Is the Illumanti real? Or fake?

[FirestormNeos]

Looking back at this thread, I CRINGE at it.

(Thanks FirestormNeos)

I realized how stupid and naïve I was back then. I have shifted my focus away from the Illuminati nowadays and started researching on the Fed and economics.

So please, do not call me stupid for something I have written a couple years back.

I'm also cringing for similar reasons.

No worries, bro. I'm sure we've all done stupid crap over the years.

 

[Chinaux]

There's no doubt that it's real, but what it is and does is something we may never know.

 

[FirestormNeos]

There's no doubt that it's real, but what it is and does is something we may never know.

Probably not much.

 

[Chinaux]

Probably not much.

We know what they probably can do, but what they actually do is very unknown and convoluted on how exactly they can do it.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Seriously, who cares... Governments worldwide do not hide the fact that they are self-legitimized criminal organizations, instead they turn everyone into drooling post-modern relativists with their control over education.

 

[GeZ]

Seriously? Talking about the illuminati on smashboards? Like, these are new found depths of stupid you guys have achieved, though at least a few members of the thread have realized this looking back at it.

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

Seriously? Talking about the illuminati on smashboards? Like, these are new found depths of stupid you guys have achieved, though at least a few members of the thread have realized this looking back at it.

lawl

 

[WolfieXVII ❂]

Got a good laugh

 

[Sucumbio]

It's completely reasonable to accept the truth about positions of power. Secret societies don't pull strings, money does. The illuminati was a real thing and it spawned off shoots but these diluted groups have no more over arching power than anyone else. I think in all fairness the most powerful organizations who keep their operations under the public radar are the almost certainly also popularized in fiction. So cia, the Russia mob, etc.

 

[E1ghtB1tGh0st]

To be honest you should not post anything that has to do with political stuff at all... Just saying... Half the people on the internet will not just agree to disagree, they will try in all their power to make you believe what they believe. Not saying this goes for people on the post, just pointing out that political stuff on the internet turns into a flame war, a battle of the keyboard warriors..... Like I said this does not include EVERYONE just a amount of people that DO. To wrap this all up short, let's just all stick to our Smash Bros. posts and leave the political stuff to the government or the news to argue about (Not saying this IS a argument.). Anyways, not telling you guys what to do, it is your computer, do what you want. Just thought I give out some friendly advice.

 

[Jdawg9876]

Spoiler

 

[Sucumbio]

To be honest you should not post anything that has to do with political stuff at all... Just saying... Half the people on the internet will not just agree to disagree, they will try in all their power to make you believe what they believe. Not saying this goes for people on the post, just pointing out that political stuff on the internet turns into a flame war, a battle of the keyboard warriors..... Like I said this does not include EVERYONE just a amount of people that DO. To wrap this all up short, let's just all stick to our Smash Bros. posts and leave the political stuff to the government or the news to argue about (Not saying this IS a argument.). Anyways, not telling you guys what to do, it is your computer, do what you want. Just thought I give out some friendly advice.

Except this is the Debate Hall, which serves the specific purpose of carrying on Debates about subject matter such as politics, lol. You basically just did the same thing as me going into the Smash 4 Forum and say "hey, don't play Smash 4, it'll just make you want to play Street Fighter." That being said, we welcome any on topic material you may have.

 

[E1ghtB1tGh0st]

Like I said, I am just trying to stop a flame war starting. Not trying to tell people what to do. Neither did I mean that this wasn't the place or time.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Seriously, who cares... Governments worldwide do not hide the fact that they are self-legitimized criminal organizations, instead they turn everyone into drooling post-modern relativists with their control over education.

Such is the sacrifice we must make to maintain peace on this planet.

Also, "post-modern" just comes off as mumbo jumbo in this context. Please elaborate.

To be honest you should not post anything that has to do with political stuff at all... Just saying... Half the people on the internet will not just agree to disagree, they will try in all their power to make you believe what they believe. Not saying this goes for people on the post, just pointing out that political stuff on the internet turns into a flame war, a battle of the keyboard warriors..... Like I said this does not include EVERYONE just a amount of people that DO. To wrap this all up short, let's just all stick to our Smash Bros. posts and leave the political stuff to the government or the news to argue about (Not saying this IS a argument.). Anyways, not telling you guys what to do, it is your computer, do what you want. Just thought I give out some friendly advice.

Actually the whole point of this part of the forum is to talk about stuff that has nothing to do with Smash Bros, so uh... Here's a funny picture:

Spoiler

This post wins the thread. Everyone else go home.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Such is the sacrifice we must make to maintain peace on this planet.

Also, "post-modern" just comes off as mumbo jumbo in this context. Please elaborate.

There isn't much to elaborate, Postmodernism is mumbo-jumbo in whatever context, a bunch of vague platitudes posited as absolute fact while decrying the existence of absolutes.

...Also, your first sentence is not an argument which explains the absolute necessity of threats and violence for the sake of survival or a civilized society.

 

[FirestormNeos]

There isn't much to elaborate, Postmodernism is mumbo-jumbo in whatever context, a bunch of vague platitudes posited as absolute fact while decrying the existence of absolutes.

...Also, your first sentence is not an argument which explains the absolute necessity of threats and violence for the sake of survival or a civilized society.

I meant mumbo-jumbo as in "you're only using that word to sound smart," but yes, whoever came up with "post-modernism" is a portentous tool who needs to be reminded that college is over.

Additionally, without the "to each his own" crowd, coexistence would be a goddamned pipe dream.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Additionally, without the "to each his own" crowd, coexistence would be a goddamned pipe dream.

Most of our lives are proof that it's possible for large groups of people to cooperate without initiating force against each other, but yeah, there's far too many people dependent on government nowadays for such a revolution to be pretty. Either way we're screwed because isn't going to last.

Society is morbidly obese in more ways than one (this thread is an example of it), there isn't much point encouraging people to change their lifestyle now with such a grim prognosis. The best we can hope to do is spread facts which support a healthy upbringing for upcoming generations in order to break this blind cycle of bigoted thinking.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Most of our lives are proof that it's possible for large groups of people to cooperate without initiating force against each other, but yeah, there's far too many people dependent on government nowadays for such a revolution to be pretty. Either way we're screwed because isn't going to last.

Society is morbidly obese in more ways than one (this thread is an example of it), there isn't much point encouraging people to change their lifestyle now with such a grim prognosis. The best we can hope to do is spread facts which support a healthy upbringing for upcoming generations in order to break this blind cycle of bigoted thinking.

I only understood half of what you said, but the half I understand I agree with.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I only understood half of what you said, but the half I understand I agree with.

Longstanding social issues cannot be resolved by simply flipping a switch, whether that be additional regulations or the removal of government entirely. Yes, agreement.

 

[Sucumbio]

Except the whole abolishment of slavery thing that was pretty much one dude one document and one helluva war.

Illuminati seek to change over time by birthing and raising masters of the universe aka harvard grads. But i agree nothing is easy. For the world to be balanced you need less weak people

 

[LarsINTJ]

Except the whole abolishment of slavery thing that was pretty much one dude one document and one helluva war.

Illuminati seek to change over time by birthing and raising masters of the universe aka harvard grads. But i agree nothing is easy. For the world to be balanced you need less weak people

The end of slavery in the US was a consequence government ceasing their routine compulsory run-away slave hunts, nor was it at the top of Lincoln's agenda considering the war was spurred by the South's opposition toward an expanding bureaucracy and increased taxes.

The ideals of abolition essentially started in France 1315, but it took until ~1780-1800 for it to apply among all their colonies. Slavery was reinstated shortly after the French revolutionary war. Worldwide abolition finally succeeded due to the efforts of those involved in a persistent sea-bound campaign headed by Britain which destroyed the slave trade across the globe (~1800-1850).

The practical inefficiency exacerbated by those select few moral crusaders at the time ended slavery, not an enlightened philosophical revolution. Ask anyone to explain why slavery is evil, it's extremely likely that they will beg the question rather than provide an argument.

Society is still quite incapable of independently discerning good from evil, their paradigm is based on (often conflicting) culture, tradition and hearsay. It's no wonder that most fall into the pit of relativism. If they were born 300+ years ago, the majority of people alive today would be in favor of slavery just as they are in favor of government now.

 

[Sucumbio]

Hmm... I took your phrase of flipping a switch to mean a minimalist approach as in the axiom the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many so long as the few are in power or in today's case the loudest. As you just pointed out abolition succeeded in the us due to a select few moral crusaders... They are the switch. Lincoln used slavery as his operational wmds the south was hiding in plain sight. He needed it ti stop because the slave trade itself was already outlawed way back during colonial times.

I guess in a way you're right i just don't care for the way it traps people. Slavery literally ended with the emancipation proclamation (the light switch was flipped) and yet blacks remained chained in societal form until the civil rights movement and some argue even today those chains still exist. So yes and no. Society and its problems can change in the blink of an eye, but deep seeded issues that surrounding those problems can last far longer if they ever can be fully extinguished.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Hmm... I took your phrase of flipping a switch to mean a minimalist approach as in the axiom the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many so long as the few are in power or in today's case the loudest. As you just pointed out abolition succeeded in the us due to a select few moral crusaders... They are the switch. Lincoln used slavery as his operational wmds the south was hiding in plain sight. He needed it ti stop because the slave trade itself was already outlawed way back during colonial times.

I guess in a way you're right i just don't care for the way it traps people. Slavery literally ended with the emancipation proclamation (the light switch was flipped) and yet blacks remained chained in societal form until the civil rights movement and some argue even today those chains still exist. So yes and no. Society and its problems can change in the blink of an eye, but deep seeded issues that surrounding those problems can last far longer if they ever can be fully extinguished.

Slavery does still exists, not condoned in the same egregious form though. It's debt slavery, selling out the unborn.

We're all free-range slaves, far more productive than shackled slaves because we cannot see the electric fence, but we avoid it nonetheless.

Instances which resemble the old days occur as well, although it has been forced underground as stuff which is easy to hide, like sex-trafficking. People recognizes it as intolerable even if they were never taught the logical explanation regarding universal self-ownership and property rights.

 

[Sucumbio]

Fair enough.

And, honestly, in favor of your viewpoint, and much more on topic - the original Illuminati's goals were to oppose superstition, prejudice, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power, and to support women's education and gender equality. These things are basically still a problem 250 years later, so yah, if -they- couldn't just "flip a switch" and change things then it stands that no one can, nor should we expect it to be that way.

But then I suppose their methods are frankly unknown to us, or even historians (which makes it difficult to even take the idea of them seriously) so it is very possible that they intended to slowly change the world over time generation-at-a-time, government at a time, etc. At the very least their namesake has actually given birth to other firms who themselves have agendas and whose memberships could indeed contain powerful enough people (rich enough people, really) to exact social change.

We could say that hip-hop culture is really Illuminati, I mean, they've been referenced (shout-outs) as if they were a fellow rap group or producer, it's kinda weird. We could say that their intent was to basically own the American people by "buying" its children.

We could say that Scientology is really just the Illuminati at play.

Yes, The American Debt Machine (thanks, Regan) is insidious and definitely tough to avoid.

Anyway, I still have yet to get to the point of why I even interjected... you'd made a comment earlier which I plaintively ignored, but it's this idea of relativism. As if somehow the world's population's moral compass has always been set - nay - compromised to Neutral, rather than Neutral Good (yes, I know it's a D&D term but it's also truly the closet analogy you'll get to everyday humans).

If you don't mind, I would like for you to explain why you think this is. Note, I'm not saying it isn't, it's just I am curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Call it my need to know.

As for things like slavery, I mean... argh. Old Slavery. I tend to think that it most definitely left a bad taste in people's mouths even thousands of years ago. Additionally, I believe only a small percentage of people in the world, throughout history, actually owned slaves. Rich people, basically. There were of course, a staggering many number of slaves themselves, far outnumbering the owners. The 1%. ha! yes, even today, even after we fought to destroy feudalism, dictators, etc. etc. we still allow ourselves the world over to be ruled by a small minority of people, who normally backstab and claw their ways through everyone else to get into that realm, where they breed themselves into legend.

You say the government it is bad, but see... I think it's good too. Law, for instance. Money can usually buy yourself above the law, but then again, some of the richest people were taken down in the end because the law prevailed. I know a great many more "bad guys" need punishing... child traffickers for one, absolutely, but ... I do agree that the government can be too big, and get too involved in daily life. So I guess that's where balance is needed, and arguably that's what elections are supposed to do, is help balance the power and thereby our rights as citizens.

Anyway, I'm rambling now so lemme just stop and let you respond.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Anyway, I still have yet to get to the point of why I even interjected... you'd made a comment earlier which I plaintively ignored, but it's this idea of relativism. As if somehow the world's population's moral compass has always been set - nay - compromised to Neutral, rather than Neutral Good (yes, I know it's a D&D term but it's also truly the closet analogy you'll get to everyday humans).

If you don't mind, I would like for you to explain why you think this is. Note, I'm not saying it isn't, it's just I am curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Call it my need to know.

Morally neutral is not the same as morally insane.

Aesthetic preferences are morally neutral, i.e. irrelevant to ethics.

Condemning an action as evil in one context, yet upholding it as virtuous/acceptable in another is morally insane.

The latter is implied when I invoke the term "relativism".

Examples:
- Assault vs. spanking
- Theft vs. taxation
- Domestic murder vs. foreign casualty
- Male violence vs. female violence

Dictionary definitions of relativism typically make reference to the core of the ideology "there is no such thing as an absolute" which is in itself an absolute statement.

The D&D alignment system isn't exactly a solid interpretation of ethics, it's fun to play around with, but quite silly. The term "neutral" is treated as a midway point between good and evil, a false dichotomy. "Good" should more accurately be considered "neutral" because there are no universally valid definitions for virtuous behavior. Stuff like murder, theft and r.ape - all specific initiations of force - can never be considered good regardless of context, that's why they're evil.

In other words, an action is either evil or neutral with no in-between. A neutral action may be promoted to good in the minds of others if it falls within the bounds of courage, honesty, compassion, etc.

It's impossible to universally adopt something like altruism as "the good" since each transaction requires an individual who acts in opposition to self-sacrifice.

Virtue ethics in general automatically condemn those without a choice as evil (e.g. coma patient) even though ethics are only applicable if we are able to choose our course of action. Yes, the theoretical consequences of determinism aren't very nice.

 

[Sucumbio]

Morally neutral is not the same as morally insane.

Aesthetic preferences are morally neutral, i.e. irrelevant to ethics.

Condemning an action as evil in one context, yet upholding it as virtuous/acceptable in another is morally insane.

The latter is implied when I invoke the term "relativism".

Examples:
- Assault vs. spanking
- Theft vs. taxation
- Domestic murder vs. foreign casualty
- Male violence vs. female violence

I see. So in tying this to the OP, our current generation's "problem," (if we're to assume there is one, and ignoring the arguments for/against previous generations being similar) is that we've become a world of hypocrites.

“We are so skilled at putting on a show of virtue that we fool even ourselves.” -Johnathan Haidt

I've not read his work, but he has some ... interesting ideas on how to alleviate hypocrisy.

-challenge our beliefs
-find fault with ourselves
-listen to our critics
-use "mindfulness meditation" to improve self-awareness
-use "cognitive behavioral therapy" to correct thought distortions

hm, well he loses me on the last two, they sound like bs, but to be fair I've not researched either of those things. but I do believe humans should always challenge their beliefs, it's the founding principle in the scientific method, of course, and it's a sound philosophy, as is examining one's own faults, though this really goes hand in hand with the 3rd suggestion, where we may derive most of the input in terms of what our faults even are.

The D&D

alignment system isn't exactly a solid interpretation of ethics, it's fun to play around with, but quite silly. The term "neutral" is treated as a midway point between good and evil, a false dichotomy. "Good" should more accurately be considered "neutral" because there are no universally valid definitions for virtuous behavior. Stuff like murder, theft and r.ape - all specific initiations of force - can never be considered good regardless of context, that's why they're evil.

In other words, an action is either evil or neutral with no in-between. A neutral action may be promoted to good in the minds of others if it falls within the bounds of courage, honesty, compassion, etc.

It's impossible to universally adopt something like altruism as "the good" since each transaction requires an individual who acts in opposition to self-sacrifice.

Virtue ethics in general automatically condemn those without a choice as evil (e.g. coma patient) even though ethics are only applicable if we are able to choose our course of action. Yes, the theoretical consequences of determinism aren't very nice.

This is where it gets tricky. Normative ethics discussions tend to weed out the utilitarians, the deontologists, etc. I think altruism is possible, because the receiver of the "good" isn't in my eyes violating altruism by taking. Taking itself may on the surface be selfISH and not selfLESS, but it's the initiating act that we would use to qualify an action, I believe.

BUT this is where you may have an issue with evil. And indeed violence. If I initiate violence against someone because they are perceived as doing harm to others, am I committing a selfless act? Police officer comes to mind.

Anyway, I am not exactly versed in any of this. I do think the hypocrisy in our world is a shame, but I'm not sure what alternatives we have. Spanking vs. Assault, yeah... if you spank your kids you're teaching them it's "okay" to put your hands on someone else. Even though the law says it isn't. It's a fundamental flaw in bad parenting. But things like, Theft vs. Taxation, eh, not so much. To me, Theft is wrongful taking of things from a person. Taxing, well it's a contractual agreement (w-2 form). By trading man-hours of work, you agree to be compensated with money, and the government whose roads you use to drive on, whose borders you stay safely tucked behind at night whom they defend, etc. takes a share of your "earnings" as per your contract to agree to be a "working" member of society by which the governing body protects, and maintains.

Sales tax, eh... it's kinda crap. It's like getting taxed twice. You've already lost some money to the Feds for being a worker, NOW you gotta pay more tax, just to barter goods. But then again, even people who are unemployed still pay sales tax. I dunno, tax theory is whole other can of worms.

 

[Chinaux]

It's everywhere.

 

[mangoppr]

the illuminati is an upperclass society. With means to control and enslave the lower classes through deprecation and devotion. The key to counter this is to unite we must all stop...and decide that we want to know the truth collectively on a mass scale . And what is hidden will reveal itself. Evil is separation and deception
Good is unity and oneness. Yu don't need to know who or what. Cause all name and all labels are meaningless. We are one nothing more nothing less. This is about the truth and hiding it. We're in a fabricated lie a deception by the upperclass. The lower classes are always separated and deceived by pride and negativity. Love is the only thing that beats what you can't see. IT lasts infinitely this life these games are all just an experience. For now. Until the veil of consciousness and rebuild and the truth beyond the soul rooting to the zygote that create us and the infinite spark. Religion cults satan that's all bull ****. But now were getting spiritual so I'll stop. Unity and oneness is good evil is deprecation and deception just remember that and smash away cause in away that's all that's real sometimes:/

 

[FirestormNeos]

It's everywhere.

Spoiler

What is it with banshees interrupting my videos?

Maybe it works for Illuminati.

 

[LarsINTJ]

 

[ScarletDragon]

I just think they are fake. People just causing rumors

 

[Chinaux]

I just think they are fake. People just causing rumors

The Illuminati (plural of Latin illuminatus, "enlightened") is a name given to several groups, both real and fictitious. Historically, the name refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, anEnlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776. The society's goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power. "The order of the day," they wrote in their general statutes, "is to put an end to the machinations of the purveyors of injustice, to control them without dominating them."[1] The Illuminati—along with Freemasonry and other secret societies—were outlawed throughEdict, by the Bavarian ruler, Charles Theodore, with the encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1784, 1785, 1787 and 1790.[2] In the several years following, the group was vilified by conservative and religious critics who claimed that they continued underground and were responsible for the French Revolution.

In subsequent use, "Illuminati" refers to various organisations which claim or are purported to have links to the original Bavarian Illuminati or similar secret societies, though these links are unsubstantiated. They are often alleged to conspire to control world affairs, by masterminding events and planting agents in government and corporations, in order to gain political power and influence and to establish a New World Order. Central to some of the most widely known and elaborate conspiracy theories, the Illuminati have been depicted as lurking in the shadows and pulling the strings and levers of power in dozens of novels, movies, television shows, comics, video games and music videos.
E]
The Illuminati (plural of Latin illuminatus, "enlightened") is a name given to several groups, both real and fictitious. Historically, the name refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, anEnlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776. The society's goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power. "The order of the day," they wrote in their general statutes, "is to put an end to the machinations of the purveyors of injustice, to control them without dominating them."[1] The Illuminati—along with Freemasonry and other secret societies—were outlawed throughEdict, by the Bavarian ruler, Charles Theodore, with the encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1784, 1785, 1787 and 1790.[2] In the several years following, the group was vilified by conservative and religious critics who claimed that they continued underground and were responsible for the French Revolution.

In subsequent use, "Illuminati" refers to various organisations which claim or are purported to have links to the original Bavarian Illuminati or similar secret societies, though these links are unsubstantiated. They are often alleged to conspire to control world affairs, by masterminding events and planting agents in government and corporations, in order to gain political power and influence and to establish a New World Order. Central to some of the most widely known and elaborate conspiracy theories, the Illuminati have been depicted as lurking in the shadows and pulling the strings and levers of power in dozens of novels, movies, television shows, comics, video games and music videos.

 

[FirestormNeos]

So in other words, the Illuminati is just another group religious people don't like?

Well so much for them being a threat! HA!

 

[Kashology]

The illuminati is real or rather they were real. And they're not nearly as powerful as others might believe, but honestly if you people have a hard time believing a group of people can gather around plot around in secret, then you might want to re-evaluate how you think. It's quite easy for groups like that to exist.

The illuminati was just a group of self-acclaimed illuminators who used to go around "enlightening" people ages ago. Now, the whole modern day conspiracy surrounding them now might be untrue (i.e. a bunch of devil worshiping people plotting in secret on ruling the world and manipulate society) but they were certainly a real origination before.

 

[LightlyToasted]

Isn't it kind of a moot point to debate this? If they ARE real then clearly they have years of practice keeping secret and debating their existence won't reveal any further information. If they are not real then they are not real. Unless you use the debate as a thought experiment on how credible or REAL a source has to appear for people to believe.











Also in b4 what I posted above is exactly what an illuminati would say.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Also in b4 what I posted above is exactly what an illuminati would say.

"say" has 3 letters in it. Half Life 3 confirmed.

 

[no1butmenotu]

It's hard to say what the Illuminati is or if they are even real. Conspiracy theorists spread so much disinformation about them and none of it is consistent with each other as far as I can tell. There was also someone else who said that the Illuminati stood for the Illuminated ones; My friend stated that in ancient times (I have no idea what she means by ancient times) there was a group of people that possessed a lot of philosophical information that they taught to individuals.

When it comes down to it, who knows? IMO I honestly do think that the problems in this world are planned. As for the specifics about how this is done? I seriously don't know and I'm not going to dwell on it and allow it to consume and dictate my life.

 

[S3R4PH]

Interesting topic to find on these boards.

Do I believe Secret Societies exist? Yes. Do I believe the Bavarian Illuminati survived after they were banned and exiled? Sure do. Do I feel that they have influence on society through mainstream media, education, and policy? Absolutely.

It's a rather deep rabbit-hole to go down if you look into it; you just have to be extremely mindful and critical of all sources relating to the 'Illuminati', as there is a massive amount of disinformation on the subject.

I don't care if there are groups out there that employ use of existing systems to promote their debt and "New World Order" agenda. I don't focus on that or let it bother me as I've read enough creepy and spooky stories about things such as Skull and Bones and the Bohemian Grove to know that they are just people in positions of power and wealth over those who are dependent upon the aforementioned systems.

My tips? Stay out of debt. Invest only in tangible and real things that have meaning or use to you, and stay away from the TV and radio. Just be kind to others, listen and do things you enjoy, focus on your hobbies, work out and achieve your own perfect physical state, and give your mind time to rest every now and then (Meditation, maintaining a silent mind, become self-aware of your body and state of consciousness, etc). Now you too, can be enlightened!

 

[Xcano]

Illuminati were a free-thinking Christian organization from about 300 years ago IIRC. They disbanded and the only reason their popular now is because people need a sp00py "big brother" to blame things on.

I would like to redirect you to this site: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Illuminati

Said site also contains a debunking of 90% of conspiracy "theories" (a horrible misuse of the word) and other pseudosciences.

So you're basically calling the Discovery Channel silly? They were talking about this yesterday and said there may be a secret society of Freemasons in this world, seeking wiles dominence. Also if I must say, the Illuminati was supposedly created May 1, 1776 (Adam Weishaupt), a day of sacrifice. Who died last year May 1? Osama Bin Laden. And we all celebrated over it.

Is it also a coincidence that FDR and Hitler died at roughly the SAME TIME?! Yes.

Speaking of believing things and many people following it. Take the government for example. Whatever they say their citizens would follow/obey and/or be convinced. The government will say "We are okay!" Even though we are in a finicial crisis, we have 38% (I believe that's the percentage) obesity, we have many bad relations with countries, and YET most of the people would follow what they say.

Government says we are pulling back from Iraq and Afghanistan and that we are done with wars, but they give out a little tidbit of Iran, Russia, China, N.Korea, Syria, Israel, Turkey, and NATO.

Onto WTC 7, how did it fall with no plane soaring through it? And if you tell me heat and pressure then the other buildings surrounding it would've fallen too. And you know what else is strange? How did this news reporter say that WTC 7 fell even though it was standing there in the background?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

So, is Al Queda fake too? Working with the government? Or just something else?

Now before I finish editing, a man who made the blueprint of the Twin Towers added 150 strong bolts on each floor? If that's true, how did the towers fall so quickly? Shouldn't it fallen a bit slower?

This shows that you do not know how engineering works. The heat from the plane was more than enough to melt the steel.

I never said WTC 7 was done by Illuminati. Though I feel like the government had something behind it. They never say anything. And I want to point out something REALLY creepy (Im just sharing this)

When Bush was at the classroom on the day on 9/11 the teacher was making the class repeat these words:

Kite. Hit. Steel

I found that CREEPY.

Back on subject, a few years before 9/11 Osama was interviewed by CNN -.- and he was HIGHLY wanted too by the US. Shouldn't they catch him when they interviewed him face to face?

Source for "Kite. Hit. Steel."? Also the Osama interview?

Also, here's a question. If the Illuminati is such a powerful behind-the-scenes organization, then why are there conspiracy sites dedicated to exposing them? Wouldn't the Illuminati have shut them down and killed the people involved?

As for governmental stammering or what-have-you when asked about secret societies. I have had people ask me if I was a Freemason/Illuminati/Whatever before (I'm weird and kinda reclusive). And every time they do I stammer. Not because I'm apart of a secret society, but because I believe the question to be so unbelievably stupid words elude me.

I see Illuminati debates like Creationism vs. Evolution debates. There is no debate there. We already know which side is right, the other side is just willfully ignorant.

 

[LightlyToasted]

I see Illuminati debates like Creationism vs. Evolution debates. There is no debate there. We already know which side is right, the other side is just willfully ignorant.

It's good to see other god fearing poster on these boards!

Also, here's a question. If the Illuminati is such a powerful behind-the-scenes organization, then why are there conspiracy sites dedicated to exposing them? Wouldn't the Illuminati have shut them down and killed the people involved?

Well clearly the ones attempting to expose them are clearly no real threat to the illuminati, since no one takes these "conspiracy theorists" seriously, which explains why there are no good websites exposing them out there. The moment a QUALITY site is posted the Illuminati obviously take it down.

Invest only in tangible and real things that have meaning or use to you, and stay away from the TV and radio...

All I hear is radio Gaga

Media is not necessarily a bad thing. Obviously overconsumption of media can be, but if reaching your happy place involved learning about others view of the world, or other's experiences, then it can be healthy to consume media, assuming one understands possible implications.

Honestly I care not for Illuminati because while its easy to say they were responsible for something, you can't hold anyone accountable on their behalf.

Look at the recent reports on C.I.A. Torture, even if what the contract interrogators are not punished (which it looks like they won't) at least this report is generating discussion, and teaching us about how easy it is to lose touch with humanity in trying times. And it also shows that the C.I.A. while secretive, still demonstrates transparency where it is safe to. things do EVENTUALLY become declassified, which allows for some reflection.