Link between Illuminati & Knights Templar

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenmansmind
What keeps coming to me is what "secret" the Templars held so precious and were so persecuted for.


The Templars were persecuted because of greed. It's as simple as that. It was a very wealthy organisation and had power over land and people that the politicians (kings) of the time, envied and coveted.

They were destroyed so that financial debts could be absolved and their assets could be seized. One word describes the cause of their downfall - money. It had become such a wealthy organisation it was only a matter of time before those who controlled the masses turned against it.

The conspiracy surrounding some long forgotten secret knowledge has evolved from the lies concocted by those who destroyed the Order. They created a propaganda accusing the Templars as heretical merely so that the masses would agree to having the Order destroyed without questioning the financial motives. If the people had realised that the kings were only after the Templar's money, they would never have gone along with the plan.
It's a ploy that has been tried, tested and perfected over history before and since. The Church used it against so-called witches. Adolf Hitler used the same method to destroy the Jews. Pol Pot copied it to destroy the intelligensia whom he deemed threatened his plan. The Chinese used it in the Cultural Revolution. Middle East governments use it to control their people and keep the mullahs, emirs and sultans in power. Western governments use it to control their people and keep them docile. They have all created a mindset in the masses that casted or casts a conspiracy on the deemed enemy - they send out a basic propaganda at the masses.

Aim that propaganda at the masses and they will swallow anything if the message is powerful and simple enough. What you are suffering from is an echo of propaganda passed down through history and it's very hard to shake it out of the system. It was powerful enough to control whole nations, whole religions and whole societies. It takes centuries to dissipate. The only way to dispel it is through knowledge of how it works.
Take a look at Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" and you can see how it is employed in it's various guises. It's no coincidence that the "white nationalists" of today seem to be of low intelligence - they still swallow propaganda aimed at the masses over 50 years ago!!! They may be able to recite that propaganda word for word, and they may even be able to adapt it for usage today, but they can never add to it. It therefore stagnates and they have to rely on the emotion of hatred to reinforce it.

www.hitler.org...

Hitler stated that propaganda can be aimed at the masses but not at the intelligensia and should never be aimed at both. If there is propaganda aimed at the masses on a subject, realise that it is probably not the whole story or even the truth. It can't be as the masses are deemed unable to understand the complexities of what is going on, or if the plan is insidious, they can't be allowed to find out it's true motives. The propaganda has to be short and simple and, because of this restriction the whole story can never be told at once. The intelligensia will realise what is occuring though. They are free from that propaganda. They aren't subjected to the brainwashing as it isn't aimed at them. They are free to look behind the propaganda at the true story. Sometimes they will make mistakes in defining that story and that is how conspiracy theories begin - they theorise when they should be actualizing. Recognise propaganda for what it is and you are halfway to getting the answer for anything which involves politics. Consequently, try to actualize and you might get the truth.

One recent example of this concept at work is to be found in the reasoning given for and against the war in Iraq. If you take a look at both sides you can see that they both put out propaganda for the masses. One side used WMD as the reason to attack and the other used the greed for wealth (ie Oil) as the opposing argument. Both are simple propagandas that hit home hard and were swallowed by the masses and both have been shown to be false reasons for and against the invasion - no WMDs were found and no wealth has been generated from oil. Those who were intelligent enough to realise that this was mass aimed propaganda are now looking for other reasons. These people are the intelligensia of today although some of them can't shake all of the propaganda surrounding the issue and therefore become conspiracy theorists.

The Knights Templars are victims of this theorising. People are more well informed nowadays and subconciously realise that the propaganda aimed at the Order was false. The problem is that sometimes the theorist has a hard time letting go of that propaganda. He's normally more educated and more informed than the original recipient of that propaganda, but it still creates a confusion in his mind. To add to this confusion, the propaganda hasn't been updated in centuries so it's message has become garbled. In the case of the KT, the theorist realises that they probably weren't heretics (he has more information at his disposal and less of a restricting propaganda) so he looks for other reasons behind their demise. But because he is theorising and because there is a seed of the old propaganda left in his mind, he cannot actualize. When studying subjects that were victims of propaganda you have to recognise that propaganda exists in the first place and then look for what truth it was trying to hide.

In the case of the Knights Templar the truth behind their destruction was nothing more than the greed of a king. It's just hidden behind centuries old propaganda.




[edit on 9-2-2005 by Leveller]




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenmansmind
What keeps coming to me is what "secret" the Templars held so precious and were so persecuted for.

They were a military order with great power that had served it purpose. The nazis destroyed the SA, after using them to come to power. King Saud destroyed the Ikwhan warrior tribe, after using them to come to power. The vatican created the templars for a purpose, they grew strong, the prupose ended, therefore the vatican had to destroy the templars to preseve its power. What secret is necessary?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
[therefore the vatican had to destroy the templars to preseve its power.


I agree with that statement to an extent. But the Vatican was not the main player in the destruction of the KT - the king of France was. Philip le Bel had the Vatican in his pocket. Popes and clergy men were installed by the kings and noblemen of the time and it was they who dictated church policy at that time and not the Vatican. The Vatican merely went along with the ride because it had no choice. At the time of the KT, it certainly wasn't the powerful force that it later came to be. It was an employee rather than a boss.
It benefited because the boss benefited. With Philip financially secure, the Vatican was guaranteed a stability - those who he had placed in power could stay in power. Like any business, if the boss had gone under financially, the employee would have been out of work.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
You are all correct on your own level of thinking.

However, when the Knights Templar were abandoned who here can say that power actually changed hands?

I think the public had become aware that the Knights weren't quite as holy as claimed, and so the people controlling them set up an elaborate downfall for them, while their money stayed in the hands of the elite.

Everything to do with their downfall is symbolic, including how they were tortured, and confessed to entirely different things, rendering the confessions more confusing than if there had been none.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
excuse me but everyone seems thick...i dont mean to put anyone down..your stories are all great..
thou why do we all live in the past.
the power is in the now
there is much more to the picture than the stories



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
So it looks like a tiny connection might have existed between some possible templars and some probable operative freemasons.

however, the freemasons are not the illuminati, and the illuminati are not the freemasons.

Where are the connections, directly, between the Templars and the Illuminati?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Where are the connections, directly, between the Templars and the Illuminati?


Heh. The connection could be nothing more than propaganda again.
A lot of the conspiracy theory regarding the Illuminati is based on a book published in 1797 - "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison. The book is an attempt to discredit the French Establishment by tieing them into a major conspiracy. Robison theorised that the Illuminati had stemmed from the KT had pervaded French society and were intent on world domination. The reason behind this was that Robison was an ardent monarchist. He saw the idea of Republicanism as being adverse to his own beliefs.

As England was at war with France at the time, the masses picked up the story and ran with it. It certainly served England's interests to have the story accredited by it's people and the authorities did nothing to suppress it - England had just been through a civil war over their monarchy and religion and was now at war with Republican France. Fear of a French Illuminati based on a Catholic Order was just the right thing to scare England's masses into blindly following their government.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I think the question is, How does Hidden Power relate to the Knights Templar.

They were certainly involved in ownership of land, making loans, charging interest, the question is only how well they were able to throw their weight around, and who benefitted from this in the future.

I'd say the elite benefitted from the existence of the Knights, and I'd say there is a small group of people who benefit more from Freemasonry than others, and unfortunately I must say Masonry only serves as another device that makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Sure, they give to charities, why don't they open up the lodge for some homeless people to sleep in? Initiate them, if you want them to be 'clean'.

This is the question I pose to skeptics: Are you getting the picture, or are you getting 'framed'?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
and I'd say there is a small group of people who benefit more from Freemasonry than others, and unfortunately I must say Masonry only serves as another device that makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Sure, they give to charities, why don't they open up the lodge for some homeless people to sleep in? Initiate them, if you want them to be 'clean'.


What a complete load of crap. Freemasonry costs it's members money. The only way a Freemason makes money is by working hard - just the same as anyone else. Yet again you've made another vaccuous, ignorant statement without offering a single piece of evidence. Any Freemason found making money from Freemasonry is liable to be expelled from the Order.

Yet again, I challenge you. Supply proof that Freemasons gain financially from their Order.

As for the homeless? In my country Freemasonry doesn't need to open up it's Lodges to homeless people. You wanna know why? Because we pay for hostels for them. We pay for and supply them with a home. What do you do? How much have you given? When was the last time you helped anyone?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Who's keeping track of personal attacks?
Me: 0
Masons: Can't tell for sure, because some people without balls suggest ignoring me instead of calling me by name.

Your Brothers have said themselves (much like you) that when hiring, if an applicant is equally qualified, and is a Mason, you would 'prefer' to choose him, and then go on to say that Masonry does not benefit its members financially, in one breath no less.

I don't need proof beyond that, nor will I offer it.

How dare you suggest I don't give what I can to those in need? Seriously, look at your character. That was a cheapshot, that I won't return.

Here's a nice connection, the Eliphas Levi depiction of Baphomet, and the George Washington monument... I'm pretty sure George never wore that toga IN PUBLIC. Put that in your Google, and smoke it.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles


I don't need proof beyond that, nor will I offer it.

How dare you suggest I don't give what I can to those in need? Seriously, look at your character. That was a cheapshot, that I won't return.


Well however much you protest you will find that you not only returned it, you instigated it.
I do suggest that you are of dubious character. I do suggest that you are a liar. How about you put that in your pipe and smoke it?

You're right. You don't need proof. Your theories can't stand up on the basis of proof. You, my friend are just a silly little boy who thinks he knows everything. The problem is that when you attack others you show that you know nothing. You are easy pickings. Not one of your arguments has stood up. Try trolling somewhere else as you are now starting to bore me.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Who's keeping track of personal attacks?
Me: 0
Masons: Can't tell for sure, because some people without balls suggest ignoring me instead of calling me by name.


Wow, really?


Originally posted by akilles
You know, you're a real ******* for choosing the angle of 42.5 degrees.


I'll give you it's kind of a toss up, because someone didn't have the "balls" to actually type out the name they were calling me, but I'm going to go with "asshole" given the number of asterisks and all.


Get off your damned high horse dude, you're wrong. Period. If you could show some proof, well then that would be different, now wouldn't it.

I won't be holding my breath.




[edit on 2/9/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
There's 6 letters in bastard. Sorry to leave you wondering.

It only applies to people attempting to hoodwink the profane, so don't lose TOO much sleep.

Show the lack of connection between Eliphas Levi, George Washington's statue, Baphomet, and Freemasonry. And stop telling ME to do research, I don't ever stop.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
There's 6 letters in bastard. Sorry to leave you wondering.


Oh so I'm a bastard! The suspense was killing me!



It only applies to people attempting to hoodwink the profane, so don't lose TOO much sleep.


Oh I won't but I like how you tried to weasel out of that being directed specifically at me, Mr. "No Personal Attacks"



Show the lack of connection between Eliphas Levi, George Washington's statue, Baphomet, and Freemasonry. And stop telling ME to do research, I don't ever stop.


From what I have seen you haven't even started any real research. Where's your facts Sherlock? Leveller has called you out more times than I can count and you're still pussyfootin' around it... I wonder why?


Eliphas Levi

George Washington's statue

Baphomet

Freemasonry


I might be a bastard, but at least I know a troll when I see one. Happy reading!



[edit on 2/9/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
What do you want me to do with those links, btw?

I already 'gnow' the topics covered.

Maybe the Children of Light are due for a nap?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
What do you want me to do with those links, btw?

I already 'gnow' the topics covered.

Maybe the Children of Light are due for a nap?


Maybe you have nothing useful or productive to say in response to said links, therefore the need to be childish and stupid?

I think you need to wake up from your nap, pal. Earth to akilles, come in akilles...

Now where's stalkingwolf with your portrait?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Well, hows this for childish...

The Washington sculpture you have listed is one that shows Washington in full-dress, as one would expect.

I was talking about the Greenough Washington. Search Google images, its the only thing that comes up.

So now that you know the sculpture I am talking about, please don't just post another link, and leave me assuming they conclude that there was no connection between said topics. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
see with new eyes
lift up your hearts
move beyond the five lower senses
look with in
be good



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
So now that you know the sculpture I am talking about, please don't just post another link, and leave me assuming they conclude that there was no connection between said topics. Thank you.


OK I'll play.

You're talking about this sculpture:






Fair enough. Now a pic of the drawing of Baphomet by Eliphas Levi:



Now I can see that in both of these pictures, the subject is pointing up with the right hand, and (arguably in the case of Washington, it looks to me as if he's offering his sword) down with the left. There the similarities cease, unless of course you consider the bare chest.

So what? What's your great point, now that I've done the work for you? Enlighten us, give us some commentary on how these two pieces are so inextricably intertwined as to spell out the insidious connections you have alleged. I'm breathless with anticipation...

Here are the Connections: Eliphas Levi drew the picture of Baphomet. George Washington was a Freemason. All four elements of your argument connected and laid out for you. I still don't see your point, but hey what do I know, I'm just a bastard who needs a nap.

*bell rings* Class dismissed.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
I'm pretty sure George never wore that toga IN PUBLIC.

The washington monument is an obelisk.

But I am sure you are thinking of soem statue of GW with a toga on. So are you saying that he was infact a cultist and wore a toga? He's supposed to have been a mason, but they wear aprons.

THe founders were very big on imitating the romans and classical civilization. Washington was hailed as 'the american cinncinatus', for example. And the government has a Senate and popular assembly, like rome. The fasces adore many monuments and are in the congressional chamber (senate chamber no?). I've even read that the Founders originally intended to make the executive branch, rather than a presidency, a Consul, dual consuls nonetheless!

So a toga can't tell you anything. Sure, it would support, say, that GW was part of a roman mystery cult, or anything that could involve togas. But thats the problem, it could be anything. What about that particular depiction of him in a toga indicates that its not just a sort of 'neo-classicism' style in art?

And, again, are you saying that there aren't any connections between the KT and Illuminati? OR at least that the 'Illuminati' is just an arbitrary name thats generally accepted to mean 'the dark conspiracy'?

And what links between them can you establish then, other than to surmise that some templars might've survived their destruction, and that they might've kept some hoards of wealth, and that they might've used that wealth somewhere at some time?

Aslo, and I forget at this point who exactly brought it up, but the 'Invisible Hand' of economics is not a secret society, its just a term Adam Smith made up (or at least had been taught to use, don't know the history of usage there) for his book on economics, its not even an actual thing. Thats what you are refereing to when you say 'hidden hand' of economics no?


Show the lack of connection between Eliphas Levi, George Washington's statue

You have not established a connection between them. How, indeed, can someone show a lack of connection anyway?


Excellent, i found the statue




You are kidding right? SO because its in a roughly similar pose to levi's baphomet, that means that levi's group was the one that commissioned or designed it? When are you saying that they did this? Why was 'Horatio Greenough' involved in levi's group in 1840?

Notice, baphomet is not wearing a toga. Its hand is in a different pose, even the raised arm is held at a completely different angle. The legs are crossed and both hands are empty. Also, the symmetry between the upper left corner and lower right corner of the baphomet drawing is an integral part of it 'as above so below' or some such, that symmetry and the other symbols are not incorporated into teh washington statue.

Geo W is wearing a toga, is sitting normally, his raised arm is much more pointed upwards and his hand is in a different position, both typical of classical roman statuary, [not that of baphomet. And in his other hand he holds a fasces, the roman symbol of the state. This is clearly a depiction of washington as cinncinatus, handing back the Fasces, the power of the state, to return to his farmstead as a private citizen.

Here is a statue of augustus in a classical pose


here is a statue of cinncinatus, handing back the fasces (a modern statue tho)





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join