It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Targets of the Illuminati and the Committe of 300

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:00 PM

By Dr. John Coleman.

1. To establish a One World Government/New World Order with a unified church and monetary system under their direction. The One World Government began to set up its church in the 1920:s and 30:s, for they realized the need for a religious belief inherent in mankind must have an outlet and, therefore, set up a "church" body to channel that belief in the direction they desired.

2. To bring about the utter destruction of all national identity and national pride, which was a primary consideration if the concept of a One World Government was to work.

3. To engineer and bring about the destruction of religion, and more especially, the Christian Religion, with the one exception, their own creation, as mentioned above.

4. To establish the ability to control of each and every person through means of mind control and what Zbignew Brzezinski called techonotronics, which would create human-like robots and a system of terror which would make Felix Dzerzinhski's Red Terror look like children at play.

5. To bring about the end to all industrialization and the production of nuclear generated electric power in what they call "the post-industrial zero-growth society". Excepted are the computer- and service industries. US industries that remain will be exported to countries such as Mexico where abundant slave labor is available. As we saw in 1993, this has become a fact through the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA. Unemployables in the US, in the wake of industrial destruction, will either become opium-heroin and/or coc aine addicts, or become statistics in the elimination of the "excess population" process we know of today as Global 2000.

6. To encourage, and eventually legalize the use of drugs and make pornography an "art-form", which will be widely accepted and, eventually, become quite commonplace.

7. To bring about depopulation of large cities according to the trial run carried out by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. It is interesting to note that Pol Pot's genocidal plans were drawn up in the US by one of the Club of Rome's research foundations, and overseen by Thomas Enders, a high-ranking State Department official. It is also interesting that the committee is currently seeking to reinstate the Pol Pot butchers in Cambodia.


posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:09 PM
When the time comes, I will eat these losers for lunch.. I would like to see them hide in the mansions when the starving populace is at their door. The king of france thought he could rule the world too, until he lost his head.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:20 PM
When christ comes back to earth, god will lay waste to them for eternity. I will smile when he does.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:24 PM
Right im a religous guy, believe it or not, im a catholic. But what if we are wrong and he doesn't come back

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:26 PM
in the first place? How could he not exist? Do you think he will let this trash take his innocent children? Guess again.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:28 PM
Look im not going to get into religion 'cause this isn't the religion section. Stick to the subject.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 11:51 AM
Okay, let's address the difference between What Marx wanted for the world, and the Illuminati doctrine....gee, I don't see any! (Their first failing)

Second, if someone wanted to invoke mind-control techniques, the VERY LAST GROUP I'd go to is the government. Hire an ad agency instead.

Lastly, the idea that one controls a country by first killing the Liberals in Education and the Media (and you thought the liberal press was a myth.) is an old, tried, and true method, if not a old, tired one. Pol Pot may have been a monster, but NOBODY takes over a country through stupidity.

I've read half-a-dozen papers on the founding of the Illuminati...each has a different charter date (the date the organization was actually founded) and I've read just as many different Papers stating a different long-term goal. One website even boasts of having the Illuminati FLAG, for crying out loud, with the motto "Perpetual Profit Through Perpetual War." Still sound like a "one-world-government" organization to you?

Every one points to the drug trade as a financier for dozens of different groups. What's new about this? How smart do you have to be to grow pot, or for that matter, coca and opium?

My point is, the Illuminati, whether they be fact or fiction, don't appear to be the threat everyone draws them out to be. I'm a hellova lot more scared of the Carlyle group.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 12:11 PM
I'd like to suggest you Illuminati buffs check out the online Catholic Encyclopedia and look up was originally a Catholic Christian group. This is single most credible source I've found on Illuminati.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 12:19 PM

When the time comes, I will eat these losers for lunch.. I would like to see them hide in the mansions when the starving populace is at their door. The king of france thought he could rule the world too, until he lost his head

Trouble is, their mansions are in underground facilities guarded by other worldly state of the art surveillance devices and weaponry. Have to posess their technology to open the door

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by project_pisces

Trouble is, their mansions are in underground facilities guarded by other worldly state of the art surveillance devices and weaponry. Have to posess their technology to open the door

Aint that the truth.....they surely are not stupid enuff to wait in there palaces and mansions for the populace to show up and cut off there heads...

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Toelint
Okay, let's address the difference between What Marx wanted for the world, and the Illuminati doctrine....gee, I don't see any!

There was actually a large difference between the ideologies of the Illuminati and the Marxists. Marx would no doubt have considered the Illuminati to be “bourgeois claptrap”. It is true that the Illuminati, like the Marxists, were political revolutionaries. But in Marxian “historical dialectic”, the Illuminati would have represented a cabal of bourgeoisie attempting to overthrow the feudal order; Marx would have considered this a historical necessity for the purpose of industrialization, but certainly would not have sympathized with their schemes.
The Illuminati’s mission was ostensibly to establish a constitutional republic in Bavaria, similar to the model adopted by the American colonies who had just won independence. But the Illuminati, like their American counterparts, had adopted the political philosophy of John Locke, with its emphasis on individual rights, especially the right to property. The Marxists, in contrast, based their entire ideology on the elimination of private property, and the establishment of a society in the form of a large commune (thus the label “communist”).
The Illuminati believed in government by elected representatives of the people, while the Marxists called for a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which would, at least in theory, abolish the very type of society that the Illuminati had fought to establish. This means that the Illuminati were diametrically opposed to the Communist Party in ideology.

Fiat Lvx.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 01:23 PM
I'm not so sure about a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Wasn't Marx' theory that eventually the entire state would "wither away," and that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the penultimate thesis (with no antithesis, AFAIK) which would lead to the end of the historical dialectic (because there would be no antithesis, and this "thesis" of power would naturally erode to true power sharing)? In other words, the socialist state was not the end product of the historical dialectic, merely what was coming up next (the "spectre haunting Europe"), and at the end of it, everyone could breathe a sigh of relief because there would be no property and no political power, and thus no destructive dialectic. -- That's why Marx couldn't support the Russian revolution, because it was really just a transfer of political power from one group to another.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:02 PM
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. – Marx/Engles, “Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV”

Marx saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as the intermediate system that would transfer political power to the working class. According to Marx, all western industrialized nations were “dictatorships of the bourgoisie”, meaning simply that the privileged class held political control. Thus the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” did not actually refer to the 20th century ominous concept of the word, but only to the power of the state being seized by the workers, following working class revolution.
The theory that the political state would then wither away is outlined in Chapter 3 of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. According to Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat would have no meaning once class distinctions were abolished. For example, In Marxist theory, the proletariat “exists” only in relation to the bourgoisie. Once the bourgoisie is eliminated as a class, its antagonistic opposite, personified by the working class, also ceases to exist, which represents the Hegelian Synthesis of the scheme, resulting in a classless society which each citizen is absolutely equal with all his fellow citizens.
In “The Communist Manifesto”, Marx writes: “Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.” (p. 31, Marx/Engels - Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1948 International Publishers). He then goes on to say: “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstance, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and as such sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”
Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is an important point in Marxist theory as a necessary revolutionary order, which would then give way to actual communism.
As for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, this occured long after Marx’s death, so we can only speculate on what Marx would have thought about it. Personally, I believe he would have been skeptical, as Russia was not an industralized, capitalist state. Much of it was still involved in feudalism, and serfdom was within living memory.
Lenin, despite his shortcomings, was a brilliant Marxian thinker, and was ingenius in his adaption of Marxism to the Russina situation; much the same could be said of Trotsky. But this entire experiment seemed doomed to failure, with Russia’s involvement in World War I, as well as the Civil War, in which the Communists were trying to secure power outside of Petrograd. By the time Stalin ascended to power in the late 1920’s, the soviet system was drifting away from “orthodox” Marxism, and the dictatorship of the working class had become a veil for the dictatorship of the Stalinists. Even though Khruschev launched a “de-Stalinization” program, the Stalinist economic programs, most notably the Five Year Plans, were never abandoned, causing the Soviet economy to ever border on collapse. This was repeated by practically every other country that had come under Communist influence, both from revolution or invasion. The only major exception could possibly be Yugoslavia; here the Communist Party, under Tito’s leadership, actually made very good economic gains, in large part because they refused to conform to Stalinism.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Masonic Light]

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:20 PM
I think the idea that it was only after Stalin attained power that the Soviet system drifted away from Marxism is incorrect. If you check, you'll find that even under Lenin, there were concentration camps (GULAGs, of course), forced labour, hatred of intellectuals, etc. Without a doubt, Lenin also set up an agressive totalitarian government which was contrary to Marxist principles. Additionally, of course, I don't think it would be hard to argue that Lenin's dictatorship was certainly not a dictatorship of the proletariat, and that it merely transferred power from one body to another.

I think the reason we miss this is that the sheer evil of the Stalin government overshadows the somewhat more mundane evil of the Lenin government. And, quite simply, people want a "real-world" Communism to believe in, so they make believe that Lenin's government was real-world Communism and righteous... but in fact Lenin's government was the same old grab of power by one vicious group of thugs from another vicious group of thugs.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:01 PM
When the time comes, The Illuminati (The 5-10 men who I believe are in power and no more) will play their hands subtley. They will make us happy that their wills be done. They'll make us think the welfare of the world is at stake. They'll show us lies about how their way is the only way. They will give us options to accept this new governing body but only after they have supplied us with enough "PROOF" that any option they give us will met with a quick and hasty acceptance. All this will happen. We'll have to reap what we sew. some of us won't accept this new governing body...this new economy...this new world army...some of us will gather and fight against this but in the end, it will all be in God's hands. His will be done.

And it shall be once the great war begins...and the Illuminati will tremble before God!

[Edited on 033131p://u58. by Hard Red]

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:11 PM
I have to say, and I want to preface this with the fact that I know and like many Americans, that I find your image of what I can only suppose is Jesus Christ covered by the flag of your country to be quite blasphemous and offensive. I mean, do what you like, of course, but jeez man! Do you think Jesus just doesn't care for the rest of us countries? I mean, when he was actually physically present, this continent was run by its original inhabitants, and was not full of us Johnny-come-latelies. Do you honestly think that the U.S. embodies the Christian doctrines of peace, love, turning the other cheek, meekness, not caring about material posessions, etc., more than any other country in the world? Do you honestly think that Jesus loves you but not, say, Arabs or Koreans?

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:14 PM
I'd just like to point out that the Illuminati have always been an anti-religious group. Their historical aim is to stop the Church suppression of scientists/new science (hence, they were founded by Gallileo under house arrest)
They are not into mass slavery or anything, just the church likes to give us this conception so as to make us more anti-illuminati...
I personally believe they could dbe quite good for us

edit: there is no proof whatsoever they want to be a new world order, they support paedophilia, satanic rituals etc.. they were branded as satanic (which, according to Dan Brown, is derived from the Islamic, Shaitan, which was considered a dirty language). Lucifier, translated from Latin, literally means Shining Light, Illuminati means the Enlightened..

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by browha]

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:33 PM
AK, I agree with you, America does NOT have a monopoly on Christianity, Jesus, or Spiritualism (we do however have a monopoly on TV evangelists, self serving kooks and frauds, and the sheeple that follow). I can only surmise that this type of visual is the product of an unconfident and fearful individual or group (not to mention someone who's Photoshop skills are sorely lacking. I mean this is Jesus for God's sake... do a good job, put some real plants at his feet, he's the son of God, Creator of all things, Genesis 1:11-12 ring a bell?). We as a nation will overcome the adversity that we currently face, not by beating our collective chest's, nor by clever(?) graphics, but by the same bravery, dedication and sacrifice that garnered our freedom 225 years ago. As for the Illuminati Logo goes we're sorry it caused such a ruckus, but we think it looks really cool.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:18 PM

You made several points that I must disagree with. After all, Lenin’s prisons were not “un-Marxist”, and Marxist revolution is, by its very nature, sort of ruthless. Also, Lenin’s Bolsheviki were not actually anti-intellectual; in fact, they originally had the support of the most important of the intelligentsia, including Gorky, Mayakovsky, and Rachmaninov. It was considered hip by the bohemian intellectuals to be a Communist, with the idealization of “fighting for the people” against the capitalists, who were demonized in Communist propaganda.
The anti-intellectual movement in Communism was launched with Stalin’s purges. The Old Bolshevik comrades were rounded up one by one, demonized in show trials, and summarily executed. This purging, although without such violence, occured even outside of the USSR, with Communist intellectuals like Pablo Picasso and Jean-Paul Sartre being labeled as “degenerate” and “anti-democratic” (the ultimate irony) by Stalin’s cronies. Another example is found in the Spanish Civil War, where Stalin gave orders for his Communist brigades in the Republican Resistance to butcher their anarcho-syndicalist and liberal comrades because their views were not “orthodox”. These crimes contributed to Spain falling to the Fascists, as they had divided the popular resistance among party lines.
But my point in bringing Stalin into the equation concerning the USSR’s drifting away from Marxism was his economic and revolutionary policies. Trotskyism was denounced as a crime, even though it was orthodox. The 5 Year Plans were both practically and theoretically un-Marxist, while Lenin’s regime seemed to determine to establish its dictatorship in order to promote international revolution, which is an orthodox Marxist concept, even though it could be easily argued that such a concept, and Marxism in general, is based on an erroneous view of history, economics, and political science.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:52 PM
Masonic Light,

As usual, you make a number of well-informed and enlightening points. Despite your obviously substantial knowledge on this topic, however, I must disagree with you about Lenin's feelings toward the intelligensia, which must have been at least ambivalent. I quote to you from McSweeney's "The Believer," April 2004 issue (inasmuch as it is a literary / intellectual magazing, perhaps not the best source of information, but what the hey)

For years many of Lenin's more violent musings were hidden from all but the most persistent Western eyes. The intelligensia, Lenin believed, "has outlived its time." To the writer Maxim Gorky he said, "If we break too many pots, it will be [the intelligensia's] fault."


By 1920 Lenin had arrested so many members of the intelligensia that he believed they were finished off, yet, throughout the 1920s, Solzhenitsyn notes, he "kept finishing them off and finishing them off," finding new crimes with which to charge anyone who spoke up. Or did not speak up. It was Lenin's belief that simply because certain intellectuals did not actively work against Soviet power did not mean they were innocent. No, for Lenin, "inaction is also criminal." Intellectuals were jailed and tortured at this time for... meeting. For having tea together.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in