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.

 

History of Conspiracy Theory 101

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I have to agree with 12 12 2012 that this is a pointless thread if for a different reason. My reason is that I can't figure what your arguement is. I'm seeing a different one every time.




Originally posted by The Axeman

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!



I didn't say Bavaria,I said the surrounding areas. Weishaupt met hostility everywhere he went,even outside of Bavaria,and finally had to be given refuge. You said Webster was who brought it to national publicity,but Weishaupt was already infamous throughout the nation over a hundred years before Webster wrote book one.

You're linking the conspiracy to a person who popped up over a hundred if not thousands of years after it started(depending on whom of the Illuminati you mean this time) but you think I'm the one who needs a history lesson.








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."


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.


John Robison wrote a book called Proofs of a Conspiracy... in 1798 about Weishaupt and the associated use of Masonry thereof. It speaks of Weishaupt in so conspiratorial a sense that it even has "conspiracy" in the title. He was Scottish,not Bavarian. He was also a Mason. Though since you out of the air tried to imply Disraeli didn't say the quote I gave you you'll probably try to imply Robison wasn't a Mason too. And it's safe to say his work came not only before Nesta Webster was influencing anyone,but before Webster was even born. Augustin Barruél was another author who wrote of the Bavarian Illuminati in the conspiratorial sense. He was not from Bavaria. And he also died a whopping 100 years before the person you claim started the theory. Or didn't start the theory. Depending on which post of yours one goes by.


I don't know what your stance is now but I'm disproving this one too just for good measure.



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.



*sigh* The point was not about David Icke. I brought up that instance to illustrate to you that just because a quote is not on some webpage you found doesn't mean the quote was never spoken. As you were trying to imply with the quote that disproved your Nesta Webster dating. The Icke quotes I gave you were also not on the pages you get quotes from. Your page is not the end all or be all.






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.


It doesn't matter his objectivity. The only thing that matters for this thread is the date he said it in.






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.



Depends on the facts. Some are obvious(such as your claim being chronologically impossible) and don't require a glut of links to illustrate.




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 throwing out 6 or 7 articles for someone to read in the middle of every paragraph is cumbersome. No one will bother sifting through all that every 4 sentences just to have a discussion and not everyone has the time to search for web links. Especially if it's something that should be rather easy to see even without them.


But I can see from your post to Blackguard that you're either purposely backtracking now or you simply have not read what I or even you have said. Either way there's not much point to this thread after this because near as I can tell your stance changes with every post.


your original claim
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.


I post to counter this.


claim then becomes
Actually, she wasn't even the first to present the idea; it just seems that she was the first to gain any national publicity.


I post to counter,then it apparently goes from national publicity to global.


latest claim
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.


Now onto the Illuminati itself. This is where your stance either completely changes or you simply just didn't read what I said.

I said...


originally posted by Loungerist
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


I asked this for a specific reason since the Bavarian Illuminati is not the Illuminati as a whole. It is just one group of many that fall under the name who control or sought to control the world. The concept nor the name started or ended with Weishaupt. It started thousands of years ago and continues today. Now here is what you said,with apparent condascention.


your original claim
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




The seeds of the conspiracy theory revolving around The Illuminati were sown by Webster and Pope-Hennesy in the early 1900's


Now I could give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you were just confused as to the fact that the Illuminati is not just Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati,but you show you're indeed making a distinction between the Illuminati as a whole and the Bavarian Illuminati here when you said:


But even in the quote you posted, no mention is made of the Illuminati (Bavarian or otherwise)


But then BlackGuard points out that this theory goes back thousands of years before anyone you mention(as I had previously),then all of a sudden you say



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



So at this point I have no idea what you're aiming for here now. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe I'm misunderstanding you,but as near as I can tell your stance changes every time it gets countered. Not much point to a conversation like that.


Edit:added links






[edit on 28-8-2005 by Loungerist]




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
In the garden of eden, Lucifer in the form of a serpent, convinced the first couple that enlightenment could be theirs. And then it was. So they became enlightened due to the efforts of a serpent. Lucifer means lightbringer, and the knowledge that the couple attained due to him is enlightenment, they were illuminated. So.... maybe it dates back right to day one.....
I do not doubt that the people who are in power do collude behind the scenes to consolidate that power. Who wouldn't? But the Illuminati story, as told by modern speculators, is just that, speculation, conjecture without any solid proof. It is a guess, and could be totally off base, it is opinion, and no more.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Didn't want you to think I had given up the goat.


I've been busy and haven't had time to author a proper rebuttal... but rest assured I will soon. And how.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I would be curious to know what the conspiracy theorists, especially those who claim to be of the Christian faith, think about this website:

www.acts17-11.com...

"With wild claims of inside information on international clandestine dealings, the conspiracy buffs end up in an ironic hypocrisy. They believe in an ongoing "Illuminati." The Illuminati were (are?) a group that claimed special knowledge, secret knowledge that set them above the common man. Does such a group exist in today's world? Are there those among us who see themselves as possessing secret knowledge not available to the common man? Ironically, the Conspiracy Theorists themselves are the best candidates to be found. They have "figured it out," and if you do not "see it," then you are just one of the dupes manipulated by the ghost Conspiracy that only the "enlightened ones" know about. "



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
I have to agree with 12 12 2012 that this is a pointless thread if for a different reason. My reason is that I can't figure what your arguement is. I'm seeing a different one every time.


No, you're not. You apparently are just having trouble with understanding what I am saying without me having to spell out every little thing for you.


I didn't say Bavaria,I said the surrounding areas. Weishaupt met hostility everywhere he went,even outside of Bavaria,and finally had to be given refuge. You said Webster was who brought it to national publicity,but Weishaupt was already infamous throughout the nation over a hundred years before Webster wrote book one.


So far as I can tell, Wieshaupt fled to Gotha and that's where he stayed.


from: US Archives: The European Order of the Illuminati, Chapter 3: Of New England and the Bavarian Illuminati

So far as the situation within Bavaria was concerned, the sun of the Illuminati had already set.138. It remained for the government to stretch forth its hand as far as possible, to deal with those fugitives who, enjoying the protection of other governments, might plot and contrive to rebuild the ruined system... As for Weishaupt, whose originary relation to the order the Bavarian government had discovered in the secret correspondence just referred to, his presence in Gotha, outside Bavarian territory but in close proximity to the Bavarian possessions, added greatly to the concern of Carl Theodore.141. Efforts were made by the latter to counteract any influence he might exert to rehabilitate the Illuminati system.142. They were as futile as they were unnecessary. Broken in spirit, making no effort to regain the kingdom which his vanity insisted he had lost, contenting himself with the publication of various apologetic writings,143. permitted for a considerable period to enjoy the bounty of his generous patron, Duke Ernst of Gotha, he sank slowly into obscurity.144.


So, attempts to counteract Weishaupt were uinneccesary. He had no desire to revive the Illuminati, in fact he spent his time writing apologetic material and trying to reconcile with the people whose toes he intended to step upon.


You're linking the conspiracy to a person who popped up over a hundred if not thousands of years after it started(depending on whom of the Illuminati you mean this time) but you think I'm the one who needs a history lesson.


OK let me spell this out for you one more time. My assertion is that the modern conspiracy theory concerning the Illuminati (in whatever capacity you wish to think of it) started as a result of this Nesta Webster's book, and that the information one comes across when perusing conspiracy theory type websites can be almost invariable traced back to Nesta Webster, regardless of her sources or lack of factual information. Practically all 20th century conspiracy theory is in no small part thanks to this woman and her work. Are we clear on that now?



John Robison wrote a book called Proofs of a Conspiracy... in 1798 about Weishaupt and the associated use of Masonry thereof. It speaks of Weishaupt in so conspiratorial a sense that it even has "conspiracy" in the title. He was Scottish,not Bavarian. He was also a Mason. Though since you out of the air tried to imply Disraeli didn't say the quote I gave you you'll probably try to imply Robison wasn't a Mason too. And it's safe to say his work came not only before Nesta Webster was influencing anyone,but before Webster was even born. Augustin Barruél was another author who wrote of the Bavarian Illuminati in the conspiratorial sense. He was not from Bavaria. And he also died a whopping 100 years before the person you claim started the theory. Or didn't start the theory. Depending on which post of yours one goes by.

I don't know what your stance is now but I'm disproving this one too just for good measure.


Now we're getting somewhere!


Though, I don't feel that you have disproved my assertion just yet.


First of all, I never changed my position on the issue, no matter which of my posts one goes by. What I did do, regarding Una Pope-Hennesy, is show that she (Una) did indeed write about the Bavarian Illuminati in regard to their alleged activities in the French Revolution. Ms. Webster wrote another book, 5 years after Pope-Hennesy's came out (This was before World Revolution, the one I originally posted about about), called The French Revolution — A Study in Democracy. That being said, her later work, World Revolution, is what had such an impact on The modern Illuminati conspiracy theory.

That these two you mention spoke of Weishaupt cannot be denied, I will concede that fact. However, it does no damage to my position, much less "disproves" it.

For the sake of Denying Ignorance I will elucidate you a bit on Robison. It seems, like most conspiracy theorists, his research was and presentation was shabby, and his ideas, while appealing to those who wish to find conspiracy where there is none, were, so it seems fundamentally flawed also.


from: US Archives: The European Order of the Illuminati, Chapter 3: Of New England and the Bavarian Illuminati

185 Robison, op. cit., p. 7. Robison also made use of several of the works which the disturbances occasioned by the Bavarian Illuminati called forth on the continent. Conspicuous among these were the documents of the order published by the Bavarian government. Cf. Ibid., pp. 133, 185, 186, 205, etc. He also made use of Hoffman's violently hostile sheet, the Wiener Zeitschrift. Cf. Ibid., pp. 358, 393. Robison's knowledge of the German language was, however, far from perfect, as he himself freely admitted (Cf. Ibid., pp, 14, 499), so that his handling of his sources must be viewed as neither capable nor complete. The meagerness of his resources is perhaps best illustrated in his treatment of the conspiracy which he assumed underlay the French Revolution. Such "proofs" as he made use of in this connection amounted to little more than the political manifestoes of certain secret lodges and clubs, fugitive revolutionary documents which chanced to blow across his path, current historical conjecture and gossip, etc. The whole was pieced together in the spirit of one who ventured to hope that his "scattered facts" might be of some service to his generation. (Cf. Ibid., pp. 493-496.) ^

187 An illustration of the carelessness with which Robison handled his dates is found on pages 15 and 133 (Cf. p. 103) of the Proofs of a Conspiracy, etc., in the matter of the date of the founding of the Order of the Illuminati. Far more serious in its reflection on the author's lack of accuracy and insight is such looseness and general unsoundness of treatment as permitted him to represent the Jesuits as frequenters of English and French Masonic lodges, while at the same time indicting the latter as fully committed to a free-thinking propaganda which sought nothing less than the eradication of religion, not to speak of its institutions. Cf. Ibid., pp. 22 et seq. Robison's superficial explanation of the anticlericalism of Weishaupt might be cited as another illustration of the blundering method pursued in the book. Cf. Ibid., pp. 101, 103 et seq. His weak and practically pointless digression in order to find opportunity to comment on the educational projects of Basedow will serve to illustrate the discursive quality in his work.


Regarding Barruel:

Looks as though serious historians have about the same thing to say about Barruel as they do about other conspiracy theorists, both past and present.


from: en.wikipedia.org...

Nearly all historians hold that Barruel's work attributes to the secret societies many evil deeds for which they are not responsible. Specifically, he accuses the Illuminati -- an organization that, according to many historians, had almost ceased to exist at the start of the French Revolution -- of causing that conflict, in accordance with their alleged plan to destroy princes, nations and the Church. Later, Barruel would accuse the Jews of founding the Illuminati.

His basic idea was that of a very big conspiracy dating back through time, with the aim of overthrowing Christianity. It inspired John Robison, who had been working independently on his own conspiracy theory, to extend his book Proofs of a Conspiracy Against all the Religions and Governments of Europe with several quotations from Barruél. This theory has grown wildly throughout history, and is still alive in several imaginative minds.
Among other things he called Adam Weishaupt "a human devil".


A little more on these two:
freemasonry.bcy.ca...

And finally, a little quote from a very well respected American of the times:

As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment.... If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose.
--Thomas Jefferson

The difference in Robison and Barruel from Nesta Webster, is that she expanded their theory about the French Revolution to a worldwide conspiracy. That is why I say modern conspiracy theory is a result of her (poorly researched and unsubstantiated) theories.



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.



*sigh* The point was not about David Icke. I brought up that instance to illustrate to you that just because a quote is not on some webpage you found doesn't mean the quote was never spoken. As you were trying to imply with the quote that disproved your Nesta Webster dating. The Icke quotes I gave you were also not on the pages you get quotes from. Your page is not the end all or be all.

You're right. However, that's why I provided several well known quote library sites, along with several conspiracy sites, who quote the same passage as you while neglecting to mention any of the others... don't you find taht even a wee bit strange?





It doesn't matter his objectivity. The only thing that matters for this thread is the date he said it in.


OK, the date would matter, if he had been talking about the Illuminati, which, so far as I can see, he was not; at least specifically. "Secret societies" could refer to Freemasons, Rosicrusians, Hermetics, OTO, you name it. Almost all these groups still to this day hold a stigma of conspiracy to run the world. Is this starting to click with you yet? It all comes back to the same stuff. the same stuff is repeated over and over and over again. It doesn't take too much digging to see that it is all conjecture and supposition, presented as fact.



Depends on the facts. Some are obvious(such as your claim being chronologically impossible) and don't require a glut of links to illustrate.


My claim is not chronologically impossible. What you are trying to turn it into is. Besides, the only reason I posted so many links was to show that there were several respected sites that neglect your "quote." Seems to me if he did say that, it would be one of his more famous quotes, don't you think? If the only place I can find a certain piece of information is a group of circuitously referenceing conspiracy sites, red flags go up. I was simply demonstrating that I had indeed searched for it.




Because throwing out 6 or 7 articles for someone to read in the middle of every paragraph is cumbersome. No one will bother sifting through all that every 4 sentences just to have a discussion and not everyone has the time to search for web links. Especially if it's something that should be rather easy to see even without them.


And that's just the problem, isn't it? No one will do the homework for themselves, so I present it in my posts so they don't have to dig to see what I am saying is true and verifiable. Novel concept, eh? Just because you choose to be lazy doesn't mean everyone else will; but why take chances?



But I can see from your post to Blackguard that you're either purposely backtracking now or you simply have not read what I or even you have said. Either way there's not much point to this thread after this because near as I can tell your stance changes with every post.


No need to quote all that... You are the one trying to say I'm claiming something different... By "It" (as in, "It all started with"), I mean the modern conspiracy theory concerning the Illuminati. When you "countered" me, I clarified that Webster had taken from Hennesy's idea about the French Revolution proior to writing about the "World conspiracy" and she apparently got more publicity over it.


I asked this for a specific reason since the Bavarian Illuminati is not the Illuminati as a whole. It is just one group of many that fall under the name who control or sought to control the world. The concept nor the name started or ended with Weishaupt. It started thousands of years ago and continues today.


The idea that there is some secret group that has been controlling the world "behind the scenes" for thousands of years is just plain absurd. Have men always had a tendency to try to control the masses? Yes, of course. Has it been prerpetrated by the same group all throughout history? Of course not! That's just silly! Through all the empires and civilizations throughout history, that would simply be impossible. Now if you can show the connections between specific groups for "thousands of years," I'm all ears. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a loooong time.



Now I could give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you were just confused as to the fact that the Illuminati is not just Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati,but you show you're indeed making a distinction between the Illuminati as a whole and the Bavarian Illuminati...


Yes, the distinction is that in the minds and imaginations of conspiracy therists today, either directly or indirectly influenced by Nesta Webster via World Revolution, there exists some shadow organization bent on world domination by whatever means necessary. Note that there is no evidence, even circumstantial evidence, to back up this claim; at least I've never seen any. You got some?



So at this point I have no idea what you're aiming for here now. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe I'm misunderstanding you,but as near as I can tell your stance changes every time it gets countered. Not much point to a conversation like that.


Well I think I have pretty much cleared up where I stand, and again shown facts to back up my position. If you still don't understand, I really don't know what to tell you.

[edited links to correct page formatting -nygdan]

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Can you possibly cut those link URLs up some? They're so long stretch out the screen and make it very hard to read through.




Originally posted by The Axeman

OK let me spell this out for you one more time. My assertion is that the modern conspiracy theory concerning the Illuminati (in whatever capacity you wish to think of it) started as a result of this Nesta Webster's book, and that the information one comes across when perusing conspiracy theory type websites can be almost invariable traced back to Nesta Webster, regardless of her sources or lack of factual information. Practically all 20th century conspiracy theory is in no small part thanks to this woman and her work. Are we clear on that now?



I believe so. I thought that was exactly what I just disproved.





Now we're getting somewhere!


Though, I don't feel that you have disproved my assertion just yet.


...

That these two you mention spoke of Weishaupt cannot be denied, I will concede that fact. However, it does no damage to my position, much less "disproves" it.


I'm not really sure how you figure this. Your position is that this theory started with Webster,I showed that it didn't. I may be missing something here but to me that damages your position to say the least.






For the sake of Denying Ignorance I will elucidate you a bit on Robison.


Websites noted. As are the ones supporting him.





The difference in Robison and Barruel from Nesta Webster, is that she expanded their theory about the French Revolution to a worldwide conspiracy. That is why I say modern conspiracy theory is a result of her (poorly researched and unsubstantiated) theories.


But yet her work is predated by others and the theory has been further investigated and added to by still others since her. It makes no logical sense to select her as the originator when by your own words she's just one person who's done work on it.






You're right. However, that's why I provided several well known quote library sites, along with several conspiracy sites, who quote the same passage as you while neglecting to mention any of the others... don't you find taht even a wee bit strange?



About as strange as I'd find not being able to locate pajamas in a hardware store. What quotes you find will depend on what sort of material the page is dealing with.




OK, the date would matter, if he had been talking about the Illuminati, which, so far as I can see, he was not; at least specifically. "Secret societies" could refer to Freemasons, Rosicrusians, Hermetics, OTO, you name it.


Secret socities help constitute the Illuminati when spoken of in the context of power conspiracy,which Disraeli was doing.






It all comes back to the same stuff. the same stuff is repeated over and over and over again. It doesn't take too much digging to see that it is all conjecture and supposition, presented as fact.


The same stuff concluded by different people via different bodies of reasearch,however. That's significant. The two I listed had both come to their conclusions on Weishaupt independent of each other's work. So your assertion that it all comes from the same source is incorrect. Also significant are that some bodies of research include direct accounts from people who say they've seen acts transpire personally. And seeing something is neither supposition nor conjecture. As with anything intentionally kept hidden,there is going to be supposition and conjecture mixed in with fact. Falsehood mixed in with truth. That's the nature of the beast.


Trying to link it all to one person however will be easily disproven irregardless of the person you select. Because it does not come from one person,it comes from multiple persons from multiple time periods who saw things that weren't kosher so they investigated.






My claim is not chronologically impossible. What you are trying to turn it into is.



If you say so. But I thought "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." and "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" made it pretty clear what you were saying.

I also thought showing you just what you asked for pretty clearly disproved it.




Besides, the only reason I posted so many links was to show that there were several respected sites that neglect your "quote." Seems to me if he did say that, it would be one of his more famous quotes, don't you think?


Not really. The quote isn't all that hot. It just illustrates a certain topic. If we were not speaking specifically of conspiracy then I wouldn't have thought twice about it. Matter of fact,the only reason it was even used it at all was because we were talking even more specifically of dates,and that just happened to be one that came before your claimed timeframe.





If the only place I can find a certain piece of information is a group of circuitously referenceing conspiracy sites, red flags go up. I was simply demonstrating that I had indeed searched for it.



Do your red flags also go up when you can only find liquid nails at Home Depot and not at the 7-11? Context is the missing ingredient here.






And that's just the problem, isn't it? No one will do the homework for themselves, so I present it in my posts so they don't have to dig to see what I am saying is true and verifiable. Novel concept, eh? Just because you choose to be lazy doesn't mean everyone else will; but why take chances?



People do homework but that doesn't mean they'll conclude the same things you have. You severely overestimate the conclusiveness and veracity of whichever sites happen to agree with you. It's a safe bet that you haven't read a single book from any of the authors mentioned anywhere in this thread yourself. So what is your homework? The same as others:going by websites. The same thing you criticize others for doing when investigating this conspiracy. About truth and verification. A webpage author saying someone's research is bad is not a "truth",it's an opinion. Facts? The facts I've presented can likewise be verified. It's not your facts being desputed,it's the conclusions you've jumped to from said facts. I'd say only about 2 of the many links you've posted were actually necessary and relevant to the conversation and neither link confirms your opinion that I read.


And it's curious to note that not even the site you used to build this thread on makes the claim that Nesta Webster started this. It just says she was a contributor. That she started it was your own personal leap.






No need to quote all that... You are the one trying to say I'm claiming something different... By "It" (as in, "It all started with"), I mean the modern conspiracy theory concerning the Illuminati. When you "countered" me, I clarified that Webster had taken from Hennesy's idea about the French Revolution proior to writing about the "World conspiracy" and she apparently got more publicity over it.



Either or,it doesn't start with her.





The idea that there is some secret group that has been controlling the world "behind the scenes" for thousands of years is just plain absurd.


It's also absurd that the hardcase leader of the FBI was a homosexual who liked to wear women's clothes. That one of our presidents was paralyzed from the waist down but no one knew it also strikes me as absurd. Also in the realm of absurdity would be that numerous of Congress were named in a pedophilia ring case which was won,but I never saw anything about it on the news. And I can't help but feel an internet male prostitute getting security clearence to roam the White House falls under the category of absurd as well. Yet they all happened. Absurdity is a fact of life.

"The truth is often stranger than fiction.". Since you like searching quotes you might want to look that one up too.




Have men always had a tendency to try to control the masses? Yes, of course. Has it been prerpetrated by the same group all throughout history? Of course not! That's just silly! Through all the empires and civilizations throughout history, that would simply be impossible.


I said "one group of many". But it depends on how one classifies a group really.




Now if you can show the connections between specific groups for "thousands of years," I'm all ears. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a loooong time.



Waits are often long when you wait for things you were never offered in the first place. I said that the conspiracy theories have been around for thousands of years,not that I was a historian of them and was going to retrace each one of them thousands of years for you. Although I've seen some of the geneologies and affiliations traced and found it interesting. You can do the same as it's easy to find these.


However,my only point(and one I think I've proven enough) is that it didn't start with this person you claim. The accuracy of individual theories is another matter.





Yes, the distinction is that in the minds and imaginations of conspiracy therists today,



...and of newspaper publishers,and government officials,and...




indirectly influenced by Nesta Webster via World Revolution, there exists some shadow organization bent on world domination by whatever means necessary. Note that there is no evidence, even circumstantial evidence, to back up this claim; at least I've never seen any. You got some?


Yes I do. And I'm sure you've seen some too whether you'll acknowledge or not as there are posts all around here and websites everywhere with some. But again that's not the point of this thread. The point of the thread is that it all comes from Nesta Webster,which it does not. And it boggles me how you can make the distinction between the Illuminati as a whole and the Bavarian Illuminati and still insist that what's conspiratorily said of both stem all from Webster when it predates her handily.





Well I think I have pretty much cleared up where I stand, and again shown facts to back up my position. If you still don't understand, I really don't know what to tell you.



Well it looks like my initial reading of your stance was correct,so that's about all I have to say about it. I think it's been disproven as clean as possible.




[edit on 2-9-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Axeman,
I also fail to see how Loungeriston has failed to debunk your claim. And would like clarification if possible.

He has clearly debunked your central thesis, which was:


Originally posted by The Axeman
It looks as though it all started with a certain Nesta H. Webster

and again…

Originally posted by The Axeman
OK let me spell this out for you one more time. My assertion is that the modern conspiracy theory concerning the Illuminati (in whatever capacity you wish to think of it) started as a result of this Nesta Webster's book.


Lougeriston pointed out that at least 2 books of a conspirational nature predates Webster’s books.

1798 John Robison’s Proofs of a Conspiracy is published.

1799 Augustin Barruél’s Memoirs of Jacobinism is published.

1921 Nesta Webster World Revolution; The Plot against Civilisation, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements is published.

Whether Robison and Barruél work has been debunked are not is irrelevant. The fact remains that although Webster contributed to the Illuminati Mythos, she is not its creator. And Axeman’s central thesis has been conclusively disproved.

Also note Axeman (has Loungeriston also pointed out) that when conspiracy theorists say Illuminati, they don’t always believe there are links to the Bavarian Illuminati. (And not all believe the Illuminati are shape-shifting reptilians, either) The Illuminati is often used as a term describing the combined rulers of the world.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Whether Robison and Barruél work has been debunked are not is irrelevant. The fact remains that although Webster contributed to the Illuminati Mythos, she is not its creator.


Exactly.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Just voted you loungerist for way above,very well said, clearly and politely debunked axes claims


df1

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Also note Axeman (has Loungeriston also pointed out) that when conspiracy theorists say Illuminati, they don’t always believe there are links to the Bavarian Illuminati. (And not all believe the Illuminati are shape-shifting reptilians, either) The Illuminati is often used as a term describing the combined rulers of the world.

Who in the heck died and made this lounger guy the spokesperson for conspiracy theorists? It seems to me that lounger should have used the phrase "the powers that be" if his intent was to talk about the combined rulers of the rulers. Using the term "Illuminati" in this context is does not convey the same meaning which explains lounger's convoluted confusion.

It seems to me that lounger is playing a game of semantics and is distorting the meaning of Axemans posts to mean something other than what was intended. While books on conspiracy have been written down through history, the point being made by Axeman is that Webster's theories are the model for the conspiracy theories of today, not that Webster wrote the first conspiracy book in the history of the world.
.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
You might be right df1, I should have left out the extra lines explaining the Illuminati as its irrelevant to the topic.

Let me try again, In his first post Axeman posted.


Originally posted by The Axeman
It looks as though it all started with a certain Nesta H. Webster.

(emphasis mine)

Axeman uses this quote to back this up:

Originally posted by The Axeman

from: www.cooperativeindividualism.org...

The central tenets of contemporary conspiracy theory owe much to the British author Nesta H. Webster's .


(emphasis mine)

Notice how it went from owe much in the original quote, to all in Axeman's statement? Therefore his central argument is flawed. Can we agree on this?

Axeman did however make a very good point, and it seems that more of conspiracy literature comes from Webster than I previously though. For example I looked at a conspiracy classic, Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy and indeed most of the chapter on the Illuminati is taken from Webster.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Thanks GPS. Didn't know so many people were reading it.


And here comes the fraternal cavalry...




Originally posted by df1Who in the heck died and made this lounger guy the spokesperson for conspiracy theorists? It seems to me that lounger should have used the phrase "the powers that be" if his intent was to talk about the combined rulers of the rulers. Using the term "Illuminati" in this context is does not convey the same meaning which explains lounger's convoluted confusion.



And it seems to me that Lounger used the words given in the thread. Correctly. And then specified to ensure correct context. It also seems to me that Lounger disproved the claim for each possible meaning of "Illuminati" just to further eliminate any and all confusion.




It seems to me that lounger is playing a game of semantics and is distorting the meaning of Axemans posts to mean something other than what was intended.



Of course. Because nothing distorts a person's meaning like quoting them directly.




While books on conspiracy have been written down through history, the point being made by Axeman is that Webster's theories are the model for the conspiracy theories of today, not that Webster wrote the first conspiracy book in the history of the world.
.


"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.",Axeman

"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...",Axeman

Hmmm....


df1

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by The Axeman
It looks as though it all started with a certain Nesta H. Webster.


Axeman uses this quote to back this up:

Originally posted by The Axeman

from: www.cooperativeindividualism.org...

The central tenets of contemporary conspiracy theory owe much to the British author Nesta H. Webster's .


(emphasis mine)

Notice how it went from owe much in the original quote, to all in Axeman's statement? Therefore his central argument is flawed. Can we agree on this?


I suppose it comes down to what Axeman means by the phrase "it all started". If he means the "central tenets of contemporary conspiracy theory" all started with Webster, I fail to see the flaw. On the other hand if he means that all conspiracies begin with Webster, it is flawed.

I would find hard to believe that Axeman intended the later interpretation as I know that he is well aware of prior conspiracy books. I will allow that some readers less familiar with Axeman's participation on these forums may conclude otherwise.

Do you think Axeman believes that Webster's is the first book ever published about conspiracy theory?
.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Df1,
Yes I know that Axeman is an intelligent poster and a benefit to these boards, I am in no way questioning Axeman’s legitimacy.

I am under the impression that Axeman means:
Conspiracy theories regarding the Illuminati and Adam Weishaupt ALL started with Webster’s books.
If this isn't the case, then I am wrong, and I apologize.

BTW in anyone is interested you can read Webster’s book here:
ca.geocities.com...

The section relating to the Illuminati is here:
ca.geocities.com...

and in its sources we find:

1. Barruel, III. p. xi. quoting Gaultiert
And
4. Mémoires sur le Jacobinisme (edition of 1819). Vol. III. p. 9.

both volumes mentioned by Loungerist previously.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Do you think Axeman believes that Webster's is the first book ever published about conspiracy theory?


If I may ask,what do you think was the reason for this post here?



originally posted by Axeman
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!


Why do you think he asked for this? In your opinion.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

BTW in anyone is interested you can read Webster’s book here:
ca.geocities.com...

The section relating to the Illuminati is here:
ca.geocities.com...

and in its sources we find:

1. Barruel, III. p. xi. quoting Gaultiert
And
4. Mémoires sur le Jacobinisme (edition of 1819). Vol. III. p. 9.

both volumes mentioned by Loungerist previously.





Well that should settle it,I would think.


df1

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
Well that should settle it,I would think.


I will tell you this, quoting a previous post a 2nd time gives it no more weight than when it was first posted. Try reposting it in all caps, maybe that will make your position stronger.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I notice you didn't answer the question DF. Curious habit that is.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Oh, I'm sorry!
You wanted a response?
Let's see, you'd have me believe your authors who have a bit of an agenda, and your thread put together for an agenda, over the likes of Antony Sutton, Chris Millegan, Steve Sewall and Carl Oglesby, not to mention Robert W. Lee?
I seriously think not, sir.

Ok, I have given a response. May I be excused now? I see no need in sitting in a class given by a teacher who knows less than I do. I had to do that in college in the general classes and vowed I'd not do that again.


df1

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
I notice you didn't answer the question DF.

Im pleased that you noticed.


Curious habit that is.

Not really, I usually ignore pointless questions. But do feel free to try again when you are feeling lucky.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join