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.

 

Doubts about Illuminati bloodlines

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I just finished reading the "illuminati bloodlines" at the watcher files:

Fritz Springmeier articles at the watcher files

(It is not new information or new concepts for me. I discovered and started reading None Dare Call It Conspiracy back about 1985. . .)

The thesis is basically, that the illuminati control world politics, and are themselves controlled by thirteen "satanic" families of the uber-rich, across the centuries.

Here are some doubts I have about the "bloodlines" theory.

1. The recent nature of most of the bloodlines
Look at one of the most frequently claimed "satanic families," the Astors. They were insignicant before the 1780's. Frankly, that is a pittance compared to the ruling houses of Europe or antiquity. Heck, even my own direct ancestry goes back to the 1570's, and the Barons of Fremdartig held the family seat from the mid-thirteenth century. I would expect a truly satanic bloodline to include the flavians of Rome, or at least the house of Lorraine. Heck, where are the Romanovs? The Habsburgs? At several points in history, over half of the population of Europe were Habsburg subjects. Their family curse is the stuff of legend, and their family continues to control international finance and politics today, even though they no longer rule governments directly. How did they get a pass, while 'The Disney Bloodline' gets a full freature---and it begins with Walt himself!!!!

2. Focus on the "Gilded Age."
The last third of the 19th century was a time of incredible consolidation in American capitalism. Empires were founded by penniless immigrants like Andrew Carnegie, who literally picked presidents. But the hallmark of those days was the entrepreneurial nature of American wealth. How come the names of the 1880's, the Morgans, the Mellons, the Carnegies, haven't controlled anything since WWI? They certainly held to the Fabian ideal. Why aren't they still in power? But they have long been eclipsed, both in politics and wealth.

3. Ignorance of the nature of American Wealth
As testified to by the seminal book The Millionaire Next Door, most American millionaires do not inherit their wealth. They are mostly the grandchildren of immigrants. They don't live lavishly, or allow themselves to become media celebrities.

Now, JJ Astor created an empire alright, but it hasn't kept up with the times. While his family is still loaded, and have bought themselves a half-dozen English lordships, (Wikipedia family tree of the Astors), they haven't done anything lately, in the past 50 years. Look at the list. Do you see any Kings, UN presidents, or foreign ministers? Any heads of banks? Me neither.

Who really has the money? Try Bill Gates: 11 Billion. More than all of the astors today, and probably in line with whats left of the Krupp or Rothschild families. He did it in one generation. And his charitable giving accrues him way more power today in the Democratic Party than the Kennedys have, even with a sitting Senator in their ranks. Same with the Sam Walton family: He created the largest company on the planet and was, while he lived, the richest biped. If the Rothschilds and Russels were smart, they bought stock in his company. But HE controlled it. HE changed the face of American business. He gave the orders to world banking, instead of taking them. Do you seriously want to assert that he was a pawn of the Kennedys? More like it was the other way around . . .

4. The Historical Illuminati were unconcerned with bloodlines.
The document seized by the Bavarian government in the 1780's shows an egalitarian organization. The crown was dilligent in seeking out the last Illuminatus precisely because the Illuminati were a meritocracy: you couldn't buy influence with them. So, why have the illuminati changed, and begun enriching a few inbred fat-cats, instead of focusing on world domination. Frankly, other than the governorships of west virginia and arkansas(!), the Rockefeller hand has sort of slipped, and the world is hardly controlled by them in any meaningful way.

5. Inherited Power and Privilege is no way to run a conspiracy
Think about it: can you name a son or grandson who surpassed the founder of his line? Other than Kublai Khan in the 15th century, most dynasties peak with their founder. From the Ottoman Turks to the Fatimids of Egypt, to the Houses of Hanover and Stuart, most descendants don't do anything but copulate with their cousins and fritter away the principal of their inheritance. It must really p. off the executives at the world bank, when they have to sit down with Ted Kennedy or Arnold Schwarzenegger and get told how to run things. . . C'mon. Teddy and Arnie take orders from Davos; they don't issue them.

If anything, the generational trust-funds of the "old money" have been co-opted by globalist think tanks, who siphon off the proceeds to fund their globalist causes, without Paris Hilton or Queen Elizabeth really having a clue. (I'm working on evidence of this, and hope to post something before year's end, about the mismanagement of a global VIP's trust fund, and how the money is being subborned for a political cause that works against the insterest of the prime beneficiary of said fund. More on that later.)

In conclusion, I'm casting my doubts on the idea that the Illuminati are concerned with bloodlines or ancestry at all. Instead, I believe they'd be working to increase their own power.




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I just gave you a WATS vote !



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
In conclusion, I'm casting my doubts on the idea that the Illuminati are concerned with bloodlines or ancestry at all. Instead, I believe they'd be working to increase their own power.

As a genealogist I have always had my concerns about this theory. Over time, as the human race has grown, specific bloodlines will have become increasingly diluted generation on generation. Thirteen individuals 2000 years ago will have untold millions of descendants. In fact it is estimated that the MCRA (Most Common Recent Ancestor), e.g. the most recently lived person from whom we are all descended could have lived as recently as 800 years ago.

Doesn't the math behind this make a complete mockery of the bloodline theory?

Great blog on this here.


Cug

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Another WATS vote from me.


The SS forum needs more posts like this (both for and against).



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Great post- thank you!!!

Someone told me last night that there are 250 people alone who have more money than 60% of the US population (I hope I got that figuer right). Basically what it means is that only a handfull of people have the mass majority of the money.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I agree with the original poster a great deal. A meritocracy would be the only system that would make any real sense.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by corsig
Great post- thank you!!!

Someone told me last night that there are 250 people alone who have more money than 60% of the US population (I hope I got that figuer right). Basically what it means is that only a handfull of people have the mass majority of the money.



1% of the US population owns 99% of the wealth.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blender

Originally posted by corsig
Great post- thank you!!!

Someone told me last night that there are 250 people alone who have more money than 60% of the US population (I hope I got that figuer right). Basically what it means is that only a handfull of people have the mass majority of the money.



1% of the US population owns 99% of the wealth.


I think your statistics are a grave exaggeration.
How the world's wealth is distributed - the top two percent own half



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


the families you hear about are not in power... they may have been but did something to get kicked out....

i think the true families that rule the world come from strong bloodlines, like Ramses II or Caesar....

it might not be whole families, but the figurehead of the families meet and discuss how they are going to shape the world... mostly how to keep us occupied

its not about money or power because they are so rich and powerful already that they could easily put us in shackles.. i think it goes much deeper than that.. slavery of the mind, to keep us from discovering our true potential.. or they themselves are being commanded by a higher power... it doesn't have to be malicious per se but it could be a way of getting us to grow stronger as a whole..


i dunno im high and its late but this is my theory about who rules our world.........



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
IMO "old families", "new ideas". We cannot allow someone in their 90's who owns great wealth to make decisions from the people of today. The greatest thing that those in power realized is "secret" is "power'. They know what they do, how they do it, and where they do it.

These are not stupid people. As a matter of fact, they have grown since the time of old. WE think that they may be losing the blood lines, or wealth, but they have kept it in play. Here's an example. The first time I heard of the Hapsburg was on 30 Rock. In "sight" out of "mind".

With every generation, time has evolved and so have the heirs. This is the easiest time in history for a take over, as the plan has been successful, for full dominance. Its in our faces for the first time. It will take (depending where you live) $100-1000 to change your last name. People do it all the time. We see it as something original.

They see it as an open door for continuance.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


yay a topic we can agree on



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I feel some of the information is correct but with disinfo agents and the non ability to obtain such genealogical info from such a long time ago there's bound to be mistakes, but Fritz Springmeier i feel did the best job he could factoring the enormous obstacles one would face researching the book but i'm sure it's not 100 percent right and some of the families are more then likely wrong but we know as a example that the Rockefeller and the Rothschilds are stamples of what constitutes TPTB.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
the bloodlines names are secret. the public ones are management.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I think what most people miss is how easily changing names can be accomplished. From the research I have done I have come up with a theory that many bloodlines hide behind the husband's name and as the surnames change in each generation things appear to be totally unconnected. My example would be:

bloodline Mary Smith marries bloodline John Doe and they have Doe children.
Mary Smith Doe's sister Jane Smith marries bloodline family Joe Schmo who is John Doe's cousin on John's mother Betty Boop Doe's side, and they have children with the surname Schmo.
baby girl Schmo grows up to marry Fred Flintstone and they have children surname Flintstone.
baby girl Doe marries a Flinstone

Bloodline stays intact generation after generation

Just my theory



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Cinaed
 


What about Barney Rubble does he not have his bloodline continue????


All joking aside your theory is a very good one and is probably correct in some instances, but i'm still under the assumption that not all of the bloodlines that Fritz Springmeier wrote about are correct in the first place, he got a few such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers and when first studying this conspiracy you will see there names come up so much that it fits into place....


But when doing research into this topic one cannot become complacent and just box there selfs in study with 13 families, if so you will miss alot of the info that should be thought about.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
In conclusion, I'm casting my doubts on the idea that the Illuminati are concerned with bloodlines or ancestry at all. Instead, I believe they'd be working to increase their own power.

As a genealogist I have always had my concerns about this theory. Over time, as the human race has grown, specific bloodlines will have become increasingly diluted generation on generation. Thirteen individuals 2000 years ago will have untold millions of descendants. In fact it is estimated that the MCRA (Most Common Recent Ancestor), e.g. the most recently lived person from whom we are all descended could have lived as recently as 800 years ago.

Doesn't the math behind this make a complete mockery of the bloodline theory?

Great blog on this here.


What if it is less than 800 years?

www.prb.org...

"The question of how many people have ever lived on Earth is a perennial one among information calls to PRB. One reason the question keeps coming up is that somewhere, at some time back in the 1970s, a now-forgotten writer made the statement that 75 percent of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment."

Bloodlines have nothing to dew with the Illuminati. They have always been Illuminati, for trillions of years and many Earths.

Ribbit



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join