It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is this history the real history of the illuminati???

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:11 PM

Originally posted by akilles
So a good dictator wouldn't do "silly, childish stuff like invading other countries in a search for make-believe weapons of mass destruction"?

No one is who is truly good would do such a thing. For war to be just, it would have to be of absolute necessity.

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Echtelion
Masonic, I'd really enjoy to pursue a debate with you on the legitimacy of the actual US government and how tens of millions of votes have been lost into a fraudulent eVoting system

I would welcome the debate. I myself voted for Sen. Kerry in November, but only as the lesser of two idiots. I believe that, had Kerry been elected, the next four years would go somewhat smoother than under Bush, but still with a chaotic mess. In the end, I continue to maintain that all corruption in the state is merely a symptom of corruption in the soul, and until we correct the latter, correcting the former can be nothing but idealistic fantasy.

To be short, my critical views of Plato are largely inspired by Nietszche's and Marx's respective critics of Plato's philosophy.

I highly respect both of those philosophers; and both of them were, in their own way, semi-Platonists. Marx's ideas of sharing property in common were largely drawn from the Republic; both Plato and Marx argued that this would assist in constituting the truly just society. Lenin went even further, adopting Plato's idea of a totalitarian ruling class, namely, the Communist Party. Unfortunately, the Politburo did not consist of members of the most outstanding virtue and wisdom, which was the fundamental requirement of Plato.

As for Nietzsche, he recognized that the masses were unfit to make important decisions, and that public opinion was as worthless as manure. His ubermensch seems to parallel Plato's Guardians. They are morally and intellectually superior to the herd, and are "the meaning of the Earth" (Thus Spake Zarathustra, Preface). According to Nietzsche, only the ubermensch are fit to rule. His critiques of Plato's attacks on the arts were quite vicious, but he nevertheless was a very strong intellectual elitist, after the manner of the Platonists.

I know that freemasonry is largely influenced into its values, dogmas and views on society by Plato's Republic, and this influence can easily be seen into "Morals and Dogma" by Albert Pike,

I wouldn't go as far to say that Freemasonry itself is largely influenced by Plato. Masonry appears to be much more influenced by Locke, Newton, and classical liberalism. But I will certainly agree with you that Pike and his books are strongly influenced by Plato, and that philosopher is quoted over two hundred times in "Morals and Dogma".

and this may be the reason why our education system here has so much given emphasis on Plato rather than other prolific philosophers that have brought immense contributions to morals and political ethics such as Aristote, Epicurus, Zarathustra, Marx or Prudhon, as many high-raking Masons are involved into high positions within the government so the rest of the population, especially in the case of education, have to endure their views on how the public should be properly educated on a moral level. Plato's ideology is an ideology of conformism and oligarchy, not of liberation and living in society in respect to other's weaknesses or differences.

To answer your first question, Plato has been the starting point of western philosophy for well over two thousand years, long before there were any Freemasons. It certainly isn't surprising therefore to see so much emphasis on him in even modern education. Western Scholars, both Christian and Pagan, have always used his work to begin philosophical inquiry, from Aquinas to Hobbes to Hume to Voltaire. Your mention of Aristotle is here key because he also taught the works of Plato in depth at the Lyceum.

But Plato is not taught to the disadvantage of others. Indeed, when I took my first Ethics class, the only Platonic work we studied was the Euthyphro. The rest of the class was devoted to Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. And Marx is usually studied alongside Plato in introductory philosophy classes.

Plato's ideology is an ideology of conformism and oligarchy, not of liberation and living in society in respect to other's weaknesses or differences.

What Plato is seeking in the Republic is the nature of Justice, regardless where it leads. If it leads to anarchy, so be it. If it leads to democracy, so be it. If it leads to anything else, so be it.

What is important in philosophy is that we do not shield our eyes through prejudice; we must confront a problem logically and honestly, and see where it takes us. In our society, we are conditioned to believe that democracy and non-conformism is the best life; it is therefore not surprising that you take this view. We all do from time to time.

But just because we've been socialized and culturized to believe this way doesn't by itself mean that such beliefs are correct. And I see this as one of Plato's most important points. It could very well be that everything we believe and do is entirely wrong, and it seems that it is our duty to inquire about this. As you yourself mentioned, Plato is the god of university philosophy, and has been for a long time. But, interesstingly, his political science has never been tested. Practically all others have, however, and each have turned decadent.

My question is, therefore, what if Plato was right, and everyones just ignoring him. I'm not saying that he is right, but am only exploring the possibility. Is the manner in which we live now truly just and good, or are we in fact rebelling against our nature, and thus, against our Souls? And if this is so, should we be angry or surprised at the outcome?

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 02:00 AM
the original illuminati was founded in bavaria on may day 1776 as a club of free thinkers ( and arguably of evolutionary anarchists) the original order is now extinct. foundded in 1776 by adam weishaupt, professer of canon law at ingolstadt in bavaria, is the best known group of "illuminati" they had however, a heavy mystical overlay. the lowest of their three classes included "novices","minervals", and "lesser illuminati" the second included "freemasons","ordinaries", and "scottish knights" and the third included "priest" "regent" "magus" and "king" their link with freemasonry is hazy. the clandestine nature of the meeting of both organizations made them good places to discuss dangerous ideas--ideas that would attract unwelcome attention from the established government and established church if they were aired to publicly.. it was the fear of new ideas, let alone new ideas discussed in secret that led the bavarian government to suppress both the illuminati and the freemasons in 1785. much is published about the illuminati but little is actually is known about them..
i got more info to post later

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:32 AM
Actually, you have more disinfo.

The important thing is not when the name Illuminati became public, or even when it officially ended.

What matters are the teachings, the essence, the root of the teachings, and this did not die with the official end of the Illuminati.

Here's a good question, if the Illuminati had control of the world what would they do with it? What would they be trying to keep from happening?
Are they merely self-interested, and wish to maintain their power, or is there something more to be gained???

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in