I've responded to a similar question to this in the past:

You need to consider the historiographical issues this poses. Determining what any historical figure "personally" believed is difficult, especially for someone such as Göring who was a public figure, thus requiring separating official policy announcements from personal beliefs. Furthermore, Göring, unlike most of the other Nazi leaders, survived the war, meaning it was in his interests to disclaim personal anti-Semitism and try to dissociate himself from the worst excesses of the regime. It's notable that other prominent figures who survived the war, such as Speer, Dönitz, and Wolff, all argued that they themselves were not anti-Semitic. Taking those statements at face value would make no more sense than taking the hysterical propaganda some of them signed off on as true reflections of their beliefs. Himmler and Goebbels are seen as the most anti-Semitic of the Nazi leadership - but Himmler and Goebbels were never interviewed at Nuremberg. What an astonishing coincidence it is that all of the Nazis who were just happened to be the ones who weren't anti-Semitic anyway...

Göring oversaw the Aryanisation of the economy with much greater fervour than Schacht, in 1938 presided over the final restrictions that essentially banned Jews from civil society in Germany, and in 1941 tasked Heydrich with the Final Solution. He also issued numerous anti-Semitic statements, attended Hitler's private dinners filled with anti-Semitic rhetoric, and had direct operational responsibility over anti-Semitic acts, such as using his police powers to order non-interference with anti-Semitic violence. If he was not "personally" anti-Semitic, then, he was at the very least sufficiently apathetic that he was content to allow atrocities in his name. Furthermore, some of his alleged softening acts don't stand up to much scrutiny. It's true he was disgusted with Kristallnacht, but his concern seems to have been damage to the German economy, not the welfare of the Jews; he did keep on Erhard Milch as a deputy, but even Hitler protected some "Jews", such as Emil Maurice.

Nonetheless, it is fair to separate his views from those of, for example, Himmler, who was possibly the most ideologically committed anti-Semite of the Nazi elite. A nuanced treatment of this is found in Karl Schleunes's The Twisted Road to Auschwitz, which is an important work in the functionalist interpretation of the Nazi regime. In it, Schleunes makes clear that there was not one monolithic "anti-Semitism" among the Nazis; rather, it was a convergence of different prejudices. Some were fiercely anti-communist and their anti-Semitism arose from the construction of "Jewish-Bolshevism"; some had almost the opposite views and were opposed to "international finance", the idea that Jewish bankers such as the Rothschilds held undue influence; some were motivated by pseudoscientific racial theory. Schleunes argues that Hitler used a divide and rule strategy to ensure that these disparate beliefs all worked to his common goal (some historians since have credited Hitler with less overall control and recognised the Nazi state as even more dysfunctional). Willi Frischauer, in his recent biography of Göring, says that he was simply a "realist".

As for personal financial gain, yes, he certainly did profit immensely from expropriation of Jewish property and the corruption of the Aryanisation process during the Four Year Plan.

To add on to this more specifically in response to your question, Göring didn't solely get high positions through sycophancy. He was something of a celebrity; a war hero fighter pilot; and then a romantic fugitive, shot in the course of the failed Beer Hall Putsch. He was also well connected, both among the upper class - through his wife, Carin - whom Hitler and other street Nazis had trouble feting, and in political circles in Bavaria. In Longerich's biography of Himmler (which I've read since posting the above answer), he mentions how many figures in the upper ranks of the Bavarian Nazi Party owed some kind of personal or political fealty to Göring, and how Himmler, who lacked Göring's war-time credentials and failed to take any significant role in the Beer Hall Putsch, had to rely more on political favors than on force of his own personality, by contrast with Göring.

There is probably not a definitive answer to your question. Göring was not just an opportunist, but the extent to which he was an "actual Nazi", given Nazism had a shifting set of values and priorities during the two decades in which he was involved in the movement, would have been known only to him.