Simple. Just prove to me that the Illuminati stuff is all fake.
Simple. Just prove to me that the Illuminati stuff is all fake.
Obviously that's impossible.
The question is what "Illuminati stuff" is backed by strong evidence?
Name the "illuminati" the full list please.Originally Posted by Unregistered
It's an interesting little mind trick. No offense to the OP, but the "you can't prove it isn't so" argument is a stage that all people go through at some point - I certainly did when I was young. Eventually people realize that it's an almost entirely meaningless argument, as you also can't prove that unicorns, robot cats, or teapots on the moon are not so.
The meta question is what is the best way to communicate this to people so they waste the least amount of time on the dead end logic?
The "you can't prove it isn't so" argument is what i was referring to in my thread at http://metabunk.org/threads/482-What-type-of-argument .
I may know the OP!!! LOL!
It is called Argument from ignorance for a reason - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Unfortunately the reason isn't that the arguer is ignorant tho', despite there being a strong correlation between using it and being so!!
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Hi All, i'm getting so into the debunking mindset i started my own blog here: http://illuminutti.com/
If you can think of any links i can add just let me know.
"you also can't prove that unicorns, .................. are not so."
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/20...okmark_t=group
This applies to religious beliefs.
A1! What a great site PC.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks SB. The site is has been doing better and better each month. I'm really enjoying the topics. Lots of fun.
Mainly the Rockefellers and Rothchilds.
What about introducing them to the Logical Fallacies ?
I estimate the vast majority of people are not even aware that such a thing has been around for two thousand years.
Perhaps say something like "Hey Bud. Did you know that this fallacious argument you are making is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, and was identified over two thousand years ago?"
That seems to me the most efficient way.
BTW everyone, "The Illuminati" does exist.
Hmm, I'm not sure whipping out some latin is going to be helpful.
It would be great if people could be taught about logical fallacies. Also the scientific method, but you can't just SAY something, and expect them to take it in. "Hey Bud, your evidence is not statistically significant"
Well, I meant just let them know a system exists. How that is done would of course depend upon the situation.
Notice how public schools do not teach the Logical Fallacies? It's almost as if they would rather the good citizens of these United States not even be aware of them.
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." -- G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007
I don't understand the reference here in the context of the other statements. Could you clarify?"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." -- G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007
Bush was trying to fallaciously characterize Iraqis fighting to expel foreign invaders from their land as Saudi terrorists who hijacked aircraft over the United States on September 11, 2001. The sad thing is that public education has allowed this cartoonish political speech to work so well.
The collectivist philosophy that Nationalism relies upon is itself fallacious. Here is a really good history lecture which outlines how liberals began to lose out to collectivists in 1863...
It's a tad more complex than that. He was claiming that Al Qaida in Iraq was essentially the same as Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida. Still spin, of course, but not exactly a fallacy.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75549
Q. Mr. President, you've said many times this war at this stage is about the Iraqi Government creating a self-sustaining, stable government. Last November, your own CIA Director, according to the Washington Post, told you about that Government, quote, "The inability of the Government to govern seems irreversible." He could not point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around. And he said, in talking about the Government, that it's balanced, but it cannot function.
The President. Yes.
Q. When you heard that, since that point, you think of how many hundreds of soldiers have been killed, how much money has been spent. Why shouldn't people conclude that you are either stubborn, in denial, but certainly not realistic about the strategy that you've pursued since then?
The President. You know, it's interesting; it turns out, Mike Hayden—I think you're quoting Mike Hayden there—was in this morning to give me his weekly briefing, and I asked him about that newspaper article from which you quote. His answer was—his comments to the Iraq Study Group was a little more nuanced than the quotation you read.
He said that he made it clear the current strategy in Iraq wasn't working—this is his recollection of the briefing to the Iraq Study Group. He briefed them to the fact it wasn't working and that we needed a change of direction. He also said that those who suggest that we back away and let the Iraqi's Government do it—this is in November 2006—let the Iraqis handle it, don't understand the inability of the Iraq Government at that time to take on that responsibility.
He then went on to say—this is what he—his recollection of his conversation— was that our strategy needed to help get the violence down so that there could be political reconciliation from the top down as well as the bottom up.
There has been political reconciliation, Martha, from the bottom up. Anbar Province is a place where the experts had— an expert had said that it was impossible for us to achieve our objective. This was the part of the country of Iraq where Al Qaida had made it clear that they would like to establish a safe haven from which to plan, plot further attacks and to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East. Since then, since this November 2006 report and since that statement to the Iraq Study Group, things have changed appreciably on the ground in Anbar Province.
And they're beginning to have the same change, because the people on the ground there are sick and tired of violence and being threatened by people like Al Qaida, who have no positive vision for the future. And there's been a significant turn, where now Sunni sheikhs and Sunni citizens are working with the coalition to bring justice to Al Qaida killers. And that same approach is being taken in Diyala.
And so there's a lot of focus, and should be frankly on oil laws or elections. But remember, there's another political reconciliation track taking place as well, and that's the one that's taking place at the grassroots level. Mike Hayden talked about that as well.
Q. But you think you've been realistic about the strategy and what's possible?
The President. Well—thank you for the followup—nothing has changed in the new room. Anyway—yes. I mean, as I told you last November, right about this time, I was part of that group of Americans who didn't approve of what was taking place in Iraq, because it looked like all the efforts that we had taken to that point in time were about to fail. In other words, sectarian violence was really raging. And I had a choice to make, and that was to pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the chaos and violence that might occur in the capital would not spill out across the country or send more troops in to prevent the chaos and violence from happening in the first place, and that's the decision I made. So it was a realistic appraisal, by me.
What's realistic, as well, is to understand the consequences of what will happen if we fail in Iraq. In other words, it's—people aren't just going to be content with driving America out of Iraq. Al Qaida wants to hurt us here. That's their objective. That's what they would like to do. They have got an ideology that they believe that the world ought to live under, and that one way to help spread that ideology is to harm the American people, harm American interests. The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.
So I've been realistic about the consequences of failure. I have been realistic about what needs to happen on the ground in order for there to be success. And it's been hard work, and the American people see it as hard work. And one of the reasons it is hard work is because on our TV screens are these violent killings perpetuated by people who have done us harm in the past. And that ought to be a lesson for the American people, to understand that what happens in Iraq and overseas matters to the security of the United States of America.
Yes, ma'am.
Al Qaida in Iraq
Q. But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that Al Qaida in Iraq is the same organization being run by Usama bin Laden himself?
The President. Al Qaida in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America—obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, Al Qaida in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden. And we need to take Al Qaida in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take Al Qaida anywhere in the world seriously.
That's more what I thought the quote meant. Spin? Anything out of a politicians mouth most likely has some attached.....but when you take a quote out of context...you can often make it sound like anything you want.
That was fallacious. They were not.
I think you are conflating logical fallacies with things that are simply incorrect. A logical fallacy is faulty reasoning. What Bush was saying was faulty facts - there's no actual logic, it's just an assertion.
It's still a fallacy, just not a logical fallacy. Two distinct meanings of the same word:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy
2
a : a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies>
3
: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
Charlie Primero (August 18th, 2012)
You are correct Mick. I conflated the two. I often do.
Thank you for pointing that out. This helps me think better.
"It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned."George Washington -- letter to George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798
So he's basically debunking a conspiracy theory there then, isn't he? Parse what he's actually saying.
So he's basically debunking a conspiracy theory there then, isn't he? Parse what he's actually saying.Bit of a double-negative, so kind of a bitch to discern what exactly he's saying here. It seems though, from the rest of the content, he's stating he does acknowledge these ideologies have spread in the US. The double-negative could suggest the exact opposite when read another way, but then the remainder of the piece wouldn't make a great deal of sense.It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States.
This is him speaking in defense of Freemasonry, saying he does not believe the Freemasons, as a rule, are spreading these ideologies themselves.The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation).
So he seems here to be acknowledging that, in spite of his defense of freemasonry as a whole, some of its members are invested in these ideologies.That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects;He seems here to be stating that the people of this ideology have a goal of removing the citizenry (People with a capitol P) from participation in their own government, and that this aim is an evident one.and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned."
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but that seems to me what's being said here... and makes it pretty clear that George Washington at least acknowledged the existence of an ideology called 'the Illuminati', which he considered to be diabolical in nature. Could argue 'well how does that apply to modern times? It's not like some secret society could really survive all those years...!', well, the fact that Freemasons are still kicking about the continent in style kind of counters that. I'm not sure if this quote is even verified, though.
Last edited by Grieves; March 8th, 2013 at 10:01 AM.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The quote is correct, and I mostly agree with your assessment of it. I don't think 200 years later it really is relevant though. You know anti-masonry was a political and religious movement back in the day (although it did not really take off politically in the US until the 1820s), and I think it was more in that context that he speaks. Kind of like how anti-communist rhetoric from the 1950s is not longer applicable, or anti-Catholic rhetoric from the 1600s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonry
Fair, but the discussion here is whether such an organization as the Illuminati does exist/could exist. This is somewhat irrefutable evidence, if indeed the quote is accurate, that at one point at least within America's history there was such an ideologically driven organization as the Illuminati, and that they had a presence, at that time at least, within the Freemasons. That pretty much dashes to dust any perception of the Illuminati as being a 'fiction'. It's by no means proof they're still active today / in 'control' of many facets of American culture, but it should put an end to the notion that the Illuminati 'don't exist'. Given we can establish there was such an organization, and given that there is, indeed, relatively frequent visual and verbal reference to them in pop-culture, is it so nutty to believe that perhaps such an organization/ideology persists to some extent today, and does indeed have a media presence?
Rest assured I'm not one of these 'Freemasons rule the planet...!!!' people, nor do I have any sort of firm belief in the 'Illuminati' as portrayed by folks like Vigilant Citizen, but as crazy as VC often seems, he/she/they occasionally points out things that are relatively undeniable. Whether they represent a shadow-society dominating popular culture or individual artists/marketers exploiting the belief in such a thing is certainly up for debate, and I'd personally lean toward the latter... but I don't think the notion of the Illuminati is quite as 'crazy' as it's often portrayed/represented.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
I used to forcefully hold people down and medicate them for basically believing this stuff....that the medication was part of it, etc....i left the mental health nursing course after two years after growing up a bit and realizing that i was part of something disgusting, rotten and that there are truths to some of the "mental" stuff people were convinced of. I mean to write a post about this in a lot more depth, it's quite upsetting to hear some of you label people as crazy and nutters, (though i do it in real life about other things i'm sure).
I honestly believe that groups exactly like the Illumaniti exist, there are probably at-least a dozen of them. why do i believe that? because all of history has shown the few rule the many since forever, be it slavery or debt, when only 0.017%? are true billionaires, that's a very narrow club with a very wide, wide grasp of power. couple that with the shadow banking system where trillions dance around into nothingness and appear again like some mad game of perpetual motion marbles, families and institutions which span centuries while keeping hold of immense wealth (catholic church, monarchy's, rothchilds etc etc...).
Secrecy is the game, cyber terrorism, information wars - it wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't that much to hide.
all very basic points i know.
Grieves (and NFLJACK), you should read this. It explains the context of what Washington is saying in 1789. Note the dates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
Grieves (March 8th, 2013)
But why can't rich families come into existence without secret societies?
I missed that part. Where?
"Details beget facts, and facts, judiciously sent forth, become assassins."
somewhat guilty there myself. PCwilliams kinda calls Illuminati theorists crazy every time he posts, given his avatar.but as crazy as VC often seems,
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit, Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The Nazi's were defeated but the ideology remains. Ideologies can never really be extinguished. There are always those who will pick up the torch.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
It's not the formation of rich families - but by very nature of being a family, certain secrets develop - mix that with carefully chosen marriages, wealth which spans centuries etc....I read a interesting thing about the catholic church; theory or not, the idea was that priests shouldn't marry, not for religious purpose but to keep the wealth and the secrets close. not quite related, but i hope you see the 'logic' i have lol.
Pete Tar, Grieves, everybody wasn't a dig at anybody in particular, i call people crazy, nuts, it's just a horrid thing to do though and i felt particularly sensitive to it at that moment =P it can't be helped though, i do realize "CT's" as you say, can have a tendency to be a bit out there.
Also, Oxymorons point that ideology is a hard thing to kill - imagine one based in shadows, kept between very select people? just the idea that there is such a exclusive club out there if you play your cards right, to get access to big power must sort of be a self-fulfulling prophecy in my mind.
No I don't really. There are tens of thousands of ultra-rich, and they are all very different. Just look at the Forbes-100, is there really any connection between these people?
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/
Which of the are the Illuminati?
I'm not so sure. In an earlier letter to Reverend Snyder, Washington admitted that he did not have the time to read John Robison's 'Proofs of a Conspiracy' (Snyder had sent him a copy of the book), so his only exposure to the illuminati would have been through hearsay. New England was awash with alarmism and paranoia about a supposed illuminati infiltration, which makes it unlikely that Washington was ever presented a consistent or accurate picture of the order. Even if Washington had managed to gain a comprehensive understanding of illuminati ideology, it's important to point out that this ideology was basically just a mix of classicism, enlightenment rationalism, and rousseauvian primitivism. So these "diabolical tenets" Washington mentions did not necessarily have to come from the illuminati.
It's unlikely that the illuminati ever established themselves in the US. There was a brief plan to set up a colony in the southern US, but it was ditched after the british victory at Charlestown. The only confirmed illuminati I'm aware of that ever visited the US was Johann Schweizer, who traveled there in 1794 to represent the French government's 'commission for commerce and provisions'. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Schweizer was doing illuminati business there.
To sum it up, money=power + men + *cult + sons (repeat) = probable outcomes of historical-present day conspiracy.
*cult/religion/business plans/guidelines/shared interest (whatever the cause or reason which leads to the outcome of a historical global conspiracy (of which i presume many have existed in present as they have past).
The rest is just me getting to that point in my head. haha.
I obviously can't answer either question any more than you could (if you chose a speculative route) - the connections are primarily money of course, sharing interests in global projects such as Bill gates and Monsanto, you see money and resources being devoted by the PTB* into everything which is the nature of the system. Getting more money is always the end goal, or equally the ability to command power, which is primarily what money achieves. That is on a individual basis but as you begin to become a power which infringes on people, but it also effects governments themselves as the capability of these moneygiants through their accumulated resources and infrastructure become immense.
We know much about individuals, conspiring is in our very nature which is why 'conspiracy theorists' is a odd term, human nature is rubbish. Cliche but when the power structure is a pyramid - you take it for granted that the decisions above you are not your responsibility. Take a formal structure, like the catholic church or parliamentary like the house of lords - you have people being born into wealth, sustaining it through a family who have earned it through investing in critically important infrastructure. Through very human nature of conspiring, it seems completly reasonable that many groups have, with one another or against throughout a sustained history, even guidelines, like religion, cults which coheres their actions.
Speculation which i think stems from knowing that the sort of battles we see, are not much different to waring kings, which in historical terms as we see history was not that long a go. We're still in a heavily monarchic system as we ever were, just not sanctified by god as the belief system, but money as the tool of salvation.
I guess it's more a highly anti-capitalistic view, but for it to exist the PTB keep it through money as the grip - a belief system which needs sustaining through the belief that the real complexities of the injustice is in mystifying numbers, random chance and coin-flipping.
*I've stolen the term PTB "Powers to be" as a generalization for the 1%, at-least the ones with money but also have influence which is significant. The very fact the media do not portray the real power infrastructure and significance corporations/banks have had on the world as well as the general transparency of politicians themselves, who have been and will be forever caught conspiring.
It seems that you have missed that some folks do things because it is right and good to care about others. Bill Gates is rich, not because he inherited it, but because of his OWN work and skills. He is giving most of it AWAY, to programs that help others, not to programs that will help him.
The problem in the Catholic church was one that to many major positions, such as bishop sees were being passed to eldest sons, just like manor lands
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
Now Bill Gates did NOT come from money. Do you think he is Illuminatti?
Neither did George Lucas, and look at all the symbolism in his movies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks