History of Conspiracy Theory 101

Originally posted by df1

Not really, I usually ignore pointless questions.

Or anything that points out the holes in your arguement apparently. Well,at least this strategy is better than the strawman technique you tried last time.

Loungerist,
I had to look up stawman. I will now look for this more in ATS arguments. Logic, wow!

I believe we have a red-herring in this case.

And until Axeman clarifies is central statement, I’m afraid this thread will be little more than personal attacks.

Thanks for the backup df1, at least someone was able to see what I was trying to say.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
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.

Hey thanks!

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.

No, that is not what I meant, and that's my fault for not being more clear... I just reposted this post here from another thread and added a few lines at the beginning for background. My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory (i.e. www.forbiddenknowledge.com; www.illuminatiarchive.com; www. threeworldwars.com; and several others -- this post was originally written as an investigation into the "3WW" Albert Pike hoax) can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster. The point is that most of the contemporary literature about the Illuminati uses her book as a main reference for their theories. Just so it's clear, directly or indirectly means that either they cite her work directly, or they cite people who used her as a main reference for their work. I hope that clears it up.

There is no way in hell I would try to argue that she just made it up out of thin air, that's ridiculous. Alot of people base their conclusions on her work, that was my point all along, and loungerist, for all his posting, has failed to debunk that. He's welcome to try, as he has done a fairly decent job of debunking what he thought I was claiming, but alas, I would never make such a claim because it is, as he has shown, not possible. Now that we are clear on what the point is, fire away, loungerist.

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.

Thanks for posting the links.

Actually Barruel wrote Memoires, so that's only one. Not surprising as Barruel's was the more scholarly of the two, but still based on conjecture more than fact, from what I have read.

Originally posted by Loungerist

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?

That is a terrible analogy. You want to know why? Because Home Depot is not the only place in the world one can find liquid nails; if I wanted to find it someplace other than Home Depot I could; because if I feel so inclined I can trace that liquid nails back to the factory it came from. Hell, I could even find out the name of the man who was operating the machine my particular tube came from if I wanted to.

Conspiracy sites generally don't even cite their sources, and even when they do, it can more often than not be traced back to other conspiracy sites, or... you guessed it. Nesta Webster.

Context is the missing ingredient here.

Heheh. Context. Funny you should mention that when your whole argument is based on you taking my statements out of context, and quoting little snips of my posts to make it sound like I'm saying what you want me to say, so you can prove me wrong. You still have yet to get the point and show that what I have actually concluded is incorrect.

You post like you think I'm some kind of idiot. I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it damn sure wasn't yesterday.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
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.

My thread was put together to post what I had discovered, and invite others to comment or add to it. There is no agenda besides denying ignorance. Which of my authors has an agenda? I tried to find the best researched and sourced links and information I could find... more than I can say for alot of people. No reason to be a dick about it.

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.

Yes please, excuse yourself... take a hike, even. Oh and FYI, the title of the thread was not to imply that I was giving a class, it was in reference to the fact that I was engaging in a little "History of Conspiracy Theory 101" myself... that is to say, I was the one in class. So thanks so much for your condescending remarks, Mr. Smarty Pants... and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[edit on 9/3/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by The Axeman

Heheh. Context. Funny you should mention that when your whole argument is based on you taking my statements out of context, and quoting little snips of my posts to make it sound like I'm saying what you want me to say, so you can prove me wrong. You still have yet to get the point and show that what I have actually concluded is incorrect.

Well then I said before,I do believe you tweaked your stance throughout the thread as it was countered. I think what you were saying you said rather clearly. And at risk of being accused of taking you out of context again,I feel there's only one way these numerous statements can be properly interpretted with English.

originally quoted by 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.

originally quoted by Axeman
*citing the Webster article* There you have it: the beginnings of the “Illuminati conspiracy,”

originally quoted by Axeman
I'm talking about the whole business of the Illuminati, and the fact that the whole idea started with this one woman

originally quoted by Axeman
The point is, that according to the research I've done, the Illuminati conspiracy theory started with Nesta Webster's book.

originally quoted by Axeman
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;

originally quoted by Axeman
...the Illuminati conspiracy theory started with Webster, it is a conclusion based on documented fact.

You know what's going on in your head more than anyone else so if you say you didn't actually mean what you said numerous times repeatedly then we'll go with that. But I find it difficult to believe. And even though this is probably my last post in this thread I still like to know why you asked for this:

"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..."


...if you did not believe the Weishaupt conspiracy theory started with Webster as you said. Because I can't imagine why you would ask for this if not for a belief that you thought it started in the 1900s at the time.






And as I've stated before,even with the modifiers of "contemporary" or "modern" your claim that it started with Webster is still incorrect as Webster herself was aided by other people's work before her and built upon by people after her. So any way you slice it she is not who started it in any form. Contemporary,antiquated,or otherwise. Webster is just one name who helped contribute. As I,others in the thread,and the very article you used have said.

originally quoted by Axeman

You post like you think I'm some kind of idiot. I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it damn sure wasn't yesterday.

Not at all. I get the impression that you think other people are more dim-witted and less competent than they really are,but I certainly don't think you yourself are an idiot. In fact I think you're smarter than the average bear. I think you let your personal interests in issues heavily skew your reasoning,but I believe you're otherwise very intelligent. And despite DF's implication to the contrary,even though I think you're mistaken in this thread I'm well aware of your participation on the boards and in my opinion you're one of the sharper members around.

Originally posted by Loungerist
I feel there's only one way these numerous statements can be properly interpretted with English.

You distort what Axeman is saying by treating what he says as a serious of independent statements removed from the context in which they were used then applying your own narrative to arrive at the meaning you desire.

Everything that has ever been written can be interpreted in a variety of different ways however you claim that Axeman's words can only be interpreted in one way, yours.

Lounger, all you are putting forth is a bunch of intellectually dishonest rubbish using a perverted logic that would be unacceptable from an elementry school student.
.

Um,DF? You may not have noticed this gaping hole in your argument since you seem to always be reading a completely different thread from everyone else. But everyone who's posted but,surprise surprise,you,interpretted what Axeman said the same way. Whoops. Maybe you should just quit while you're behind.

You do nothing but attempt to distract from a topic with personal attacks and some of the most godawful debate tactics a person is likely to ever see past the age of 11. Attempt noted. Ignoring you is probably the best option.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Loungerist]

Again, yes, you have taken individual sentences and twisted the context to make it seem as though I am saying something I am not. Allow me to demonstrate:

Originally posted by Loungerist
...I feel there's only one way these numerous statements can be properly interpretted with English.

originally quoted by 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.

"It" being the theory that the Illuminati is somehow in control of the world's power base. Neither Barruel or Robison asserted that they (the Illuminati) were running the entire world; they dealt strictly with the French Revolution, which I have already stated.

originally quoted by Axeman
*citing the Webster article* There you have it: the beginnings of the “Illuminati conspiracy,”

Meaning the beginnings of the theory that the Illuminati is running the whole world.

originally quoted by Axeman
I'm talking about the whole business of the Illuminati, and the fact that the whole idea started with this one woman...

Meaning the whole idea that the Illuminati is behind worldwide events.

originally quoted by Axeman
The point is, that according to the research I've done, the Illuminati conspiracy theory started with Nesta Webster's book.

Again, the theory that the Illuminati are the string-pullers behind worldwide events.

originally quoted by Axeman
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;

Again referring to the worldwide conspiracy theory. This is where you tried to tell me that what I was saying was impossible, which it would have been, had Barruel or Robison or anyone else written about Weishaupt or the Illuminati in such a way as to implicate them in worldwide events, rather than just the French Revolution (interestingly enough, they failed to even show that beyond a reasonable doubt.).

originally quoted by Axeman
...the Illuminati conspiracy theory started with Webster, it is a conclusion based on documented fact.

Do I really need to say it again?

You know what's going on in your head more than anyone else so if you say you didn't actually mean what you said numerous times repeatedly then we'll go with that. But I find it difficult to believe. And even though this is probably my last post in this thread I still like to know why you asked for this:

"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..."


...if you did not believe the Weishaupt conspiracy theory started with Webster as you said. Because I can't imagine why you would ask for this if not for a belief that you thought it started in the 1900s at the time.

And here is where I should have been more specific. I was writing under the assumption that you understood that I was dealing on a worldwide scale here, not simply the French Revolution. Mea culpa. I am well aware, which is hilighted by the simple fact that I am aware of the history of the Bavarian Illuminati itself, that there was conspiracy theory regarding the Illuminati before the 1900's. That is the whole reason they were disbanded! I was taking for granted that you understood that by "...mention of Adam Weishaupt in a conspiratorial sense..." I meant a worldwide conspiracy theory, whose seeds were in fact sown by Ms. Webster.

And as I've stated before,even with the modifiers of "contemporary" or "modern" your claim that it started with Webster is still incorrect as Webster herself was aided by other people's work before her and built upon by people after her. So any way you slice it she is not who started it in any form. Contemporary,antiquated,or otherwise. Webster is just one name who helped contribute. As I,others in the thread,and the very article you used have said.

She took their work about the French Revolution and used that for her book. She is the one who made the jump from Weishaupt's Illuminati being behind the French Revolution (which they were almost certainly not), to:

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.

This was not the claim that Robison or Barruel made; it is Websters work, and IT, not the former's work on the French Revolution, is the basis of "nearly all contemporary conspiracy literature."

I apologize for not being more specific, but I assumed that one could glean from my first post the fact that I was speaking of conspiracy theory on a worldwide scale. Do we understand each other now?

originally quoted by Axeman

You post like you think I'm some kind of idiot. I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it damn sure wasn't yesterday.

Not at all. I get the impression that you think other people are more dim-witted and less competent than they really are,but I certainly don't think you yourself are an idiot. In fact I think you're smarter than the average bear. I think you let your personal interests in issues heavily skew your reasoning,but I believe you're otherwise very intelligent. And despite DF's implication to the contrary,even though I think you're mistaken in this thread I'm well aware of your participation on the boards and in my opinion you're one of the sharper members around.

No. I don't think you (or anyone else that has posted here) is dim-witted or incompetent; in fact I am quite pleased as to the caliber of your posts. You are articulate and for the most part make your points very well. I was just getting frustrated that you did not seem to understand that I was trying to deal with the leap Webster made from the French Revolution business to the World Revolution business. I thought I had made myself clear as to what I was referring to and we seemed to be having a communication breakdown. So no, I did not change my position at all anywhere in this thread, I just took for granted that you understood that I was referring to conspiracy theory on a world scale.

I appreciate the kind words, seriously. I assure you, however, that my intrerest in Freemasonry in no way clouds my judgement or reasoning in this matter. The facts speak for themselves.

I still feel that I have made my case, and I would still argue that you have not disproved it. Again, I apologize for the miscommunication; that's what you get for taking things for granted I suppose.

Nevertheless, thank you for participating in this thread, and I hope that we can continue; that is, if you still feel as though you can disprove my conclusion, now that there is no confusion as to what I am asserting.

You have voted Loungerist for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Loungerist
I feel there's only one way these numerous statements can be properly interpretted with English.

You distort what Axeman is saying by treating what he says as a serious of independent statements removed from the context in which they were used then applying your own narrative to arrive at the meaning you desire.

People in the conspiracy theory field do this all the time. Just look at what they do to Albert Pike! If you take single senteces out of context you can make almost anything mean what you want it to mean. I hope that I have cleared that up with my previous post.

Again, thanks for the support df1, I was starting to feel like a man on an island.

[edit on 9/4/05 by The Axeman]

So before I respond,let me now make sure we're all in understanding with absolute clarity. Emphasis on points you say were misinterpretted. Your stance Axeman is that:

The theory that the Bavarian Illuminati/Weishaupt sought world dominance was started with Nesta Webster?

Originally posted by Loungerist
So before I respond,let me now make sure we're all in understanding with absolute clarity. Emphasis on points you say were misinterpretted. Your stance Axeman is that:

The theory that the Bavarian Illuminati/Weishaupt sought world dominance was started with Nesta Webster?

I'd suggest that you reread what has been previously written in context rather than trying to restate 3 pages of thread in a single short sentence. You have this bad habit of taking sentences out of context and narrowly paraphrasing inaccurately rather than saying anything of merit. It appears to me that you believe rudely degrading others elevates you. Perhaps others are impressed, but I am not.
.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by df1]

Originally posted by df1
I'd suggest that you reread what has been previously written in context rather than trying to restate 3 pages of thread in a single short sentence.

Actually, what Lougerist is asking for is confirmation of Axeman’s central thesis before proceeding (since there has been a misunderstanding regarding this for the past 3 pages, this isn't so strange.)

Axeman’s central argument (or thesis) should be clear, and should be in 1 or very few sentences in order to be clear.

And df1 I doubt very much that a central thesis can be taken out of context since the context’s purpose is to support the central thesis itself.

Without a good, clear thesis that presents an intriguing arguable point, a paper is doomed to seem unfocussed, weak, and not worth the reader's time.

Source


[edit on 4/9/05 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I doubt very much that a central thesis can be taken out of context.

The thesis has already been taken out of context by lounger and Axeman followed up by explaining his thesis with extreme clarity.

Originally posted by Loungerist
So before I respond,let me now make sure we're all in understanding with absolute clarity. Emphasis on points you say were misinterpretted. Your stance Axeman is that:

The theory that the Bavarian Illuminati/Weishaupt sought world dominance was started with Nesta Webster?

IMHO lounger understands completely and is trying to manipulate & distort Axeman's thesis into something he can bash by rephrasing the thesis into his own words rather than responding to Axeman's words.

Originally posted by Axeman
My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory (i.e. www.forbiddenknowledge.com; www.illuminatiarchive.com; www.threeworldwars.com; and several others -- this post was originally written as an investigation into the "3WW" Albert Pike hoax) can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster.

Axeman's thesis seems quite simple and straight forward to me. Exactly which part of the thesis dont you and lounger understand?

Agree or disagree with Axeman's thesis, but cut out the intellectual dishonesty.



[edit on 4-9-2005 by df1]

That’s what I had seen has the central thesis also, thanx Df1, however I’m afraid a little more clarification is needed…

Does Axeman mean: ALL contemporary conspiracy theory Or contemporary conspiracy theory has depicted in www.forbiddenknowledge.com; www.illuminatiarchive.com; www.threeworldwars.com; and several others sites?

so:
Axeman central argument is:
1. ,My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster.
or
2. My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory as depicted in www.forbiddenknowledge.com; www.illuminatiarchive.com; www.threeworldwars.com; and several others can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster.

Sorry, is I'm being picky but there is a huge diffeerence between the two statements.


I found this, I hope it will help the argument a bit…

This is from John Robison ‘s Proof of a conspiracy.

AN ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN FORMED for the express purpose of ROOTING OUT ALL THE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OVERTURNING ALL THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE.

source: www.bilderberg.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.bilderberg.org... (sorry about the all caps, that’s in the original.) Most of the relevent parts of the books can be found on this site.

In Robinson’s version, The Illuminati limited themselves to Europe, so still didn’t have Worldly ambitions.

I’ve haven’t found Memoirs of Jacobinism, if anyone had a link to it I would appreciate it. There are no copyrights on these texts, I would’ve thought they’d be easier to find.

And you should notice that in this argument omits the references to the Bavarian Illuminati and Weishaupt and includes all modern conspiracy theories.

I'm afraid this could once again incur the wrath of TC since In this argument you would also mean that serious researchers such as Antony Sutton, Chris Millegan, Steve Sewall, Carl Oglesby and Robert W. Lee base their works on Webster's book. (I myself enjoy Sutton a lot)

I think Loungerist proposed thesis was far less encompassing and easier to support for Axeman.


[edit on 4/9/05 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by Loungerist
So before I respond,let me now make sure we're all in understanding with absolute clarity. Emphasis on points you say were misinterpretted. Your stance Axeman is that:

The theory that the Bavarian Illuminati/Weishaupt sought world dominance was started with Nesta Webster?

Jesus man...

My conclusion is this:

If you look at most (key word; the vast majority, even) contemporary conspiracy theory that concludes that the Illuminati (let me point out here that most of the literature I've seen holds that the Bavarian Illuminati, upon disbandment, went underground and has been manipulating world policies and leaders covertly ever since, which accounts for the seperation of "The Illuminati" of contemporary conspiracy theory and "The Bavarian Illuminati") being responsible and indeed in control of world events, and ushering in a New World Order, can be traced back to Nesta Webster; either directly, or by citing someone who used her work as a springboard for their own.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Does Axeman mean: ALL contemporary conspiracy theory Or contemporary conspiracy theory has depicted in www.forbiddenknowledge.com; www.illuminatiarchive.com; www.threeworldwars.com; and several others sites?

so:
Axeman central argument is:
1. ,My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster.
or
2. My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory as depicted in www.forbiddenknowledge.com; www.illuminatiarchive.com; www.threeworldwars.com; and several others can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster.

Sorry, is I'm being picky but there is a huge diffeerence between the two statements.

Let me quote myself, and I'll expand a bit, for the sake of being concise:

Originally posted by The Axeman
My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory (i.e. www.forbiddenknowledge.com; www.illuminatiarchive.com; www.threeworldwars.com; and several others -- this post was originally written as an investigation into the "3WW" Albert Pike hoax) can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster.

Now, I just used these sites as examples in an attempt to allow you to grasp the meat of what I am saying. If you look at conspiracy theorists today, if they are talking about the Illuminati, either in books, websites, pamphlets, flyers, whatever, then most of the time (there are sure to be some original ideas out there, though I have yet to see any ) you can trace the source of the information back to Webster; either by citing her directly, using her ideas with no credit given, sometimes taking her ideas as a base and expounding on them with their own (which wouldn't be possible without the precedent set by Webster)...

Good grief, I feel like a broken record... a broken record... a broken record... a broken record... a broken record...

Let me state for the record that this conclusion is based on the research I have done, and while I have tried to be thorough, this isn't exactly a Master's thesis or anything... it's a thread on a conspiracy board, authored solely for my entertainment and for the sake of denying ignorance. I'm not such a intellectual snob that I think I am right all the time, or that my opinion and conclusions are infallible; if you can show me that I am in error, then you've done us all a favor because we all will have learned something. Have you not learned something from this thread already? I know I have.

Batter up!

[edit on 9/4/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Actually, what Lougerist is asking for is confirmation of Axeman’s central thesis before proceeding (since there has been a misunderstanding regarding this for the past 3 pages, this isn't so strange.)

Exactly. This would go without need for explantion to most people. But as DF always appears to try to avoid the actual topic itself I can see how it threw him.

Originally posted by The Axeman


My conclusion is this:

If you look at most (key word; the vast majority, even) contemporary conspiracy theory that concludes that the Illuminati (let me point out here that most of the literature I've seen holds that the Bavarian Illuminati, upon disbandment, went underground and has been manipulating world policies and leaders covertly ever since, which accounts for the seperation of "The Illuminati" of contemporary conspiracy theory and "The Bavarian Illuminati") being responsible and indeed in control of world events, and ushering in a New World Order, can be traced back to Nesta Webster; either directly, or by citing someone who used her work as a springboard for their own.

Well as I said earlier Webster's work has had an impact so if that is your thesis no one has argued against it. How much impact one thinks she's had likely depends on where they've personally looked. But when dealing with referrence literature having someone cited as a source is standard procedure. It doesn't mean everything is based on that source or that it makes all the same errors of that source if some exist. Research methods and information improve and old sources can be used in cooberation with new for greater accuracy. And as Webster's work is said to be almost mirrored by earlier writers of the same period I'd quibble with saying it goes specifically to her.

Though Weishaupt ushering in a new world order was something Robison spoke about as well. Robison said Weishaupt's ultimate goal was world domination and single world government through means of orchestrated crises. If he happened to speak just of the French revolution it was only because that's all that had happened by that time. A later writer would have more to link Weishaupt's machinations to but it's the same premise. As I'm sure later writer's who've cited Webster have expanded with things that occurred beyond her time as she has with writers she cited before her. And so on.

Axeman


Now, I just used these sites as examples in an attempt to allow you to grasp the meat of what I am saying. If you look at conspiracy theorists today, if they are talking about the Illuminati, either in books, websites, pamphlets, flyers, whatever, then most of the time (there are sure to be some original ideas out there, though I have yet to see any

) you can trace the source of the information back to Webster; either by citing her directly, using her ideas with no credit given, sometimes taking her ideas as a base and expounding on them with their own (which wouldn't be possible without the precedent set by Webster)...

That's so broad and wide that I wouldn't try to disprove it as it cannont be proven to begin with. It relies on the assumption that the ideas are automatically Webster's whether she's cited as a source or not. The conspiracy theory of the Bavarian Illuminati is the result of research and investigation and not a tale pulled from the ether even if some of it may be speculative. So different people can arrive at the same belief if that's where the trail of study leads. It's not something that necessarily changes with each teller as history it's based on doesn't change. Because someone reaches a similiar conclusion doesn't automatically mean they got it from someone else. Robison and Barruel for example reached similiar conclusions independently. That's just where their research led.

Good grief, I feel like a broken record... a broken record... a broken record... a broken record... a broken record...

I can feel your pain since from my end it read like different records being played instead of a broken one. Made it impossible to dance to.

Originally posted by Axeman
My argument is that contemporary conspiracy theory... can be directly or indirectly traced back to Nesta Webster.

Axeman's thesis has been previously posted, however it appears that lounger is ignoring it because he is impotent to refute it. I have no expectation of a coherent reply as lounger appears to have a narcissitic love of his own words to the point that he will not read words typed by anyone other than himself, but I will none the less ask once more:

Which part of Axeman's thesis do you not understand?

Originally posted by Loungerist

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Actually, what Lougerist is asking for is confirmation of Axeman’s central thesis before proceeding (since there has been a misunderstanding regarding this for the past 3 pages, this isn't so strange.)

Exactly. This would go without need for explantion to most people. But as DF always appears to try to avoid the actual topic itself I can see how it threw him.

You guys just love sniping at each other, don't you?

Well as I said earlier Webster's work has had an impact so if that is your thesis no one has argued against it. How much impact one thinks she's had likely depends on where they've personally looked.

Agreed. But as I said, where I've looked, which includes the sites I mentioned, the sites they link to, the books and theorists they rely on for their own conclusions, in addition to other sources, all point to Webster, in some form or another.

But when dealing with referrence literature having someone cited as a source is standard procedure. It doesn't mean everything is based on that source or that it makes all the same errors of that source if some exist.

But the point is that Webster's theories go largely unchanged in this contemporary literature. That is why I say it is based on and relays the inaccuracies of her work. Certainly there will be some degree of modification in some cases, but the fact remains that the central theory can be traced back to her, and it is undesputably rooted in speculation, rather than documented facts.

Research methods and information improve and old sources can be used in cooberation with new for greater accuracy. And as Webster's work is said to be almost mirrored by earlier writers of the same period I'd quibble with saying it goes specifically to her.

Actually what is said is that Una Pope-Hennesy wrote a book about secret societies and the French Revolution, and then a few years later, Webster wrote a book dealing with the same thing, with apparently the same sources and came to the same conclusions, yet gave no mention of Pope-Hennesy's book in her own. Curious, no?

Though Weishaupt ushering in a new world order was something Robison spoke about as well. Robison said Weishaupt's ultimate goal was world domination and single world government through means of orchestrated crises. If he happened to speak just of the French revolution it was only because that's all that had happened by that time. A later writer would have more to link Weishaupt's machinations to but it's the same premise.

Have you read the book? If such is the case I'd be appreciative if you would cite a source and/or give a quote or an excerpt where he states this. If you'll notice I most generally give sources for what I say, I would appreciate it if, for the sake of scholarly research and debate, you would do the same. That doesn't mean you have to post a bunch of links, as that's "annoying" ( ), but some kind of source to back up what you say would be nice, not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of all those who might be reading this thread. Hi guys!

As I'm sure later writer's who've cited Webster have expanded with things that occurred beyond her time as she has with writers she cited before her. And so on.

Yes but the thing is, what connects those occurances to Weishaupt and the Illuminati is Webster's assertion that the Illuminati is bent on World Revolution and that Weishaupt was "the profoundest conspirator of all time." If it weren't for her work, it stands to reason that alot of people would not connect these things to the Illuminati.

That's so broad and wide that I wouldn't try to disprove it as it cannont be proven to begin with. It relies on the assumption that the ideas are automatically Webster's whether she's cited as a source or not. The conspiracy theory of the Bavarian Illuminati is the result of research and investigation and not a tale pulled from the ether even if some of it may be speculative.

It is the result of speculation that a defunct organization who was working toward reform in Bavaria went underground and began engaging in subversive actions all over the world. The "research and investigation" only reveals that which we already know; that they wanted to change the status quo in Bavaria, on a governmental and religious level. The theory that they had anything to do with the French Revolution was based on very little fact and alot of specultion, and the theory that they are running the world or working toward "World Revolution" is on even shakier ground.

So different people can arrive at the same belief if that's where the trail of study leads. It's not something that necessarily changes with each teller as history it's based on doesn't change. Because someone reaches a similiar conclusion doesn't automatically mean they got it from someone else. Robison and Barruel for example reached similiar conclusions independently. That's just where their research led.

The fact of the matter is that all either of them had to go on was the facts that are in evidence regarding the Illuminati, which in no way suggests that they had anything to do with the French Revolution:

from: freemasonry.bcy.ca...

The Edicts [on June 22, 1784, for its suppression] of the Elector of Bavaria [Duke Karl Theodor] were repeated in March and August, 1785 and the Order began to decline, so that by the end of the eighteenth century it had ceased to exist.... it exercised while in prosperity no favorable influence on the masonic institution, nor any unfavorable effect on it by its dissolution."9

In 1785 Weishaupt was deprived of his chair and banished with pension from the country. He refused the pension and moved to Regenburg, subsequently finding asylum with the Count of Saxe-Gotha, Ernst. Weishaupt was later appointed a professor at the University of Gottingen, remaining there until his death in 1830

Seeing as the Revolution started in 1789, it stands to reason, once again, that the Illuminati had nothing to do with it. Weishaupt was at the time in Regenburg writing apologetic letters and tracts.

Say you went out with the boys one night, and you didn't come home until the wee hours of the morning. Both your neighbor and the other neighbor's wife were aware of you coming home at such a late hour. They decide to research and investigate, and they notice that this happens twice or three times a week. The fact of the matter could be that you were having a few pints with the boys and lost track of time, but two of your neighbors, independant of each other, come to the conclusion that you must be fooling around on your girlfriend, and both of them, without any knowledge of the other, proceed to tell your girlfriend that you are cheating, and you end up in the proverbial dog house. Such is the danger of assumption. But... that's just where the facts that they had to work with led them, right?

I know that's a corny analogy but it works.

I can feel your pain since from my end it read like different records being played instead of a broken one. Made it impossible to dance to.

I don't see how, but since I have two huge left feet and can't dance at all regardless, you're one up on me there.

[edit on 9/5/05 by The Axeman]

Here are some quotes from Proofs: (bold emphasis mine)

AN ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN FORMED for the express purpose of ROOTING OUT ALL THE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OVERTURNING ALL THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE.

Note that he says Europe, not the world. (keep in mind this is the end of the 18th century), I posted this earlier, I just think it related.

Leaders of this Association disbelieved every word that they uttered, and every doctrine that they taught; and that their real intention was to abolish all religion, overturn every government, and make the world a general plunder and a wreck.

And when we see that the methods which were practised by this Association for the express purpose of breaking all the bands of society, were employed solely in order that the leaders might rule the world with uncontrollable power, while all the rest, even of the associated, will be degraded in their own estimation, corrupted in their principles, and employed as mere tools of the ambition of their unknown superiors;

And here the author mentions the Illuminati going underground:

And, lastly, I have seen that this Association still exists, still works in secret, and that not only several appearances among ourselves show that its emissaries are endeavoring to propagate their detestable doctrines among us, but that the Association has Lodges in Britain corresponding with the mother Lodge at Munich ever since 1784.

The Association of which I have been speaking, is the Order of ILLUMINATI, founded in 1775, by Dr. Adam Weishaupt, professor of Canon law in the university of Ingolstadt, and abolished in 1786 by the Elector of Bavaria, but revived immediately after, under another name, and in a different form, all over Germany.

source: ibid

BTW, Axeman I'm also enjoying this thread and learning a lot from it, thank you both Axeman and Lougerist for the lessons.

Edit: noticed link didn't work, sorry.. fixed now

[edit on 5/9/05 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by The Axeman

Have you read the book? If such is the case I'd be appreciative if you would cite a source and/or give a quote or an excerpt where he states this. If you'll notice I most generally give sources for what I say, I would appreciate it if, for the sake of scholarly research and debate, you would do the same. That doesn't mean you have to post a bunch of links, as that's "annoying" (

), but some kind of source to back up what you say would be nice, not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of all those who might be reading this thread. Hi guys!

Actually I already provided a source for this. On page 2 of the thread,where I first mention Robison I linked to the introduction to Proofs of a Conspiracy... which outlines Robison's work in some detail. Weishaupt wanting to rule the world is alluded to numerous times. Here's a few.


"...it was not surprising that a man like Adam Weishaupt, a
professor of considerable renown at Ingolstadt University, driven
by an incredible and diabolical ambition to rule the world -- no
less -- would be attracted to the Masonic lodges, where he could
find secrecy, protection, and a few like-minded colleagues."


"And so he devised an ingenious vehicle for world conquest -- a secret Order -- which would prove immensely attractive to other mentally superior
beings of a similar frame of mind. He called it the Illuminati
Order."


"It was through this process of selection and careful inculcation
that Weishaupt, in a mere decade, was able to gather into his
Order the cleverest and most diabolical minds in Europe. The true
purpose of the Order was to rule the world. To achieve this it
was necessary for the Order to destroy all religions, overthrow
all governments, and abolish private property."

originally posted by Loungerist
Though Weishaupt ushering in a new world order was something Robison spoke about as well. Robison said Weishaupt's ultimate goal was world domination and single world government through means of orchestrated crises. If he happened to speak just of the French revolution it was only because that's all that had happened by that time. A later writer would have more to link Weishaupt's machinations to but it's the same premise. As I'm sure later writer's who've cited Webster have expanded with things that occurred beyond her time as she has with writers she cited before her. And so on.

Yes but the thing is, what connects those occurances to Weishaupt and the Illuminati is Webster's assertion that the Illuminati is bent on World Revolution and that Weishaupt was "the profoundest conspirator of all time."

But,again,this assertion predates Webster by well over a hundred years. So it is not hers.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by Loungerist]