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.

 

Illuminati Argument?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Well, thats a tough one.

Do I believe there is a group or groups of people who are manipulating events behind the scenes with the hope of imposing their own ideals of rule upon the world? yes. There is so much evidence.

However, do I believe its the Illuminati? Depends on your definition. There are many different viewpoints about who and what the Illuminati are, and its really hard to clean through all the clutter. Its hard to take certain theories seriously because most of the stuff I hear about the "real" workings of the Illuminati come from out of touch religous whacked out nutcases, whose facts read more like their own paranoia and religous madness than any intelligibile data.

So I cant say that anyone has given me a solid, concise arguement that the Illuminati, as most people see it, exists.

However, there is alot of evidence that major power brokers like the Rothschilds, Rockerfellers, Bushs, Bilderbergs, Krupps, amongst other families, as well as other political and industrial giants, have been and continue to manipulate world events and politics for less than benign reasons or results.




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Reading the protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is enough evidence for me that the Illuminati exists. Then in turn look at the world and how it is today, its clear to me that they have achieved practically all their goals. I don't really see the protocols as prophetic but more less a proposed plan.


If you go into that forum listed, you will see that myself, Nygdan, and many others have presented the evidence against the Protocols. They were original written in the 1800's by a man bent on exploiting the lust for world domination by NAPOLEON. Never, anywhere in the text, was there a mention of Jews or anything else. Funny, however, that the same document appears a few years later under a different title, only now, Napoleon's name has been replaced with "Jew". You can't base any evidence of ANYTHING on the Protocols, exept perhaps that Napoleon wanted to rule the world. That's about it.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
If you go into that forum listed, you will see that myself, Nygdan, and many others have presented the evidence against the Protocols.

You keep saying this, but this has not be done. Especially by Nygdan, (he is debating the Priory's non-existance, not the protocols. They are not the same!) the only one who claims this is you. I've told you before that only 16% was copied from the dialogue. So please stop claiming it has been debunked until you have clearly done so.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley


The Illuminati exists for sure. Encyclopedia Brittanica says that they were formed in Bavaria in May 1st 1776 but later on went underground in Freemasonry in North America. Convieniently they don't say anything more.


Can you cite a reference for Brttanica claiming that the Illuminati went underground in America? We know that the Illuminati existed in Bavaria, but historians agree that it ceased to exist by the end of the 19th century. The story that the Illuminati came to America is a conspiracy theory, not a fact of history, and I'd be interested in seeing what your version of the encyclopedia says on the subject.



And when it comes to Freemasonry once you reach the 33rd you could be selected for Illuminism, Illuminated Degrees. But Masonry is a great way for them to weed out good people and keep them in the dark while the people consumed with greed find their way in.


How do you know this? Are you a Mason, and has this happened to you? And why the 33°, which is a Scottish Rite degree? Why not one of the higher degrees in the York Rite or the Swedish Rite?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Unfortunately your going to have to track down a set of the books from 1960-1970.

I know it says it in the 66 version for sure.

I didn't specify which right. maybe Illuminated degrees aren't well known to you lower masons in North America but I am aware that in Europe it's more well known.

The Illuminati never disbanded in the 19th century. All you have to do is follow their symbols and oyu'll see they are alive and well. The USD pyramid - the same pyramid at the Israeli Supreme Court (hehe follow the money)

Follow all the Eagle symbols too. It's plainly obvious when you follow the symbols. The German Eagle - Hitler was under the thumb of the International Bankers who just happen to be Illuminated Masons.

Look into the Rothschilds aswell. Not a very caring bunch of Masons thats for sure. Did you know that during the battle of Waterloo Baron Rothschild spread false rumours that Napoleon won the battle just so they could buy up all the collapsed stocks in london??

You have to look at the Illuminati in a different way to fully understand them.

Lets compare the Illuminati to...a used car. Different driver over the years but the same engine... Thats the most simple comparison I can come up with.

Oh yea and I forgot. Hilary Clinton used to sport an Illuminati Pheonix lapel pin for the first years of the Clinton administration but then suddenly stopped wearing. Probably for fear that people would catch on.






[edit on 11-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Unfortunately your going to have to track down a set of the books from 1960-1970.

I know it says it in the 66 version for sure.


I will definitely check it out, and get back. I'm unaware of anyone except for conspiracy theorists who make that claim.


I didn't specify which right. maybe Illuminated degrees aren't well known to you lower masons in North America but I am aware that in Europe it's more well known.


This statement is sort of contradictory. To begin with, so-called "Illuminated degrees" were the degrees of the Illuminati, not of Freemasonry. The Illuminati itself consisted of ten degrees, which included the three degrees of Craft Masonry.

But earlier you attempted to tie Illuminism into the 33°, which is a degree with American origins, instead of European ones. The 33° is the highest degree of the Scottish Rite of Masonry, and was originally only an administrative degree denoting voting members of the Rite's Supreme Council. In the late 19th century, the degree began conferred on other members of the Rite for honorary purposes. Please elaborate further on your claim that this degree has ties to the Illuminati, what those ties are, and how they function in such a manner.

Secondly, how do you define "you lower Masons"? What level of Masonic experience is required before a Mason can speak with reasonable authority on the subject? And wouldn't even an Entered Apprentice just initiated last night be more authoritative in the matter than a non-Mason simply because he's experienced Masonry first-hand? If not, why?


The Illuminati never disbanded in the 19th century. All you have to do is follow their symbols and oyu'll see they are alive and well. The USD pyramid - the same pyramid at the Israeli Supreme Court (hehe follow the money)


The claim that the Great Seal of the United States has anything to do with any Illuminati symbols is a claim that so far hasn't been backed up by any evidence. If your claim is true, just when and where did the Illuminati use those symbols, and why do you think that the Great Seal was invented by the Illuminati?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

You keep saying this, but this has not be done. Especially by Nygdan, (he is debating the Priory's non-existance, not the protocols. They are not the same!) the only one who claims this is you. I've told you before that only 16% was copied from the dialogue. So please stop claiming it has been debunked until you have clearly done so.


Call the percentage whatever you want. The fact that ANYTHING was copied is proof enough. How do you take something that was originally referring to someone else, copy it down, and then say that it was entirely different? Was it just that the writer was too lazy to write down what REALLY happened, so therefore decided to copy something that "seemed to closely" fit and call it good? Please.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia

Call the percentage whatever you want. The fact that ANYTHING was copied is proof enough. How do you take something that was originally referring to someone else, copy it down, and then say that it was entirely different? Was it just that the writer was too lazy to write down what REALLY happened, so therefore decided to copy something that "seemed to closely" fit and call it good?


I've got to agree with Eden on this one. In the world of academia, it wouldn't matter if 16% or 6% or 99% was copied from a different source: either way it's plagiarism. In this instance, at least in my opinion, it shows the Protocols to be fake beyond a reasonable doubt.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Also, just on the subject of that toolkit that seems to "proove their authenticity", here are a few direct quotes from the author of that, granted well composed and well written, article:

"Even though I have an opinion on the Protocols, as stated, it is not an unqualified one. I am not certain of it, and I accept that the evidence is not one-sided, but that there is a case each way. In presenting material arguing both sides, I hope to enable the reader to make an independent assessment."

"Much of the material presented here can be used to support either position with respect to the Protocols."

He then goes on to compare the rewrites of the original Napoleon document to the Gospels. The difference is that the Gospels ARE synoptic, as they were accounts supposedly by men who had all BEEN THERE. The differences are only in the interpretation of events as seen through different eyes. This is not the case here. Here, we have entirely separate authors, in entirely separate timelines and political scenarios. I am not arguing that the Protocols don't exist and have not been used as a vicious anti-semetic tool, only that they are not an original form of what they are intended to do. They are rewritten over and over again, with changes being made to fit the current user. As for the sixteen percent, what is the point being made here exactly? If I were to whisper in your ear that a NASA shuttle landed on Mars, by the time you in turn whispered it to twenty other people, in different settings and environments, the story would eventually become something like, "Martians are invading the capitol city with one of our own shuttles!" The point is that things are distorted over time to fit a particular person's individual needs. There is no surprise in the fact that only 16% was taken completely from the original. That is exactly what happens when you are forging something new from something original. Why copy the text word for word? When it is only a small percentage that seems to work for you. The toolkit is a very persuasive argument for the other side, but all it really does is try to tear down the arguments already made against the Protocols, all the while doing this saying that this is only an opinion, and it is up to the reader to decide which is the more logical. Not much help in my opinion.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
They are rewritten over and over again, with changes being made to fit the current user.

Exactly, this is what I’m trying to say. I’m interested in the possibilities that there is an existing version of this document. Both authors could have borrowed from an earlier version of the Protocols. (Similar to the biblical Q document) These ideas, these prophecies that are happening today have a source.

Note, that I’ve never said any versions were written by jews.


Cohn's arithmetic is incorrect. The word-count of the parallel-passages from the Protocols, as listed by Bernstein (at bernstein.zip), is 4,361, while the word-count of the Protocols is 26, 496. That is, the parallel passages comprise 16.45% of the Protocols; this is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols' extensive coverage of the world finance system.

Source: users.cyberone.com.au...



Was it just that the writer was too lazy to write down what REALLY happened

Have you even read the Protocols EdenKaia?

ML 16% proves plagiarism but that doesn’t mean the documents are fake. Are you guys all positive that Russian Intelligence did all of this?

It was not written for academics. It was written as a guide to controlling the world. A forged version of it could be use to ferment hatred against a race. I could take the document, and quickly replace all instances of jews with freemasons inner circle and replace goyim with cowan. (I'm sure some would even fall for it.
) I would have an instant propaganda tool against freemasonry. Isn’t it possible that the Russian police did the same to forment hatred for the jews? Do we know for a fact that they didn't?


Cohn admits that the Protocols was ignored until World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, 20 or so years after it was written (Warrant For Genocide, pp. 14-15, pp. 124-5).

If it were a forgery designed to stir up pogroms etc, one would think that the forgers had failed, since it had no effect for 20 years

Source: users.cyberone.com.au...


[edit on 11/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

[edit on 11/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

[edit on 11/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23



ML 16% proves plagiarism but that doesn’t mean the documents are fake. Are you guys all positive that Russian Intelligence did all of this?


According to the evidence at hand, yes.


It was not written for academics. It was written as a guide to controlling the world. A forged version of it could be use to ferment hatred against a race. I could take the document, and quickly replace all instances of jews with freemasons inner circle and replace goyim with cowan. (I'm sure some would even fall for it.
) I would have an instant propaganda tool against freemasonry. Isn’t it possible that the Russian police did the same to forment hatred for the jews? Do we know for a fact that they didn't?


Notice that earlier I used the term "beyond reasonable doubt". I did this purposely, and in its legal context. Sure, a group hell-bent on world domination could have authored an earlier document that the Russians plagiarized, but that's just hypothetical. Aliens from the planet Mumuu could have done it too.

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but only want to demonstrate a point. Practically anything's possible, even three-headed grasshopper men from Mumuu, but by "beyond reasonable doubt" we have to refer to what the unbiased "reasonable person" on the jury would conclude when looking at the evidence, and it would seem that the jury in this case would declare the whole thing a hoax.



Cohn admits that the Protocols was ignored until World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, 20 or so years after it was written (Warrant For Genocide, pp. 14-15, pp. 124-5).


If it were a forgery designed to stir up pogroms etc, one would think that the forgers had failed, since it had no effect for 20 years


The Turner Diaries didn't immediately cause any trouble, but they eventually fell into the hands of Timothy MacVeigh. But whether or not the original compilers met with success in their goal seems to be an entirely different question than who they actually were.



[edit on 11-5-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Have you even read the Protocols EdenKaia?


I have, and thoroughly. I would never post about something that I have not even looked at. This is pointless and gets no one anywhere.


16% proves plagiarism but that doesn’t mean the documents are fake. Are you guys all positive that Russian Intelligence did all of this?


This statement you just made is proof enough, and also begs the question what exactly are YOU arguing for? No one has said that the documents are FAKE, what was said is that they are a FORGERY of previous documents. And as far as Russian Intelligence, yes, they are on the list of those that have remade the original to fit their individual needs.


It was not written for academics. It was written as a guide to controlling the world. A forged version of it could be use to ferment hatred against a race. I could take the document, and quickly replace all instances of jews with freemasons inner circle and replace goyim with cowan. (I'm sure some would even fall for it.
) I would have an instant propaganda tool against freemasonry. Isn’t it possible that the Russian police did the same to forment hatred for the jews? Do we know for a fact that they didn't?


It is entirely possible. This is exactly what everyone else has been saying and you have been arguing against. I have already said that I believe the Russians did this. I have also said that the original document was referring to Napoleon wanting to take over the world. Either way you look at it, whichever document you refer to, the Protocols are in fact a guide to world domination. Let me reiterate, THIS WAS NEVER THE ARGUMENT. If all you wish to say is that the Protocols could possible have originated somewhere BEFORE the documents referring to the Napoleonic wars, then by all means, you have done so and it has been noted. But to argue that the Protocols are ORIGINAL, in any way other than what was changed, is futile and all the evidence against such a claim has already been laid out.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Thing on the protocols:

-It mirrors word by word the funeral speech of a 19th century rabbi.

- The guy who released it in Russia was caught by the secret police. It's translator as well.

- Kerensky (leader of the Mencheviks) BANNED it in Russia. Even though he reigned for less than a year or so, it was one of the first things he did.

-Stalin was a fervent reader of the Talmud. His wife was a jewess as well.

-It's precepts are being followed today by SOMEBODY since it's predictions on currency manipulation, religious wars, and media manipulation are all in line with current history.

- The book is still banned in many countries.

- Hitler made deals with the Roschild family, ie: holocaust Gold for credit

and so forth. Enough to raise an eye on this old text.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
If you read the above posts, you will find the verification you need to tell you how BOTH have been proven fakes


Originally posted by EdenKaia
No one has said that the documents are FAKE, what was said is that they are a FORGERY of previous documents.

I couldn’t resist.

I think we only have a slight difference in opinions about the Protocol's origins. You believe the Protocols originated with Dialogues. I believe that that both could have originated from an earlier document. BTW, I’m glad you read the Protocols, I was just making sure. (For those interested its only 50 pages or so when printed out)

IMO, it is possible that it comes from an earlier source, and yes it could have been written by three-headed grasshopper men from Mumuu. (some believe they also wrote the Shakespearean sonnets)

I’ve never doubted the Protocols’s forgery and use by the Russian police, I've never said they were original. (please don’t put words in my mouth.) I believe there is really something to those document and hence my interest in them. I’m just not ready to dismiss them so easily and so quickly formed my opinion about them.

I think what we have to do, is read Dialogues and compare to the Protocols, and judge for ourselves.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Joly himself appears to have plagiarized a good amount of the material from a popular novel by Eugène Sue, The Mysteries of the People, in which the plotters were Jesuits

source: en.wikipedia.org...

Now we have a similar document used against the Jesuits, then used against Napoleon and later used against the jews.

[edit on 12/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash


- Kerensky (leader of the Mencheviks) BANNED it in Russia. Even though he reigned for less than a year or so, it was one of the first things he did.


Although probably just a technicality, Kerensky was never a Menshevik. The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were two factions of the same party, the Social Democrats, which was a Marxist organization. Kerensky was head of the Social Revolutionaries, who were non-Marxist democratic socialists and liberals. The SR's took political power in February 1917, but the SD's led by Lenin established several industrial soviets to oppose them. Trotsky, who was a leader of the Mensheviks, eventually cast in with the Bolsheviks, and the SR's were ousted in October.


-Stalin was a fervent reader of the Talmud. His wife was a jewess as well.


What is your source for Stalin and the Talmud, I've never heard that one before. Also, Stalin had been married twice: first to Ekaterina Svanidze who died in 1907, and again to Nadezhda Alliluyeva who died in 1932. Which of these do you claim to be Jewish?


- Hitler made deals with the Roschild family, ie: holocaust Gold for credit


And this claim is the most interesting of all. What are your sources?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
OK, first, I don't care about technicalities between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. They were both communists, Kerensky just played the puppet until Lenin could seize power fully. Now, Hitler was Roschild funded (indeed, it is often claimed that HE himself was of that bloodline- Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber. It was generally supposed that the father of Alois Hitler (Schicklgruber) was Johann Georg Hiedler. There are some people who seriously doubt that Johann Georg Hiedler was the father of Alois ,an Austrian document was prepared that proved Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back home, where Alois was born.):

-I.G. Farben, the heart of Germany's war machine was controlled by the the Warburgs (Roschild lackeys). This same company made Zyklon B and managed Auschwitz by the way. It is reported that I.G. Farben plants were specifically not targeted in the bombing raids on Germany. Interestingly at the end of the war, they were found to have only sustained 15% damage.

- IBM machines were controlled by the Roschild dynasty. These were used to catalogue people in the camps.

-George Soros, employed by this same family evaluated property to be sold and auctioned off.

Read about the American connection (mostly revolving around the house of Rockefeller) here:

www.reformed-theology.org...

The Roschilds have recently left the Gold trade by the way (and you know this Masonic light). Gee I guess why- maybe because an IMMENSE scandal is about to break?

Oh, and I have no thoughts to expound on that piece of human filth which is the Talmud. Hate literature of the highest order.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Nakash]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by EdenKaia
If you read the above posts, you will find the verification you need to tell you how BOTH have been proven fakes


Originally posted by EdenKaia
No one has said that the documents are FAKE, what was said is that they are a FORGERY of previous documents.


I couldn’t resist.



I would like to publically apologize for my slip. I suppose I just did not account for words that I used being taken out of context for their most base and literal meaning. It will not happen again.



[edit on 13-5-2006 by EdenKaia]

MOD EDIT: Fixed BBCode

[edit on 13-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Are the Protocols (real or not) the best evidence for the existence of an Illuminati?
Outside the Bavarian Illuminati the group usually refers to some sort of secret cabal ruling the world.

If by the Illuminati all is meant is a group who controls the world then there is plenty of evidence of this.

Even the more moderate conspiracy theorist on ATS agrees that there is a plutocracy ruling the planet.


Chomsky pointed out that the system of globalization widens the gap between the rich and the poor because the agreements themselves are made strictly for and between the rich. This chasm lies not only between individuals, but between rich and poor countries as well.

Source: www-tech.mit.edu...

So if by Illuminati we mean “rulers of the world.” There’s ample evidence that there’s a relatively small population making major decisions affecting the rest of the world.

one percent of the U.S. population owns fifty percent of the stock, while eighty percent of the population owns four percent of stock. The economy, Chomsky said, “is a fairy tale for the rich.”

Source: www-tech.mit.edu...

Either way you look at it that’s not a huge number of people “ruling” over the world. And there are varying level of power within this plutocracy.

I’ve started a thread once trying to determined ATSers opinion on how many people rule the world.

Now we enter speculation…
Robert Gaylon Ross claims that The Rockefeller fortune stands at $11.48 trillion, and the Rothschild at $100 trillion. Is anyone familiar with his work? Does he say how he has attained these numbers? (I think Forbes only reports what’s filed with the SEC)



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by MrNECROS
all the other retarded morons here

This is the reason for your warning.

Also, in the event you have not yet noticed, ATS is a destination for free and open discussion on a variety of topics. Asking for a collaborative discussion on the evidence for/against something like the Illuminati is certainly within the topical focus of what we do here.


There is nothing free or open about this thread - it is being deliberately constrained and directed towards dis-information.
Moderators are supposed to remain non-committed otherwise they undermine the principles of the discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join