It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former president's of the U.S. on the invisible government...

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul




Personally I find it shocking Washington even mentioned the word "Illuminati" perhaps it wasn't so taboo in those days
In those days there actually was an Illuminati.

The Illuminati (plural of Latin illuminatus, "enlightened") is a name given to several groups, both real and fictitious. Historically, the name usually refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776. The society's goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power. "The order of the day," they wrote in their general statutes, "is to put an end to the machinations of the purveyors of injustice, to control them without dominating them."[1

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

By definition wouldn't Washington have wanted to have an alliance with them since they were technically fighting similar abuses of power?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

As far as I am aware the very word Illuminati means illumined and infers enlightenment. But why would Washington relate them to the Jacobite's and mention "their diabolical tenets"?
Perhaps the conspiracy's and secret society's of those times were just as murky and obfuscated as they are today, perhaps the king makers like it that way?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Evidently you could learn a lot more from

greatly more research and reading.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Soooooooooooo,

would you PLEASE be willing to share a somewhat detailed summary of your personal beliefs about such secret society/illuminati groups?

1. Do you believe they exist in our era and have long existed in our country and Europe?

2. Do you believe they operate secretly and in behalf of arrogant, authoritarian, tyrannical goals?

3. Do you believe that they are as near 'all powerful' as they are characterized as being?

4. Do you believe they have long been working toward a one world government and religion and are evidently quite close to achieving it overtly on the world stage?

And if not--what do you believe, instead about those points . . . and to what degree?

I value your opinion. . . . as in . . . OPINION. Not the computer dump from Phage's sterile hard drive.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

As far as I am aware the very word Illuminati means illumined and infers enlightenment.
Yes. As explained in the link.



But why would Washington relate them to the Jacobite's and mention "their diabolical tenets"?
Apparently Washington's letter part of series correspondence about a book by John Robison.

I send you the “Proof of a Conspiracy &c.” which, I doubt not, will give you Satisfaction and afford you Matter for a Train of Ideas, that may operate to our national Felicity. If, however, you have already perused the Book, it will not, I trust, be disagreeable to you that I have presumed to address you with this Letter and the Book accompanying it. It proceeded from the Sincerity of my Heart and my ardent Wishes for the common Good.
Sounds a bit like someone on ATS posting a youtube video and saying "Watch this!" It's not clear if Washington actually even read the book he was given.

Washington did not reply right away as Snyder bugged him about it. Washington finally got around to dashing off a reply and his statement was in the context of a comment about that book (or the comments of Snyder about it):

“The idea I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or the pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, and that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects—and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.

My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect—I remain Revd Sir Your Most Obedt Hble Ser. Go: Washington

founders.archives.gov...

It seems that Snyder was fully into the conspiracy theory and Washington, in order to get him to go away, tossed him a bone. Saying, in effect, "Yeah, those Illuminati are bad but don't worry, they have not infiltrated Freemasonry in America."


edit on 6/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN




I value your opinion. . . . as in . . . OPINION. Not the computer dump from Phage's sterile hard drive.


Oh, I totally agree.

Unless of course someone doesn't have any opinions, which would be odd.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The Saudi's secretly run the US.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN
1) Don't know.
2) No.
3) No.
4) No.



And if not--what do you believe, instead about those points
I do not believe those points are factual.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:

IF 100% of what was KNOWABLE--say by someone of your resources, brains, access to information etc. was the top limit of what you could know about such individuals/groups . . . how much have you researched the topic? or to put it another way--how much of that 100% would you feel confident saying you know?


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BO XIAN
1) Don't know.
2) No.
3) No.
4) No.



And if not--what do you believe, instead about those points
I do not believe those points are factual.




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN
Are you asking me what the known unknowns are? Or the unknown unknowns?

You asked, I gave you my opinion.

edit on 6/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BO XIAN
Are you asking me what the known unknowns are? Or the unknown unknowns?

You asked, I gave you my opinion.


Which I much appreciated . . . though you were your usual . . . conciseness. LOL.

I'm asking you to GUESS . . . as much as it might trigger an impulse to retch . . .

I'm asking you to guess how much of that body of information you likely are aware of.

So, I'm asking you to guess

--the relative size of that body of information

and

--your known portion of that.

Or, I suppose you could cast it a bit differently--you could just guess your likely percentage of whatever the size of the body of data is.

I realize it's a rather . . . stretching thing to ask of the esteemed Phage. But there IS

SOME

fun in that aspect, too.

Maybe my assumptions are greatly flawed in the matter.

But I DO ASSUME that you are well read ENOUGH to be ABLE to make such guesses. And, that your guess about yourself would likely be better than my guess about you on such scores.

As to myself . . . Let's assume that the printed evidence on such scores that might be retrievable by a researcher of say 80-90% maximum brightness AND research skills AND access

Let's assume that THAT printed body of evidence would be 500,000 pages. It's probably more than that but that's a reasonable figure for argument's sake. And, a LOT of those pages would be fairly redundant or mostly redundant in terms of talking about the same things etc.

Of that 500,000 pages, I'd guess that I've read . . . hmmm . . . as in read 80-100% of each page in the "read" category--that I've read say 3-7,000 pages.

And, I'd guesstimate that I've read 80-95% of reasonably accurate summaries by quality scholars of another 10,000-20,000 pages. That is I've read the scholars' summaries of another 15,000-25,000 pages.

And, I'd guesstimate that I've read references to and mentions to another 20,000 to 30,000 pages.

Now, certainly . . . those are bald faced guesses. But they are not wild-haired irrational guesses. They are based on studying the topic since 1965.

And they are based on my being Acting Director of the University Special Collections Library that housed many hundreds of volumes and boxes of such materials--for four years. I was responsible for sorting, preparing for patron use; retrieving for patron use; answering patron questions about such etc. for 4 years.

So, the guesses are not exactly ignorance based on ignorance. They are somewhat informed guesses.

So, how about you making some stab at similar guesses?


edit on 19/6/2016 by BO XIAN because: added



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN
I will bow to your obviously vast and impressive credentials.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BO XIAN
I will bow to your obviously vast and impressive credentials.



But that's no fun!



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Yeah.
Snyder probably thought the same thing.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

. . .
BEGIN EX QUOTE
That Individuals of them may have done it, and that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects—and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
END EX QUOTE

founders.archives.gov...


Sooooooooooooo Esteemed Intellectual that you truly are . . . what do YOU make of the above quoted sentences? How do you interpret them?

edit on 19/6/2016 by BO XIAN because: TAGS



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion



Could that be the black squadrons I personally witnessed while in the Navy???

So they have military units that are black? with Identity to ID them hunch the black squadrons? Then these are the same the people behind the mass child rape and kidnappings.
edit on 19-6-2016 by Raven95 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Sooooooooooooo Esteemed Intellectual that you truly are
Want me to tell you where you can put that?
 



First, some context. Not for you of course, but for others who may not have your background.

The Democratic Societies Washington was talking about were sort of the forerunners to modern political parties, except there were a lot more of them. Broadly, they were strongly in favor of "equal rights of Man" and limited government power. Cool. Right? Not so much, thought George.

In his 1796 farewell address, Washington doubled down on his rejection of the Democratic-Republican Societies. He declared that, “The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” He warned that popular associations would interfere with the electoral process.
www.mountvernon.org...

So what do I think? I think that George was talking about how, while not having "invaded" Freemasonry, some of those illuminati and Jacobite tenets could be found in the rather extreme "states rights" positions taken by the Societies. Rather than world domination, they just wanted to see the power of the fed cut to a level that Washington was not comfortable with. He was talking about groups of people wanting to separate from the Government, meaning the Federal Government.

edit on 6/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That's certainly quite plausible. You likely are far more expert on George and such matters than I am.

Certainly Federalism vs States rights were contentious from the beginning.

I do think that George's comments do illustrate that such forces WERE ACTIVE at the beginning.

And, certainly some experts have traced them back 400 years; some to Rome and some to Babylon.

= = = =

If my honest affections for some of your traits and aspects of your personality annoy you, I can reign them in--at least somewhat.

I really do enjoy you.

And I enjoy having fun with you.

And all my positive comments about you are quite sincere.

Cheers.







 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join