance and requires extended measures, and about which more extreme forms of mind control become useful methods. Such ceremonial abuse would have the result not only of controlling the minds of victims, but also of perpetrators themselves who would have their fears put at ease by the extent to which the secret society could control their victims both mentally and physically, and also recalling into mind the abusers own victimization and redefining it as a good thing, while reinforcing all or most other aspects of their own previous mind control. It rather says that their previous victimization was all for their own good when all was said and done, and that this would typically be the same for some of their newer victims as part of their own sexual "hazing" which then diminishes the natural feelings of guilt within abusers. Imagine that if a child within such a society were ever to begin to inquire about religion they might be gang raped in the basement of a church in such a manner so that the child would have severe misgivings about anything religious for the rest of his life, and never be provoked to conscience by matters of religion. But it doesn't end there as one might suppose. Due to the despotic nature of secret societies with mass power and funding, this is all just entry level fare and family tradition. Some number of the psychosexual sociopaths who escape any sorts of containment will become psychopathological, and are bound by their extreme nature to dominate all of the rest in their secret organization.
Having been raised in an environment where conscience itself is essentially anathema to the family and extended social network, members are controlled simply by fear of their supposed "betters" who are considered so for being the more powerful as if might alone defined what is right. And the most powerful in these circumstances would also be the most dangerous. While greatly to be feared, they also retain some respect and admiration within the society because it will be they who will resort to anything and everything in order to protect themselves and the secret society. Those who are being indoctrinated into such leadership roles, just as in street gangs, must first distinguish themselves by drawing innocent blood. All of this, the conscience of religion being anathema, and the sharing in guilt and mutual blackmail could account for the many witness testimonies with regard to sacrificing babies on alters within churches. The problem with a great many investigations into ritual abuse is that they have mostly been conducted by religious people (God love them) who have approached the subject with a bias that such abuses and murders have occurred for religious rather than for more rational purposes, as if devil worship of the kind was proof of a devil and therefore proof of God's existence, and thus overlooking far more merely practical reasons that such rituals would be employed. That is, it is not necessarily because they believe in a devil that they sacrifice babies in churches, it's because they fear religion. Such an act not only ensures mutual guilt, it perfects the sort of mind control which makes one repulsed by religion itself; there is no more innocent a creature than a baby, there is no more anti-christian/anti-religious place in which to kill one. In short, the supposition is that this is the worst possible offense from which there is no return, for which there can never be forgiveness, whether or not one was ever to eventually be compelled by religious reasoning or belief.
Remember that mind control is based on mind science, but that it does not, because it cannot, depend on rational thought to control minds. That is a very important distinction, that there is a sort of scientific reasoning, a form of logic in what is the misbegotten science of mind control. In my years of research, however, I've found that the mind controllers themselves exhibit very abnormal psychological patterns and so are not precisely adept at exercising the knowledge scientifically. That is, they slip up here and there and reveal themselves because they simply do not think normally. From the early days of their youth, theirs has always been a world of mind control, a world where the irrational must be made to at least seem rational and therefore they are simply not well suited to rational thought. In recent years I have come to think that they are altogether incapable of it and must rely on others outside of their societies to form some rational boundaries to their whims. The information gleaned from such individuals or think tanks is then processed through their myriad psychosexual emotional filters to derive at something that most pleases them and best suits their needs or fits their hidden agenda. And their agenda is quite insane. They wish to become the master race who will achieve absolute domination over everyone and everything else. Which, one might consider to be the bizarre secret fantasy of every severely abused and sociopathic child, to live in a world where no one would ever abuse them again because they themselves had become the ultimate abuser. Therefore the inclusion of religious memes or paraphernalia is more about psychological manipulation than about anything believed. Here, while I do not completely dismiss the possibility of the existence of such groups as might believe in an actual devil, I note that since there is a purely practical and rational scientific purpose for ritual abuse to be embraced by practitioners that this is the most likely, if only the most common reason for it's practice. In summary, any reasonable person educated on the subject would not need to believe in a devil or in actual devil worshippers to understand how and why ritual abuse occurs.
