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.


No proof about Illuminati and other secret plz

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
However the term "Illuminati" can be taken one of two ways: Either as a reference to the historical Bavarian Illuminati specifically or as any one or more secret societies that you haven't been able to pinpoint the cause of any given conspiracy.

I think even conspiracy theorists blur the lines between the two that you mentioned. There are theories that the Bavarian Illuminati didn't really die out shortly after it was founded, and only grew in power and size. Silly stuff, since the Bavarian Illuminati was in fact a pathetic organization.

It's because of this that some people, who have some idea where to look, can uncover traces of their existance. ...This generally manifests itself in the fact that some facts are uncovered, but the bits-n-pieces are hard to put together into the whole picture.

But there are NO FACTS whatsoever! What bits and pieces have been found?!? As far as I've ever known, there has NEVER been ANY kind of solid evidence, or even a suggestion thereof, to demonstrate anything of the sort.

This is why an "Illuminati" group would have to stay small...The more people at the "top of the pyramid", the chance of being discovered increases geometrically. This is why there may only be a dozen (according to the studied structures of historical secret societies that have been discovered, 12 core members seems to be the optimum number) or so at most on top of the pyramid...This number greatly reduces the risk of "detractors & betrayers".

Right, but do you think an organization this small can have the kind of power that the Illuminati supposedly has? I don't think so. To avoid corruption, leaks and detractors, the organization , as well as the conspiracy, must remain as small and short-lived as possible.

So why not turn your own assumption back on you?...Prove to me that they don't exist.

Oh come on! Are you serious?!? Besides the OBVIOUS flawed logic in that demand, the burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the shoulders of the accuser! Despite that, you cannot make a claim and then assume it is true because there is no evidence to "un-prove" it! That's absurd! If something doesn't exist, there is no evidence to show it DOESN'T exist! That makes no sense whatsoever! Don't bring those troll tactics here.

News Flash! Everything is relevant & nothing that happens in society is done by accident.

Sounds a little paranoid, no?

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:45 AM

Originally posted by MidknightDstroyer

However the term "Illuminati" can be taken one of two ways: Either as a reference to the historical Bavarian Illuminati (founded by Adam Weishaupt, officially on May 1, 1776: The group started with the name "The Perfectibilists", but changed it later) specifically or as any one or more secret societies that you haven't been able to pinpoint the cause of any given conspiracy. Either a specific reference or a general reference.

That seems to have caused some confusion. I was under the impression that Illuminati referred to the latter unless otherwise specified to be the Bavarian Illuminati. From what I've read,the Bavarian Illuminati appears to have been a rather forgettable organization in relation to the Illuminati total.

All that is required for a powerful secret society to remain secret is influence or,in the Illuminati's case,outright control over generally recognized institutions of information(schools,newspapers,etc.) and populace-common media(television,movies,etc.).

True...But what is the single constant that allows subtle & not-so-subtle influence over all of these institutions & all others (including governments) as well?

Control of the money flow.

I agree. Money and nepotism primarily.

Actually, Cleopatra was not African...She was Greek & had not a single drop of Egyptian blood in her veins. She was the line of the Greek Ptolemic rulers of Egypt after Alexander the Great conquered the country.

She was an African princess. If you are speaking genetically,her full ancestry is not known and there is debate over it. But we do know that the Hollywood depictions of her being an ivory-skinned beauty are contradictory to the known evidence. The Greeks were said to be dark olive-skinned and that's not even taking into account Cleopatra likely being mixed on top of that. Accounts say she was unattractive visually. Masculine-looking with odd features. In the films,Cleopatra is depicted as English-looking and pretty. And this is what many believe her to have been because that is what they've seen in movies. How something is presented controls perceptions. And the power of a secret society to remain secret hinges in great deal on people being susceptible to presentation.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Loungerist]

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Loungerist
She was an African princess.

Nope, not African...Greek. After Alexander the Great conquered Egypt (He was actually welcomed as a liberator, not an invader, because Egypt was ruled by the Persian Empire at the time & the Greeks had been traditional allies), the country was then ruled by by one of Alexander's Generals...The first of the Ptolemy rulers. Cleopatra was the last of the Greek Ptolemys to rule Egypt. The Ptolemic line was thoroughly absorbed by Egyptian culture because that was how they mantained the peoples' support for Greek rule, but Cleopatra had not a single drop of Egyptian blood in her.

That particular Cleopatra was actually Cleopatra VII. When she took the Egyptian throne at age 18, she had married her brother, (Ptolemy XIII Philopater II). But within 3 years into their joint reign, Philopater tried to have Cleopatra killed, so she fled to Syria. At the time Cleopatra came back with an army to besiege her brother, Julius Caesar had just won the civil war with Pompei the Great (who happened to be in sanctuary with Philopater in Pelusium). Philopater betrayed Pomei to Julius Caesar. Philopater sought to use Caesar against Cleopatra, but the scheme backfired. By the winter of that year, Cleopatra was pregnant with Caesar's child (who would be named Caesarian).

Cleopatra's "influence" with Julius Caesar helped him in Rome, to eventually become King. When Julius Caesar was murdered ("Et tu, Brutus?"
), Cleopatra found that he had left nothing for her or their son through his will. However, her spies kept her informed about the new civil war that broke out in Rome and Mark Antony caught her eye. She went to meet him at his palace in Cilicia.

Mark Antony came back to Egypt with her while others fought for control in Rome. As Antony's wife (Fulvia) defied Octavian (her & Antony's lawful heir), she found herself driven out to Greece. Antony hurried to his wife's army, leaving Cleopatra pregnant. Eventually, Fulvia grew sick & died, so Antony went to offer peace to Octavian. To cement the agreement that divided the Roman Empire between them, Antony married Octavian's sister, Octavia.

Meanwhile, Cleopatra gave birth to Antony's twin children (the boy Alexander Helios & the girl Cleopatra Selene). As a few years passed, Cleopatra trained her first son, Octavian, to take his father's role as ruler of Egypt & Rome.

In 36 BC, Octavian wanted Mark Antony to campaign against Parthia, so Antony went to Cleopatra to try to get funding for his armies; He met her in Syria. When Antony asked for gold, Cleopatra demanded kingdoms & that he marry her...He promised both. When Antony's campaign turned against him (due to betrayals by Octavian & the Armenian King), Antony returned to Egypt. Cleopatra encouraged Antony to focus against Octavian, but Octavian had 4 years to mount a propaganda campaign against Antony & Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was trying to leave a legacy of ruling both Egypt & Rome for her son, Caesarian, as the true heir of Julius Caesar & Mark Antony now seemed to be her only hope for that to happen. But Octavian had siezed a southern port of Greece to launch a naval campaign, which turned into a disaster for Egypt. Cleopatra fled the battle & Antony abandoned his fleet to pursue her. In the end, Cleopatra & Antony were caught, both of her sons put to death & Egypt came under Roman rule by Octavian.

The history of Egypt is one of my personal hobbies, so I do know the difference between history & Hollywood. I've spent years reading about Egyptian history, religion, sciences & technologies...For example, it wasn't Khufu (known also by the Greek name Cheops), the builder of the Great Pyramid of Giza that first developed the techniques of pyramid-building; It was his father, Sneferu, who tried building at least three pyramids to develop the architectual techniques. It was Khufu who put that knowledge & experience to work for the Great Pyramid.

I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who finds it so easy to tell me what I do know or don't know...

[edit on 28-8-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who finds it so easy to tell me what I do know or don't know...

WATS for you, my friend, for producing a sentence which sums up many people's frustrations with ignorance on ATS. There's a lot of it about.

(The rest of the post was pretty good too BTW)

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
The Illuminati's best weapon it holds is..............Deception.

They need nothing more.


Approximate, truth mixed with deception, is far more efficent, and poisonious...

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in