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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Ah right, so Moderators arn't allowed to have an opinion and join in the discussion then? Thanks for clearing that up.




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Nygdan - why are you allowed to start these "Dorothy Dicks" type disinformation threads using a moderator account?
I've managed to put all the other retarded morons here on "ignore" but your moderator status means that I have to look at your half baked and pointless attempts to repeatedly coral threads that are actually against the whole nature of this forum.


Against the nature of a for/against forum, the question of the authenticity of the Illuminati? Yep, no way to argue against you on this one has, you've got the man pegged! (And he has everyone ELSE on ignore).



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
If you walk through the shopping district of any major city between November 1 and Christmas, you will see lots of illuminati. Flashing ones, even.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
If we assume that Illuminati is a label used to represent the rulers of the world, does anyone actually believe that there are no rulers of the world?

Do some of you actually believe that the result of history if the sum of mere coincidences? That there is no collective of plutocrats powerful enough to impose there will on the little people?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
If we assume that Illuminati is a label used to represent the rulers of the world, does anyone actually believe that there are no rulers of the world?


Yes, there are rulers. And someone, if they so wanted, could generalize all of them, and call them "Illuminati". But this is a completely different definition of "Illuminati", i.e., by using that term as a synonym for "rulers". "Illuminati", by definition, means "those who enlightened". The term has historically been used to denote several semi-secret societies composed of intellectuals, or to generalize enlightened individuals, regardless if they belonged to any such organization. I would venture to say that using "illuminati" to describe the world's rulers is not an apt venture due to the fact that not many of them could be called "enlightened", at least not with a straigt face.


Do some of you actually believe that the result of history if the sum of mere coincidences? That there is no collective of plutocrats powerful enough to impose there will on the little people?


To answer your first question, no. In his "The Philosophy of History", German philosopher Georg Hegel makes the case for history moving along dialectical lines, that are not the result of chance, but of the impersonal will of the zeitgeist. I don't completele agree with Hegel, but I do to a point. Men do not consciously create history, but all actions produce reactions, and the causal law produces history in turn.

As to your second question, yes. However, "Thousand Year Reichs" do not tend to last very long, as, at least eventually, the will of the people seems to overshadow the will of a few tyrants.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But this is a completely different definition of "Illuminati", i.e., by using that term as a synonym for "rulers". "Illuminati", by definition, means "those who enlightened".

I agree that I greatly generalize when I say this, but it seems to me, that “Illuminati”, “NWO”, “Plutocrats” “Globalists” are very similar in many aspects. We’re often debating semantics on ATS depending on how we use and define those terms.


German philosopher Georg Hegel makes the case for history moving along dialectical lines, that are not the result of chance, but of the impersonal will of the zeitgeist.

You have a gift for taking complex ideas and communicating them in simple terms, I and others salute you on that.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
...does anyone actually believe that there are no rulers of the world?

Indeed, I know it for a fact.

Tribes and nation-states have rulers but nobody rules the world. The last person to do so was Moonwatcher, the ape-man in 2001: A Space Odyssey. He was a fictional character, and lived three million years ago to boot.

One might, with difficulty, be able to piece together a rickety little argument to the effect that there is a class of people who rule the world (albeit that the membership and determinants of this class change from place to place and culture to culture). There is, I suppose, a kind of international elite from whom most political, military and business leaders, together with the most influential 'intellectuals', is drawn.

I remember you using the phrase 'loose affiliation' to describe such a group in another post. But this loose affiliation is neither united nor single-minded enough to be regarded as a conspiracy. It's just a ruling class -- and long may it survive and prosper, because people, whatever they might think about it themselves, need to be governed and led. It is the way of the beast we are. It is Nature's way, reflected in the behaviour of all social animals.

It is also natural for the led to resent the leaders. It is natural and right and proper, and it is also the source of fantasies like the Illuminati, the New World Order, the Windsor Lizards and the rest of the sorry collection. This accounts for the strong whiff of straphanger's armpit such theories exude.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
There is, I suppose, a kind of international elite from whom most political, military and business leaders, together with the most influential 'intellectuals', is drawn.

There are many ‘intellectuals’ to choose from, but a relatively small group gets to decide which ones we hear about. (through oligopoly control of medias)


But this loose affiliation is neither united nor single-minded enough to be regarded as a conspiracy. It's just a ruling class

It's an Open Conspiracy. People just hate the word conspiracy. Their individual interests would surely bring individuals (or groups) within the ruling class to compete with each other. But as a group they will support systems and institutions that maintain their position. (intellectual property laws, tax laws, globalism, DNA patenting, corporate rights etc.) They would work as a group on these issues.

For instance most of them would agree with John Jay’s view on ruling: “those who own the country should run it.”


It is the way of the beast we are. It is Nature's way, reflected in the behaviour of all social animals.

It's funny you mentioned I was just about to start looking into this a bit more. I was watching a movie last week (can’t recall the title but it had Jim Carrey and Alec Baldwin in it). It explains how companies such as Enron were set up to a mainstream audience which is cool. (So when the bubble busts they’ll have an idea what happened) In it the Baldwin character mentions a book called Walden Pond and says the answers are inside. I will check it out, it’s available online here.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
In it the Baldwin character mentions a book called Walden Pond and says the answers are inside. I will check it out, it’s available online here.


Thoreau's Walden is by far one of the best books ever written. Along with Emerson, Thoreau was a founder of the Transcendentalist movement in American literature, which in turn inspired Walt Whitman and the other poet-mystics.

Walden is a record of Thoreau's experiment in the "simple life", living in harmony with nature at Walden Pond. Other books by him well worth reading are The Maine Woods and A Week On The Concord and Merrimack Rivers, as well as his pamphlet Civil Disobedience, which he wrote while in jail for protesting against slavery. The Mahatma Mohandes Gandhi is on record saying that "Civil Disobedience" was his primary influence in his own methods of protesting for Indian independence.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Asking whether the illuminati exists is much like asking 'if there is hydrogen in water'. Power begets power, and through the centuries wealthy and royal folk's power has never been userpted. Lucifer, from the latin lux or light, is their master. Our seven deadly sins are their beatitudes.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I guess you can’t discuss the Illuminati without discussion the fundamentalist point of view, I believe Dr. Stanley Monteith, Fritz Springmeier and Texe Marrs are the biggies. I think they all see the great beast as the root of the problem.

Does anyone one know anything about these guys? I know a bit of each but not a whole lot. Where do their ideas come from? (I’m familiar with Springmeier’s 13 bloodline, but that’s it)

[edit on 18/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join