Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

History of Conspiracy Theory 101

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Please forgive the long quotes; I felt it was necessary to make my point.


This started innocently enough as a debunking of a hoaxed Albert Pike quote (the one about the Three World Wars), but turned into much more as I started digging. It is posted in the Seret Societies forum in another thread, however, I thought it might be interesting to get the opinions and comments of those who may not frequent that particular forum much...

So here we go!

Regarding the "Illuminati runs the world and is working toward establishing a New World Order" conspiracy:

It looks as though it all started with a certain Nesta H. Webster. She wrote three books of consequence: World Revolution; The Plot against Civilisation, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements and finally The Surrender of an Empire; Plus an autobiography entitled Spacious Days.

She made many claims that, when examined, don’t hold up well to scrutiny, much like today’s conspiracy theorists (which isn’t surprising, as most conspiracy theory today was directly or indirectly influenced by her work).


from: www.cooperativeindividualism.org...

The central tenets of contemporary conspiracy theory owe much to the British author Nesta H. Webster's World Revolution; The Plot Against Civilization (1921), a book that testifies powerfully to the endemic flaws of conspiracy notions.[1] World Revolution describes minute similarities (differences receive little or no mention) found in a variety of secret societies and intellectual movements between the late 18th century and the early 20th century. These, it says, are "proof" that the source of revolutionary upheaval in the modern world "is not local but universal, it is not political but social, and its causes must be sought not in popular discontent, but in a deep-laid conspiracy" (emphasis added). Accordingly, parallels between the rituals, methods, and symbolism of various societies, and the teachings of individuals as various as Rousseau, Robespierre, Owen, Fourier, Marx, Bakunin, and Louis Blanc are interpreted as evidence of an "occult force, terrible, unchanging, relentless, and wholly destructive, which constitutes the greatest menace that has ever confronted the human race."

According to Mrs. Webster, one man started it all: Adam Weishaupt, a renegade Jesuit priest and professor of canon law who founded the Order of illuminati of Bavaria on May 1, 1776. By this account, Weishaupt was the principal architect of internationalism as it became manifest in the 20th century. World Revolution terms him the mastermind of the "terrible and formidable sect" that launched "the gigantic plan of World Revolution" and so earned him a place on the dark side of history as "the profoundest conspirator that has ever existed. " At least some mention of Adam Weishaupt or the Illuminati is found in virtually all contemporary conspiracy literature.


So here we have an author of the 1920’s, attributing the whole of the Illuminati conspiracy to one man. Weishaupt, of course; labeling him as "the profoundest conspirator that has ever existed." Coincidence? I think not... The article continues:



To attempt to refute the Webster account of global conspiracy by pointing out every historical fallacy of the work would be an enormous waste of time. It would be so not because there are no factual errors but because she does not offer support, by references to verifiable "facts," for the crucial aspect of her thesis -- that the key people involved conspired to achieve a common purpose. That critical notion is an inference she makes from the evidence presented, but it is not the only plausible inference. Indeed, other inferences seem more plausible.

Thus, to attempt to refute Mrs. Webster's conspiracy thesis and those of other conspiracy theorists -- one must contend with facts not presented more than with those offered. And to prove a negative -- that is, that there is no conspiracy -- is virtually impossible. That, however, in no way suggests Mrs. Webster's thesis is accurate. Her method is fundamentally flawed; it permits neither verification nor refutation. Consequently, "believers" can accept the conspiracy theory and "nonbelievers" can reject it.


There you have it: the beginnings of the “Illuminati conspiracy,” still shabbily researched and presented; still un-provable and speculative. Is it any wonder modern conspiracy theorists don’t have a leg to stand on?

Then we come to this book: Pawns of the Game by William Guy Carr. It appears that William Carr took the ideas of our Ms. Webster and ran with them; compounding lousy source upon lousy source, going by the already debunked Ms. Webster’s “information” as well as the Taxil Hoax... Well you can see already that his guy just reeks of credibility, right?


"But Axe, www.biblebelievers.org just loves him..."



from: freemasonry.bcy.ca...

...Carr erroneously depicts the USA seal as an insignia of the Illuminati and describes the "all spying eye" without citing any source or documentation. In a later footnote he again claims: "the Great Seal of america is actually the insignia of the illuminati." [p. 53 footnote]

"The significance of the design is as follows: the pyramid represents the conspiracy for destruction of the Catholic (Universal Christian) Church and the establishment of a "One Uorld", [sic] or UN dictatorship, the secret" of the Order; the eye radiating in all directions, is the "all-spying eye" that symbolizes the terroristic, Gestapo-like, espionage agency that Weishaupt set up under the name of "Insinuating Brethren", to guard the "secret" of the Order and to terrorize the population into acceptance of its rule." [p. xiii]

With a breathtaking lack of historical accuracy, Carr claims: "It should be noted that this insignia acquired Masonic significance only after merger of that Order with the Order of Illuminati at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad, in 1782." [p. xiii]

Jumping off from Taxil's lies, Carr continues: "...[Albert] Pike accepted the idea of a one world government and ultimately became head of the Luciferian Priesthood. Between 1859 and 1871, he worked out the details of a military blue-print, for three world wars, and three major revolutions which he considered would further the conspiracy to its final stage during the twentieth century." [p. xiv] "Pike organized the New and Reformed Palladian Rite." [p. xv]

When Carr makes the following claim, it is time to seriously question his sources: "Long before Marconi invented wireless (Radio), the scientists who were of the Illuminati had made it possible for Pike and the Heads of his councils to communicate secretly." [p. xv]

Carr purports to quote Pike's August 15, 1871 alleged correspondence in the British Museum Library but neglects to provide citation. [p. xvi] He also quotes Taxil's lie about worshipping Lucifer citing it as being in a letter sent to his Palladian councils July 14th, 1889 [p. xvi]


And people buy it hook, line, and sinker. Why? They choose to take these people’s word for it, without bothering to research the information themselves.

Then you have guys like Sonny René Stermole who compound the errors and back them up without so much as a shred of personal research... Another victim of this scam, but one who (like some people on this very board) choose to forward it along as fact with no proof.



from: www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

What, among other things, appears so significant in the Illuminist/Masonic plan for three world wars is that the Third Planned War has been enunciated by conspirators as revolving around tensions with the Moslem "world." While the Middle-East has been specifically pointed to in the Luciferian conspiracy as providing the strategic and tactical basis for a Third World War, corollary components could be in the construction stage in other regions of the world, notably India/Pakistan/China.

A Plan for Three World Wars, you might say ? Not my idea. Not my conspiracy. Not my prediction. It is, however, a plan by persons who have much more power and influence than that expressed through the power of the pen. It does, however, substantially include persons who have the lion's share of the power of the pen, that is, the "press." Or, one might say, includes those who have the lion's share, the vulture's share, and the jackal's share. And I'm just trying to hold on to my First Amendment share. And that's a principle shared by many patriotic Americans and Christians around the world.

When was the alleged plan for three world wars penned and by whom?
It was put to writing in 1871 under the auspices of two prominent godfathers of Freemasonry, Mafia founder Giuseppe Mazzini who viewed the subversive and occult structure of Freemasonry as a profound vehicle or "lever" for world revolution, and America's Confederate General Albert Pike, co-founder of the KKK and Supreme Pontiff of Lucifer who re-wrote the degrees of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and who instituted the diabolical Rite of the Palladium to dominate Freemasonry, with the Palladian Rite providing an intensified hands-on course in "fleshly glove" demon possession leading to walking/talking possession of human initiates by Lucifer-associated spirits, demons. The ultimate objectives of the "occult conspiracy" include the establishment of a One-World Government to exercise overt occult oligarchic ruler ship world-wide.

The "Plan" embodies the ultimate in human rights violations, and the world wars which it has spawned have been instruments to achieve even more diabolical objectives. Within the scope of what "Plan" has Freemasonry elicited oaths embracing murder, perjury, and treason ? To what extent have persons been culpable who have operating within the United States as U.S. citizens ? Enemies Within ? Including Presidents ? Beyond Bill Clinton ? Brace yourself.


So many errors, so little time...


And then there’s Myron Fagan, who appears to be, in conjunction with and indeed inspired by William Guy Carr, one of the main contributors to the Illuminati conspiracy theory:


from: www.prolognet.qc.ca...

Recently I came across a tape entitled «The History of the Illuminati» by Myron Fagan in which Mr. Fagan explains in detail what the Illuminati is, how it started, and their conspiracy to form a one world government by the end of the 20th Century. Following are excerpts taken from this tape, based on William Guy Carr's book, "Pawns in the Game".

- Melvin Sickler


So while the crux of the matter, that is, who wrote the “letter to Mazzini” and when, still remains unanswered (we may never know – all that can be said with certainty is that it did NOT come from the hand of one Albert Pike), we can plainly see that the origins of the conspiracy theory surrounding it are dubious at best. When you consider the fact that most if not all of the modern conspiracy sites are repeating this same stuff and using it for a base of their own theories and speculations, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that most of it holds no water. Are there people that are up to no good in the world? Surely. Are there people about that don’t have all our best interests in mind? Certainly. But, when you ask if those people are tied in to a worldwide conspiracy being carried out by Weishaupt’s Illuminati a la Freemasonry, the answer must be a resounding NO.

Case closed.

-Axe out.


Nearly every misconception I've heard of on this subject... all in one place! Goody!
:bnghd:

[edit on 8/23/05 by The Axeman]




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Wow... 67 views and not so much as a peep...




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Well you have to admit it is a little obscure.

I think you would have more responses from this crowd if you posted something like “Alex Jones is full of mushroom fertizer!”




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I think you would have more responses from this crowd if you posted something like “Alex Jones is full of mushroom fertizer!”




He's not?!


Jeez people, No one has anything to say? That's unusual, to say the least...



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Probably because the title and the content seem to have nothing to do with each other. This is certainly not a study on the history of conspiracy theory,and fom what I can tell is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to disprove a specific theory involving Masons you don't agree with. Which is fine,but given the title of the thread it's hard to tell what your point is since it doesn't match the post itself. What exactly are you looking for with this?

And what Illuminati are you referring to here? If it's the Illuminati proper that's spoken of to control the world then this post is fatally flawed from the first paragraph. If you mean Adam Weishaupt's so-called "Bavarian Illuminati" then it may have some merit,but I don't see anything that warrants the presumptuous claims. Looks like the usual post to me.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
Probably because the title and the content seem to have nothing to do with each other. This is certainly not a study on the history of conspiracy theory,and fom what I can tell is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to disprove a specific theory involving Masons you don't agree with. Which is fine,but given the title of the thread it's hard to tell what your point is since it doesn't match the post itself. What exactly are you looking for with this?


Heh. Yeah. Uhhhh, did you read the first paragraph? The thread title was just for lack of a better one; I figured there were enough "Illuminati runs the world" folks in here to warrant at least a few responses, even if it was "You suck!"


And what Illuminati are you referring to here? If it's the Illuminati proper that's spoken of to control the world then this post is fatally flawed from the first paragraph.


Um, right... How is it fatally flawed?
Dude, it says right at the top "Regarding the 'Illuminati runs the world and is working toward establishing a New World Order' conspiracy:"

Helloooo? I'm talking about the whole business of the Illuminati, and the fact that the whole idea started with this one woman making trumped up claims about Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati, which have been compounded over so many years into this ridiculous huge conspiracy theory that the tin-foil hat brigade gets all bent out of shape over.


If you mean Adam Weishaupt's so-called "Bavarian Illuminati" then it may have some merit,but I don't see anything that warrants the presumptuous claims. Looks like the usual post to me.


And what "presumptuous claims" have I made? Please point them out and show me how they are presumptuous. That's what I am looking for here, for someone who beleives all this Illuminati nonsense to debate this issue with me in a scholarly manner. No trolling, no attacks. Opinions and verifiable facts to support them. You up for it? If so, why don't you show me how my post is "fatally flawed" for starters.

You're up, slugger.


[edit on 8/26/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I think this sums it up quite nicely

There seems to be no set criteria for dismissing information as a foolish conspiracy theory. The only prerequisite for information to be so categorize seems to be the desire to reject it. The reason for the rejection does not seem to matter. It appears that anything people do not want to believe is simply set aside as not believable. It almost seems that if you set some people of fire they would dismiss the flames as non-existent, simply because they did not want to believe what was happening. The pain and damage done by the fire, no matter how devastating, would not be evidence enough to convince these people that the fire was real. Their need to believe otherwise would win out. In the same vein, people dismiss information and apply the conspiracy theory tag to anything they chose to disbelieve at their own discretion, regardless of any hard evidence that accompanies the "theory."


SIKE!!!!! You thought it was going to be Alex Jones..hahahaha

www.tvnewslies.org...

Let me guess..it is a much less credible link than Alex Jones because it isnt a credible source like Fox News, CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, National Geographic.. yadda yadda mishka yadda
Im better off getting my infor from Brother Art



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
Let me guess..it is a much less credible link than Alex Jones because it isnt a credible source like Fox News, CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, National Geographic.. yadda yadda mishka yadda
Im better off getting my infor from Brother Art



from: www.tvnewslies.org...

We have to make a serious effort to distinguish between the expression of an unfounded theory and the disclosure of verifiable information and facts.
Today there is an ongoing battle between those in possession of newly discovered information and those who do not want to even consider the validity of that information. Real evidence and factual information are being lumped with baseless theories. This is not always the fault of the person to whom the information is presented.

[...]

When researchers, history buffs, truth seekers, conspiracy nuts or whatever you want to call us, present newly discovered, yet verifiable information to the public, we are directly attacked as promoters of a conspiracy theory and lambasted with the usual assortment of insults. This is totally unacceptable. We can no longer allow the conspiracy theory tag to be indiscriminately used whenever anyone has new discoveries to reveal. There has to be a concerted effort to clarify the goals of those with information to impart. Presenting new evidence can not be perceived as an attempt to establish a forgone conclusion. At the same time, new information must be dealt with in isolation of any other ramifications or another resistance relating to its possible reality.


Good article. That being said, there are a few things I'd like to point out. Key words: verifiable information; facts; real evidence. That's the key. There is no way I am going to bash someone for coming here and showing me verifiable facts. That is why we are here; to deny ignorance, correct? I welcome people to show me facts, and when I see them, I will acknowledge them as such. However, most of the time, all you have is people repeating unverifiable speculations and claiming it as fact. This is where my problem is. If people would say, "Well, I don't have any facts to back up this idea of mine, but here is why I think it's true," that would be fine. We could discuss the idea and determine as a group if it has merit or not. That is the beauty of this collaborative forum we are a part of here.

But time and time again, I see these guys fishing out weeks, months, years old stories and without taking the time to research them to determine their validity, they will make some post claiming it as fact while slinging mud in the faces of people who have no part in anything of the sort.

The focus of my post this time is the "Illuminati/New World Order" conspiracy theory. I see lots of speculation on this subject, and very little verifiable information to back it up. This is what I want people to look at; the lack of actual evidence, the lack of fact, in these theories that lots of people around here believe as the Gospel Truth.

Occam's Razor is your friend, people.

Thank you Magnito_Student. Good post. I personally have no problem with inedependant media; they don't have the suits telling them what they can and cannot print. But I do like facts, and I demand that any source worth its salt be able to provide those to back up what it says. I hope we can continue to discuss this, as I feel it is an important issue, what with the whole denial of ignorance thing we've got going around here.




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman

And what Illuminati are you referring to here? If it's the Illuminati proper that's spoken of to control the world then this post is fatally flawed from the first paragraph.


Um, right... How is it fatally flawed?
Dude, it says right at the top "Regarding the 'Illuminati runs the world and is working toward establishing a New World Order' conspiracy:"



My mistake. It wasn't the first paragraph,it was the second. The sentence right after the one you just quoted:"It looks as though it all started with a certain Nesta H. Webster." Right there it dies on contact. Trying to link all the views on the Illuminati to one person is flawed off the bat. And unless you can provide proof that a woman's book published in 1920 is what started something that's been spoken about before she was even born,then it goes from flawed to utterly impossible.




Helloooo? I'm talking about the whole business of the Illuminati, and the fact that the whole idea started with this one woman making trumped up claims about Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati, which have been compounded over so many years into this ridiculous huge conspiracy theory that the tin-foil hat brigade gets all bent out of shape over.


So the concept of the Illuminati,which came before either of these people,was started because a book was written about the Bavarian Illuminati in 1920? That's a pretty good trick.




It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe--the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries--is covered with a network of … secret societies . . . They do not want constitutional government . . . They want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments.



The above quote is from Benjamin Disraeli,Prime Minister of England,spoken in the 1800s. Did he also get this from the 1920 books you mention?



And what "presumptuous claims" have I made? Please point them out and show me how they are presumptuous.


One claim is that this is the history of conspiracy theory when it's nothing of the sort. Another is that conspiracy theorists "don't have a leg to stand on" when history and numerous powerful figures speaking openly about an unseen force that controls things say otherwise. And probably the most presumptuous is the claim that one must conclude the same thing you have because you tossed out a couple of links. I'm not one who necessarily believes the Weishaupt angle and even I can see that this post doesn't prove anything conlusively against it.






That's what I am looking for here, for someone who beleives all this Illuminati nonsense to debate this issue with me in a scholarly manner. No trolling, no attacks.


And you intend to get an attackless,scholarly debate with cracks like "tin foil hat brigade" and calling everything you don't believe in "nonsense"? Strange method.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
My mistake. It wasn't the first paragraph,it was the second. The sentence right after the one you just quoted:"It looks as though it all started with a certain Nesta H. Webster." Right there it dies on contact. Trying to link all the views on the Illuminati to one person is flawed off the bat. And unless you can provide proof that a woman's book published in 1920 is what started something that's been spoken about before she was even born,then it goes from flawed to utterly impossible.


Well, of course it was spoken about before Nester Webster's book; the Bavarian Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776! The point is, that according to the research I've done, the Illuminati conspiracy theory started with Nesta Webster's book. Actually, she wasn't even the first to present the idea; it just seems that she was the first to gain any national publicity. It appears as though she took the idea from Una Pope-Hennesy, who wrote about the supposed involvement of the Illuminati (Bavarian) in the French Revolution (a theory which actually isn't too unreasonable).


from: freemasonry.bcy.ca...

"Contrary to What Mrs Webster would have her readers believe, she was by no means the first to try to convince an English audience that the French Revolution was primarily the outgrowth of an Illuminati conspiracy. Consequently, her argument that her work was being boycotted precisely because she was the first to reveal these ideas in England simply does not hold water." "Of exceptional interest is a book authored by one Una [Constance] Pope-Hennessy (née Una Birch) [1876-1949] entitled Secret Societies and the French Revolution. Despite the fact that this work was published in London in 1911 — a scant five years before the publication of Mrs. Webster's The French Revolution — and pursues a theme very similar to her own book, Mrs. Webster makes no mention whatsoever of Secret Societies and the French Revolution in either The French Revolution or World Revolution. Indeed, in the 'Author's Note' in World Revolution she even has the effrontery to tell her readers that The French Revolution — a Study in Democracy was '...the first attempt, in English, to tell the truth (about the nature of that revolution).'"




So the concept of the Illuminati,which came before either of these people,was started because a book was written about the Bavarian Illuminati in 1920? That's a pretty good trick.


Yeah, it would be... if that's what I had said. The seeds of the conspiracy theory revolving around The Illuminati were sown by Webster and Pope-Hennesy in the early 1900's; not the concept of the Illuminati itself.





It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe--the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries--is covered with a network of … secret societies . . . They do not want constitutional government . . . They want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments.



The above quote is from Benjamin Disraeli,Prime Minister of England,spoken in the 1800s. Did he also get this from the 1920 books you mention?


Heheh. No, that would be impossible, wouldn't it?


www.newswatchmagazine.org...

www.thelawparty.com...

www.devvy.com...

www.islamicgoodsdirect.co.uk...

illuminati-news.com...

Funny how all these conspiracy theory sites cite that quote, but non conspiracy themed sites have pages of quotes from Disraeli, yet you won't find that one on any of them... Curious, no?

www.quotationspage.com...

www.brainyquote.com...

www.quoteland.com...

www.quoteworld.org...


from: www.quotationspage.com...

My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me.

-Benjamin Disraeli


Here's one I found particularly interesting:


from: www.brainyquote.com...

Books are fatal: they are the curse of the human race. Nine-tenths of existing books are nonsense, and the clever books are the refutation of that nonsense. The greatest misfortune that ever befell man was the invention of printing.

-Benjamin Disraeli




Wow.
And this is who you choose to help you back up your point? Without citing a source, no less... tsk, tsk.

But since we're on the subject of Disraeli...


from: www.geocities.com...

Benjamin Disraeli becomes Prime Minister of Great Britain (Conservative) in 1868 and then again 1874-1880. Benjamin was a very good friend of the Rothschilds. He accepted a peerage with the title (Lord) Earl of Beaconsfield in 1876. When he died he said the holy Jewish words worshiping Jewish religion (reciting the Hebrew Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!") though he officially never was a Jew. He was baptised but together with another baptised Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine (also friend of the Rothschilds) he fought for Jewish rights.

[...]

Disraeli gave the Rothschild family the Baron titles and he himself was "rewarded" a stock possession in the Suez channel project. (Suez was also a great way to get Great Britain more involved in the Middle East and Palestine. The fact that the creation of Israel had the combined support of the Western elite - to at least ensure control the Suez Canal)

[...]

"No one must lightly dismiss the question of race; it is the key to world history and it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity - it is written by people who do not understand the race question, and what belongs to it."

--Benjamin Disraeli

"Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."

--Benjamin, in 1835, answering one Mr. O'Connell who attacked his Jewish ancestry


So according to this site, Disraeli was in bed with the Rothschilds, which, according to conspiracy theorists, would put him directly in the middle of the creation and implementation of the New World Order!!! Perhaps you should do more homework...

Be careful who and what you quote; it could work against you.



One claim is that this is the history of conspiracy theory when it's nothing of the sort. Another is that conspiracy theorists "don't have a leg to stand on" when history and numerous powerful figures speaking openly about an unseen force that controls things say otherwise.


But even in the quote you posted, no mention is made of the Illuminati (Bavarian or otherwise), or the New World Order. There is (ostensibly; I'm not satisfied as to the authenticity of that quote) mention of "secret societies" who "do not want constitutional government," which could be (and probably is) referring to the Freemasons. If this is the case, that claim in and of itself is ridiculous, considering the fact that Freemasonry pretty much invented constitutional government. Why would they want anything else? Any subversive activity on the part of the Masons would undoubtedly be against the despotic governments of the time, and be working toward constitutional government. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Brotherhood of Man, Fatherhood of God and all.


And probably the most presumptuous is the claim that one must conclude the same thing you have because you tossed out a couple of links. I'm not one who necessarily believes the Weishaupt angle and even I can see that this post doesn't prove anything conlusively against it.


I haven't just "tossed out a couple of links" (Such a comment coming from someone who did not provide a single one to back themselves up is a little odd, BTW...), I have cited respected and credible sources, shown the relationship between said sources, and come to a reasonable conclusion based on research and facts in evidence. All you have managed to do is produce one questionable quote, and then attempt to discredit my position by calling my "claims" "presumptuous," which in and of itself is actually ridiculous, taken into consideration the definition of the word presumptuous.


Strange method.


Even stranger is how you attempt to discredit the evidence I have shown by arguing from an obvious position of ignorance of the subject matter, neglecting to offer even the slightest bit of evidence to contest my conclusions.

Care to try again?

[edit on 8/27/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman

Well, of course it was spoken about before Nester Webster's book; the Bavarian Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776! The point is, that according to the research I've done, the Illuminati conspiracy theory started with Nesta Webster's book. Actually, she wasn't even the first to present the idea; it just seems that she was the first to gain any national publicity.


That's a very different claim from your original. Although even this impossible given the time frame. At best she could have publicized Weishaupt's group,but still even there it's improbable. The Bavarian Illuminati disbanded,at least temporarily,shortly after it was formed. The group had enough national publicity and hostility even then for Weishaupt to be unable to remain in any surrounding areas because he was known. So Webster would not appear to be even the one who brought it to publicity.

Webster may have had some impact on the theory,but she clearly is not the creator or even initial disseminator of it.





Funny how all these conspiracy theory sites cite that quote, but non conspiracy themed sites have pages of quotes from Disraeli, yet you won't find that one on any of them... Curious, no?


Not sure why. I believe just recently you ran off some David Icke quotes sites but I gather you hadn't seen the quotes of his I showed you nonetheless. No page will have everything everyone has ever said on it,if that's what you're attempting to imply.





So according to this site, Disraeli was in bed with the Rothschilds, which, according to conspiracy theorists, would put him directly in the middle of the creation and implementation of the New World Order!!! Perhaps you should do more homework...

Be careful who and what you quote; it could work against you.



Disraeli's bed partners are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your stance was that the Illuminati conspiracy theory was all tidily started by one woman in the 1920s. This quote I showed,or any other statement one can find similar,shows that not to be the case. Now where else you're branching off to with that flood of other quotes and links I have no idea.






And probably the most presumptuous is the claim that one must conclude the same thing you have because you tossed out a couple of links. I'm not one who necessarily believes the Weishaupt angle and even I can see that this post doesn't prove anything conlusively against it.


I haven't just "tossed out a couple of links" (Such a comment coming from someone who did not provide a single one to back themselves up is a little odd, BTW...),


I don't force a ton of links into every post I make. And it's impractical to expect people to do so. 1)because it's unnecessary 2)because it's annoying 3)because,believe it or not,people do get information from places other than websites.




I have cited respected and credible sources, shown the relationship between said sources, and come to a reasonable conclusion based on research and facts in evidence.


You came to a conclusion. A conclusion you think,and I quote,one "must" reach. I have no problem at all with the conclusion or how you reached it. But despite your belief it's not the only possible one.





All you have managed to do is produce one questionable quote, and then attempt to discredit my position by calling my "claims" "presumptuous," which in and of itself is actually ridiculous, taken into consideration the definition of the word presumptuous.



How is it rediculous to call someone's claim that everyone must reach the same conclusion they do presumptuous? It's something else,but "presumptuous" was just the board-friendliest way I could think to phrase it. And is there a reason you're putting "claims" in quotation marks? Do you have some other definition of "claims" that don't fit where I applied the word?






Even stranger is how you attempt to discredit the evidence I have shown by arguing from an obvious position of ignorance of the subject matter, neglecting to offer even the slightest bit of evidence to contest my conclusions.



Your conclusion was that the Illuminati conspiracy theory was all started by one person in 1920. I showed it wasn't. Other than that I don't know what else you think is going on here or where any ignorance comes into play.





Care to try again?


I did it right the first try,thanks.



[edit on 27-8-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist

That's a very different claim from your original. Although even this impossible given the time frame. At best she could have publicized Weishaupt's group,but still even there it's improbable.The Bavarian Illuminati disbanded,at least temporarily,shortly after it was formed. The group had enough national publicity and hostility even then for Weishaupt to be unable to remain in any surrounding areas because he was known. So Webster would not appear to be even the one who brought it to publicity.

Webster may have had some impact on the theory,but she clearly is not the creator or even initial disseminator of it.


Dude... you need a history lesson. Weishaupt was not able to stay in Bavaria because one of the main aims of his Illuminati was to undermine the Bavarian government! Of course they would kick him out of Bavaria! This, however, did not influence the entire world, as our friend Nesta Webster would have you believe. On top of that, that is exactly the conclusion that I originally asserted. Perhaps you missed it. I'll post it again:


Originally posted by The Axeman

Regarding the "Illuminati runs the world and is working toward establishing a New World Order" conspiracy:

It looks as though it all started with a certain Nesta H. Webster...

She made many claims that, when examined, don’t hold up well to scrutiny, much like today’s conspiracy theorists (which isn’t surprising, as most conspiracy theory today was directly or indirectly influenced by her work).


Improbable? What on Earth are you talking about?! That was the whole premise of her book!


According to Mrs. Webster, one man started it all: Adam Weishaupt... By this account, Weishaupt was the principal architect of internationalism as it became manifest in the 20th century... the mastermind of the "terrible and formidable sect" that launched "the gigantic plan of World Revolution" and so earned him a place on the dark side of history as "the profoundest conspirator that has ever existed."

{emphasis added}

So tell me; how is this improbable, much less impossible? Show me some literature, website, cite a book, quote a politician (that is not an ambiguous assertion) before 1921 who makes mention of Adam Weishaupt in a conspiratorial sense, outside of Bavaria. If you want to back up your opinion, show me some facts to support it! You have thus far failed to do that, and as a result, you are arguing from a weakened position.




Funny how all these conspiracy theory sites cite that quote, but non conspiracy themed sites have pages of quotes from Disraeli, yet you won't find that one on any of them... Curious, no?


Not sure why. I believe just recently you ran off some David Icke quotes sites but I gather you hadn't seen the quotes of his I showed you nonetheless. No page will have everything everyone has ever said on it,if that's what you're attempting to imply.


David Icke has nothing to do with this, other than the fact that he propagates the same conspiracy theory, ultimately based on the same source we are discussing here.






So according to this site, Disraeli was in bed with the Rothschilds, which, according to conspiracy theorists, would put him directly in the middle of the creation and implementation of the New World Order!!! Perhaps you should do more homework...

Be careful who and what you quote; it could work against you.



Disraeli's bed partners are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your stance was that the Illuminati conspiracy theory was all tidily started by one woman in the 1920s. This quote I showed,or any other statement one can find similar,shows that not to be the case. Now where else you're branching off to with that flood of other quotes and links I have no idea.


You made it relevant when you brought Disraeli into the debate! You can't use a man's words to make your point, and then when I question the objectivity (and indeed, the authenticity of the quote) of the man in question, cry irrelevance.


The point that I made was that Disraeli's quote you cited was likely not even talking about the Illuminati (being as they were long since defunct in 1856), but rather the Freemasons; and that the only places I have been able to find mention of the quote you posted is on conspiracy theory type websites. We all know that those types of sites all reference each other, and that ultimately, one can find very few, if any, reputable sources at the bottom of it. They all link together in the hopes that gullible people will not investigate any further than their circuitous references to each other. If you can show otherwise, go ahead; but so far you haven't been able to show anything conclusive to back up your position (whatever that is; it seems your only position is that you feel like I am wrong and you don't agree). OK, show me why. Show me the facts that result in your beliefs. Until you do that, you are arguing from a position of assumption and speculation, while I am showing facts to support what I'm saying.





I don't force a ton of links into every post I make. And it's impractical to expect people to do so. 1)because it's unnecessary 2)because it's annoying 3)because,believe it or not,people do get information from places other than websites.


But you haven't cited ANY resources at all! 1) If you want to show facts, resources are necessary, websites or otherwise. If you don't, it's just your opinion. 2) I think you say it's annoying because you just don't have anything else to say; how is it annoying to provide sources for information I'm putting forth as fact?! Because you don't like what the facts show? 3) OK fine, not all information comes from websites, you'll get no argument from me on that point; however that is the most readily shared information to use in this medium, which is why I choose to use them. So then, you must have resources that are not online... would you be so good as to share with the group? A cite from a book, perhaps? Transcription of a television program? Anything?





I have cited respected and credible sources, shown the relationship between said sources, and come to a reasonable conclusion based on research and facts in evidence.


You came to a conclusion. A conclusion you think,and I quote,one "must" reach. I have no problem at all with the conclusion or how you reached it. But despite your belief it's not the only possible one.


Perhaps not, but it is the only reasonable one that can be reached as a result of the facts I have shown. That is the difference between a conclusion and a belief. A belief is something that you take as fact without verifiable evidence to back it up; a conclusion is something you reach as a result of facts that add up to a certain sum. No, it is not a belief of mine that the Illuminati conspiracy theory started with Webster, it is a conclusion based on documented fact. It is my belief that anyone who looks at the facts presented must come to the same conclusion, by virtue of it being a fact.

I'm still waiting for you to provide facts to support the alternate conclusions you allude to...






How is it rediculous to call someone's claim that everyone must reach the same conclusion they do presumptuous? It's something else,but "presumptuous" was just the board-friendliest way I could think to phrase it.


It is ridiculous because anyone who can discern fact from fiction can see that what I have presented are facts, and the facts add up to the same thing, no matter who is putting them together. 2+2 = 4 no matter who adds it up.


And is there a reason you're putting "claims" in quotation marks? Do you have some other definition of "claims" that don't fit where I applied the word?


I put "claims" in quotations because what you are calling "claims" are in fact conclusions, based on, again, facts in evidence. A claim is something you make when you have no proof. I do have (and have demonstrated) proof, so these are not merely "claims."






Your conclusion was that the Illuminati conspiracy theory was all started by one person in 1920. I showed it wasn't. Other than that I don't know what else you think is going on here or where any ignorance comes into play.


You have shown nothing. You have claimed that my conclusions are in error, but you have done nothing in the way of proving why you contend that this is so.






Care to try again?


I did it right the first try,thanks.


Hardly.


[edit on 8/27/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Wow this thread has a lot of quotes but is saying very little new..every post just seems to quote the post before it.
Maybe this should be handled U2U so as not to give the impression of "POST 4 POINTS" only...just a thought



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
ancient babylon, egypt, the hindu vedas, etc., describe nwo-type plots, cuz it is a part of a good way the masses can be controlled. so, it is 5000 yrs. old at least.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12 12 2012
Wow this thread has a lot of quotes but is saying very little new..every post just seems to quote the post before it.
Maybe this should be handled U2U so as not to give the impression of "POST 4 POINTS" only...just a thought


I don't need any more points, I have more than enough, thank you. Perhaps you could add something constructive to the discussion, rather than making suggestions on how it should be handled. "
" indeed.

It's called an open disussion, feel free to post a relevant post any time, lest you contribute to my "post 4 points" with useless comments.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
ancient babylon, egypt, the hindu vedas, etc., describe nwo-type plots, cuz it is a part of a good way the masses can be controlled. so, it is 5000 yrs. old at least.


Sure, the idea of contrrolling the masses is not a new one by any stretch of the imagination.

However, the examples you have given are long since gone, and the issue at hand is not whether there are people in the world who are seeking power and control; that much is certain. The point I am trying to make is that the Weishaupt/Illuminati conspiracy theory is more or less a fabrication, based on the lack of understanding by a few early 20th century authors, who let their mouths get ahead of verifiable facts. We are still seeing the effects of it to this day.

[edit on 8/27/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
illuminati conjecture is like water these days, though i agree that it is likely just hot air, and i have never seen any convincing proof it is real. and i have read this conspiracy stuff for over 20 years.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by 12 12 2012
Wow this thread has a lot of quotes but is saying very little new..every post just seems to quote the post before it.
Maybe this should be handled U2U so as not to give the impression of "POST 4 POINTS" only...just a thought


I don't need any more points, I have more than enough, thank you. Perhaps you could add something constructive to the discussion, rather than making suggestions on how it should be handled. "
" indeed.

It's called an open disussion, feel free to post a relevant post any time, lest you contribute to my "post 4 points" with useless comments.


This entire thread is full of USELESS comments, so please don't lecture me about what to post. I was giving an opinion as to what I thought of this discussion. This entire thread is nothing but opinion, so I added my 2 cents worth. That is all. Thanks for responding to me and building your points (just kidding) The only reason I posted what I did was it appeared to be only a 2 person thread bantering back and forth. So sorry for my OPINION, I won't try and give again in this thread. Thanks



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12 12 2012
This entire thread is full of USELESS comments, so please don't lecture me about what to post. I was giving an opinion as to what I thought of this discussion. This entire thread is nothing but opinion, so I added my 2 cents worth. That is all. Thanks for responding to me and building your points (just kidding) The only reason I posted what I did was it appeared to be only a 2 person thread bantering back and forth. So sorry for my OPINION, I won't try and give again in this thread. Thanks


Whatever dude. Your opinion is welcome, but I would prefer that it be on topic; however since you seem unable to recognize a civil discussion and distinguish that from "useless comments," I'm afraid that to ask you to join the discussion or "2 person thread bantering back and forth" (which is usualy termed a "debate," BTW), would be not only utterly pointless, but a detriment to the quality of the thread as a whole. We were doing just fine without your unsolicited advice to take it to u2u.

Thanks for the 4 points... now scurry along.


I'd like to thank those who have actually contributed something useful to the thread; I do appreciate it.

Loungerist, you're up.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
... fools won't take it, and wisemen don't need it. ben franklin





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join