Atheists Assemble! The Illuminati Are Under Assault!

[Brainster]

A poster over at DU (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x217381) wonders why of all the conspiracy theories JREF seldom tackles the Bavarian Illuminati:

It seems to me that atheists should consider anti-Illluminism to be very, very scary. Why aren't more of them scared? Why isn't there more concern about anti-Illuminism in the JREF forum? (Here's the list of "Illuminati" threads on JREF - they don't seem to be very frequent, and hardly any serious debunking goes into them.) Why aren't there a whole bunch of websites out there targeting and refuting anti-Illuminist claims in detail? In my opinion, there should be.

First they came for the Illuminati, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Illuminati....

She (it's 9-11 Truther Diane from the Activist NYC blog) acknowledges that we mostly just laugh off talk of the Illuminati. She claims that anti-illuminism permeates the antiwar movement (who knew?):

And, at almost any anti-war rally, you will likely run into people talking about "the Illuminati." For the most part, the leaders don't talk about "the Illuminati" (probably because most anti-war rallies, at least here in New York, are organized by Communists). However, a great many rank-and-file rally attendees do believe in "the Illuminati."

Diane should stop going to antiwar rallies with Luke Rudkowski and Matt Lepacek; I cannot imagine that there is a significant element of the non-Truther antiwar movement that is concerned with the Illuminati.

She notes that we mostly toss off mention of the Illuminati as not having existed for centuries and not that important when they did exist, but seems to feel we don't do enough to combat anti-Illuminism. I guess her theory is that when some fundie preacher rails against the Illuminati, he really means "Atheists". That's funny, I've never noticed fundie preachers having any problems referring to godless Atheists.

I don't know what more she expects us to do. It's hard to prove a negative--that the Illuminati don't exist. JREF forum member Boloboffin holds up the side of sanity in that thread. Later on Diane claims that the right wing is going to take over the antiwar movement, which would be quite a feat.

[Hokulele]

...

I guess her theory is that when some fundie preacher rails against the Illuminati, he really means "Atheists".

...


I would absolutely love to know what she thinks fundie preachers really mean when they rail against death metal.

[DarkMagician]

I would absolutely love to know what she thinks fundie preachers really mean when they rail against death metal.

I'm guessing polyester loveseats.

[AZCat]

I wondered how long that thread would remain unnoticed by the JREF. I don't really understand Diane's obsession with the cavalier attitude of atheists about anti-Illuminati rhetoric, the alleged links in the minds of the poor between the Illuminati and atheists, and any possible dire consequences for the atheists if they should continue to ignore such a threat.

[arthwollipot]

What are you all talking about? Of course the Illuminati exist. Here's proof: 23.

The number 23 is the ultimate fnord. If you look for it, you'll see it everywhere. This is evidence of the pervasiveness of the Illuminati. The recent Jim Carrey movie almost outed us them, but it was such a bomb that no-one noticed. Why do you think it bombed? Of course.

Keep an eye out for that number. Why 23? Because 2+3=5, of course.

[Cuddles]

It seems to me that atheists should consider anti-Illluminism to be very, very scary. Why aren't more of them scared? Why isn't there more concern about anti-Illuminism in the JREF forum? (Here's the list of "Illuminati" threads on JREF - they don't seem to be very frequent, and hardly any serious debunking goes into them.) Why aren't there a whole bunch of websites out there targeting and refuting anti-Illuminist claims in detail? In my opinion, there should be.

I don't get it. Surely anti-Illuminism is people arguing against the illuminati? Which seems to imply that she thinks we should go around debunking people who claim the illuminati don't exist. Which doesn't make any sense since we agree with them. Unless anti-illuminism is supposed to mean people who think the illuminati do exist but don't want them to. In which case we don't argue with them much because making fun of such obviously insane people is generally considered poor form.

[Fiona]

As I read that post, the point made is this:

There is a conspiracy theory suggesting we are all run by the illuminati
Those who believe that conspiracy think this is a bad thing
That conspiracy is said to be primarily under the control of atheists
A widening of belief in this conspiracy will have bad consequences for atheists, as their evil influence is believed and opposition to it mounts
Therefore atheists should put a lot of effort into debunking it

So the poster is putting forward the second of the alternative ideas you suggested, Cudddles, but believes that the threat is more important than you do. The author recognises that the usual response is to laugh at such people, as you also say. He or she thinks this is inadequate because the belief is gaining significant ground.

The post goes on to suggest that the reason we do not realise this is because we are disproportionately academic or highly paid or whatever: and therefore do not realise the hold these ideas are gaining amongst more disadvantaged groups. S/he reckons we will pay for this complacency and draws a parallel with wealthy jews in pre-hitler Germany.

What is curious is that a major plank of the argument put forward is that this movement is in fact under the control of the religious right. It may be so but it looks a wee bit like a conspiracy theory to me. To be fair to the author s/he specifically calls for active debunking of large scale conspiracy theories: I am not clear if the parallel premise that we should not do the same with small ones is tactical, or if it is because s/he believes in at least some small conspiracies.

I have no idea if the observation that belief in the Illuminati is gaining ground is true, since the thesis relates specifically to the USA. But on the face of it this is not a ridiculous argument. Groups like the jews in Germany were so targetted; and it does seem to have been effective and to have grown under the noses of those groups, who did not recognise the danger till too late. ( I am not trying to Godwin this discussion, btw, it is the example used in the post cited). Such things can happen and I have noticed how very different the attitude to atheists seems to be in some parts of the USA, compared to here, from what I have read on this very board.

So should we dismiss this without further consideration? I am inclined to think not

[Drudgewire]

What are you all talking about? Of course the Illuminati exist. Here's proof: 23.


To any Detroit Pistons or NY Knicks fan, that's all the proof you'll ever need. :mad:

[Horatius]

So should we dismiss this without further consideration? I am inclined to think not


It's certainly a departure from the usual around here.


I'm inclined not to worry too much about it though. Although I suppose I am one of the intellectual atheists she mentions. ;)

The key point why I'm not worried about anti-illuminatism becoming some sort of pogrom against atheists is hinted at in her article:

Of course, anti-Illuminism doesn't target just atheists. It also targets "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays, among others. Some variants target Jews as well. However, the historical Bavarian Illuminati were mostly atheists. Thus, atheists should be regarded as the central target of anti-Illuminism, at least implicitly if not explicitly.


As has been pointed out, the "historical Bavarian Illuminati" simply are not what most of the CT crowd mean when they discuss "The Illuminati". It has become a new, catch-all phrase that refers to whatever group of boogy men the particular CT is railing against. I'd bet good money that most of the people she could quote as being "anti-Illuminati" simply don't have a clue who the historical Bavarian Illuminati actually were or what they wanted to accomplish.

This is highlighted in her first follow up article (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x217381#217394), referring to some threads here on JREF.

The most recent thread, There are 6,000 people in the Illuminati begins with a post saying:

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I'm pretty convinced that the vast majority people in the world are made to dance to the tune of a tiny group of rich and powerful people. It doesn't really matter what this small group is called. The Illuminati is as good a name as any other. In a book called Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, David Rothkopf asserts that the world is effectively ruled by 6,000 people. I'm quite happy to equate Rothkopf's 6,000 with the Illuminati.


I thought this worth quoting, because I've encountered similar arguments elsewhere. My response to such arguments:

"Illuminati" isn't "as good a name as any other" for the ruling class. You wouldn't call the ruling class "the Elders of Zion," would you? For similar reasons, they should not be called "the Illuminati." If you call them "the Illuminati," you are implicitly, even if unintentionally, endorsing a religious right wing meme about the world being controlled by evil atheists, "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, etc.


She's trying to enforce a historically accurate usage of the term Illuminati that simply does not have any other support in the modern CT world. The term has entered their lexicon with a fluid definition that serves the purpose of whoever uses it. If she were to succeed in convincing others to use the term as she indicates, I suspect she'd also end up seeing a great decrease in the discussions of the Illuminati that she refers to, as people start using some other term for the catch-all boogy men they're really talking about, as opposed to "atheists".

So that's why I'm not too worried.

[Fiona]

That seems reasonable unless she is correct in thinking that those who are coming to believe in this conspiracy are being encouraged to think those in charge are atheists.This need not depend on the historical group unless a vague historical reference is enough to further the aims of a religious right intent on smearing atheists. It is perhaps not likely, but how many would investigate properly if s/he was correct?

[Horatius]

That seems reasonable unless she is correct in thinking that those who are coming to believe in this conspiracy are being encouraged to think those in charge are atheists.This need not depend on the historical group unless a vague historical reference is enough to further the aims of a religious right intent on smearing atheists. It is perhaps not likely, but how many would investigate properly if s/he was correct?



But who is it who is doing the encouraging? She hasn't really established that. Most of the people I see railing against the Illuminati seem to identify them with some sort of pagan or satanic beliefs, not atheism. Before we get all up in arms about attacks on atheists, I'd want to see some of those attacks. So far, they don't seem to exist anywhere other than her imagination.

That's not to say atheists haven't been attacked, it's just that those attacks don't seem to be related to any sort of organized (or even disorganized) "anti-Illuminati" movement. There are plenty of reasons to object to religious influences on society without having to make up new reasons about their covert attempts to stir up anti-atheist feelings. Their overt actions are reason enough.

[Fiona]

I do not know, Horatius. The situation in very odd in the USA to my european eyes and so I cannot judge who is attacking whom. In some parts of the US it seems to be quite scary to be an atheist and in others it is not a big deal. So I learned from responses to my questions on this board, anyway. Do the religious right not conflate atheists with Satanists sometimes? I sort of had the impression that some of them think that atheists don't really exist, and therefore must be lying about their stated position. This seems to be predicated on the idea that a "religous urge" is built in, presumably by their god

[Horatius]

There is an awful lot of intolerance of atheists in the US, and to a lesser extent in Canada. My point is, it's a bit like Bush bashing - there are enough perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose Bush et al., you don't need to make up new, fake stuff to bash him over. Similarly, there are enough real reasons to oppose the religious right, for their completely above-board, overt actions, that a call to arms to fight the alleged "anti-Illuminati" movement is unnecessary.

And note, it would be unnecessary even if it turns out she's correct.


Consider the line of argument she offers in a later post:

That's a vast straw-man oversimplification of what I've said in this thread. Consider the following points one at a time, please:

1) The religious right wing has made at least some attempts (largely though not completly unsuccessful) to reach out to Blacks and other minorities. Agreed? If not, why not?

2) There is enough homophobia and other assorted bigotry in various minority communities that greater religious right wing successes there are far from completely impossible. Agreed? If not, why not?

3) When attempting to appeal to poor people and minorities, religious right wingers are more likely to succeed if they use a populist, anti-elitist approach. Agreed? If not, why not?

4) Anti-illuminism is both (a) populist and anti-elitist, thus fitting point 3 above, and (b) already in fairly wide circulation within the evangelical Christian subculture, or at least the more extreme sectors thereof (e.g. among the folks who give credence to people like Pat Robertson and/or Tim LaHaye). Agreed? If not, why not?

5) Hence, anti-Illuminism could play a significant role in a religious right wing resurgence. If you don't agree, why not? (Note that I'm not claiming that anti-Illuminism would be the sole factor in a religious right wing resurgence, but it could indeed be a significant factor.)

6) A religious right wing resurgence could lead to, among other consequences, a right wing Supreme Court for many decades hence. Agreed? If not, why not?


I would largely agree with her up to about point 3, and on point 6. And those four points are enough to motivate me to oppose the religious right - which I do, and which most other atheists I know do. Everything from points 4 and 5 seems to be nothing more than her own speculation about how the anti-Illuminati movement, if it exists, might have an influence - an influence which, if it does exist, we would be countering simply because we're already acting to try and oppose their actions relating to points 1-3 and 6.

Trying to tie opposition to the religious right to her own CT fantasies just seems to me to be more of the usual twoofer methods - hitching their waggons to a more mainstream movement, in hopes of making it look like they have more influence than they actually do, just like with the anti-war movement.

[arthwollipot]

Antidisilluminatiarianism?

[Horatius]

Antidisilluminatiarianism?



Or something even less comprehensible!

[Tiktaalik]

Antidisilluminatiarianism?

Wow. I came up with exactly that same word as I was reading through this thread & was going to post it until I saw you did.

We must be experiencing unconscious mind control from some hidden super-ruling force...

[boloboffin]

I'd been meaning to post this over here, Brainster. Thanks.

It's quite the wackiest thing I've read in a long while. Maybe it was Diane's misguided way of trying to build common cause, but it sure felt like scolding all us mean old atheists for being so concerned about 9/11 CT and not being concerned at all about the CT that makes us the bad guy. Holy Prince Ludwig, Batman!

[AZCat]

I'd been meaning to post this over here, Brainster. Thanks.

It's quite the wackiest thing I've read in a long while. Maybe it was Diane's misguided way of trying to build common cause, but it sure felt like scolding all us mean old atheists for being so concerned about 9/11 CT and not being concerned at all about the CT that makes us the bad guy. Holy Prince Ludwig, Batman!

It may be wacky, but at least it's a change from reading yet another thread where petgoat criticizes a report he hasn't read.

[arthwollipot]

Wow. I came up with exactly that same word as I was reading through this thread & was going to post it until I saw you did.

We must be experiencing unconscious mind control from some hidden super-ruling force...There are no coincidences. I'll give you an example. Think of a number.

[Childlike Empress]

Here (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Illuminati_Conspiracy_2.htm) is a very good read on the Bavarian Illuminati. After reading it you might better understand why Diane thinks the JREF should be interested in defending Weishaupt's Illuminati.

The author is writing a book about the topic, which i think could be quite important, because, frankly, nearly everything you find about it in english is utter crap, while the amount of research done by german historians is huge.

Even on this board i've read stuff like "they were like the OTO today", which couldn't be further from the truth.

[8den]

This is just grabbing logic off a dusty Afghanistan street, putting into on a extraordinary rendition flight to Egypt locking it a dark room and letting four guys called Ahmend do creative and interesting things to logic using electricity. The kind of stuff Franklin and Volta didn't think anyone would apply their discover to such vile ends.

This needs a kitty

http://catsnstuff.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/dude-wait-what.jpg

[Childlike Empress]

Don't you know that posting kitty pictures in reply to stuff you don't understand is SO yesterday? The last meme (certified by 4chan) is to DON'T POST AT ALL! PROCEEEEEEED!!!!11!

[Axiom_Blade]

Don't you know that posting kitty pictures in reply to stuff you don't understand is SO yesterday? The last meme (certified by 4chan) is to DON'T POST AT ALL! PROCEEEEEEED!!!!11!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/zelifcam/yes_go_on.jpg

Indeed?

[Childlike Empress]

Yep. Look, your kitty is completely grey. So un-hip!

Ich habe nicht seit heute erst, sondern solange ich lebe, die oberste Gewalt und Religion als wesentliche unabänderliche Bedürfnisse des Menschen betrachtet, und die Gründe dieser meiner Ueberzeugung lege ich der Welt in eben diesen Blättern vor; aber ich habe zu einer Zeit, wo des Spielens und Mißbrauchens in geheimen Gesellschaften kein Ende war, gewollt, daß diese Schwäche des Menschen zu reellern und würdigern Absichten, zum Wohl der Menschen benuzt werde. [...] Ich habe gewollt, daß geistliche und weltliche Macht weniger gemißbraucht, und ihrer erhabenen Bestimmung gemäs zum Glück und Wohl des Menschen, um derentwillen beyde vorhanden sind, benuzt werden; dieß leztere will und wünsche ich noch, und werde nie aufhören, es zu wünschen. – Ich habe gewollt, daß die vernünftigern und bessern Menschen, um sich zu retten, um gegen die Verführungen und das Gelächter der Weltaushalten, und ihrer Ueberzeugung nicht untreu werden zu dürfen, sich zusammenhalten, sich in ihrer Ueberzeugung bestärken, in ihrem Kreise bilden, und dann der Erziehung bemächtigen sollen, um Menschen zu erziehen, welche Religion und Gewalt weniger mißbrauchen.

[Pardalis]

Are we supposed to read German?

[Childlike Empress]

You are supposed to get the last meme, if you want to be hip. That is, if you don't understand a post, DON'T REPLY TO IT. Cool, isn't it? Pardalis needs another hobby now.

[Pardalis]

I don't want to be hip, and I don't understand German.

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

So what's your beef? We don't talk enough about your imaginary friends?

[stilicho]

Here (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Illuminati_Conspiracy_2.htm) is a very good read on the Bavarian Illuminati. After reading it you might better understand why Diane thinks the JREF should be interested in defending Weishaupt's Illuminati.

That's an awesome site, CE. All it's missing is the FEMA detention camps. As a bonus, you get to hear about Nesta Webster.

[Childlike Empress]

So what's your beef? We don't talk enough about your imaginary friends?


Stop using pluralis majestatis, proles.

@stilicho: I've never come across a bunch of people who are so desperate to put labels on everything they witness. Sometimes you have to deal with sources to debunk claims.

now poor Pardalis will report me again, oh dear. Good night.

[stilicho]

Stop using pluralis majestatis, proles.

@stilicho: I've never come across a bunch of people who are so desperate to put labels on everything they witness. Sometimes you have to deal with sources to debunk claims.

now poor Pardalis will report me again, oh dear. Good night.

I tried that once with SwingDangler and the results weren't so good. He claimed that Nesta Webster's Secret Societies was one of the most important books in understanding 9/11. So I read it. I asked him what parts about the Templars escaping and showing up at Bannockburn, Aleister Crowley, and the Theosophy Society that he had any other information on. And whether the Templars were behind 9/11.

Apparently he hadn't read the book that he told us all to read.

[Pardalis]

What is it with these Germans?

[Childlike Empress]

And? I'm not SwingDangler. And you obviously didn't understand the article.

[stilicho]

And? I'm not SwingDangler. And you obviously didn't understand the article.
Why don't you provide a summary (in English)? When you post a link, it's usually a decent idea to explain why you think it's relevant. That site is a rambling concatenation of Templars, Jesuits, Illuminati, and sly innuendo. What do you make of it?

[stilicho]

Just to get you started, can you explain the significance of this quote?

"Hence the basic dialectic of the Enlightenment was this: Philosophes + Freemasonry + Illuminati (opposing) Jesuits + the Church + Rosicrucians. Anything challenging this basic analysis - easily apprehended even to a newbie of 18th century European history - and you'd better come armed with incredibly persuasive evidence."

[Pardalis]

Funny that the people claiming to possess special knowledge about things that alledgedly affects all of us, and has done so for the last centuries and will do so for generations to come are the ones speaking in riddles, and quoting things in foreign languages for everyone to not understand.

Why not give it to us straight? The fact that you're so secretive and even patronizing makes me think you're not really serious about this. If all these things were true, you would do a better job at communicating your knowledge.

It's like you're going out of your way to be obscure.

[stilicho]

Oh, look further! The Rothschilds and the Holy Grail are on that site too:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Rothschild_Grail.htm

What do you make of all this, CE? Are my neighbours to the south still enslaved to the British Royal Family? Was the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution a trick by the Rothschilds? Was the formation of the NAACP a Jewish plot?

[Childlike Empress]

Just to get you started, can you explain the significance of this quote?

"Hence the basic dialectic of the Enlightenment was this: Philosophes + Freemasonry + Illuminati (opposing) Jesuits + the Church + Rosicrucians. Anything challenging this basic analysis - easily apprehended even to a newbie of 18th century European history - and you'd better come armed with incredibly persuasive evidence."


The article i've promoted (i didn't promote the site it's on, which is an archive of articles related to conspiracy, as it's URL says), deals with the relationship of the Bavarian Illuminati and the Jesuits. As you may know, or not, a recent more or less prominent CT deals with the idea that the Jesuits ie the roman catholic church are behind every evil in the world.

Now, while most people here including me write this off as BS, the article presents some facts about Weishaupts Gang that aren't usually mentioned. The Bavarian Illuminati were an Educational Foundation in the spirit of Enlightenment, just like the JREF, but they used the instruments of other secret societies of that time - like the JREF might be forced to use after Palin gets President (;)). They copied the organisational structure of the jesuits to achieve completely oppposite goals, like education of the masses, rational thought over superstition and so on. Nothing to do with "the occult" yadda yadda. Got it?

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, look further! The Rothschilds and the Holy Grail are on that site too:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Rothschild_Grail.htm

What do you make of all this, CE? Are my neighbours to the south still enslaved to the British Royal Family? Was the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution a trick by the Rothschilds? Was the formation of the NAACP a Jewish plot?


Conspiracy Archive. Do i have to agree with everything on that site to post an article i agree with and find interesting for this topic? Get real.

[defaultdotxbe]

And? I'm not SwingDangler. And you obviously didn't understand the article.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

[Childlike Empress]

Soll das witzig sein? Ich verstehe kein Wort.

Translation: Don't spam.

[stilicho]

The article i've promoted (i didn't promote the site it's on, which is an archive of articles related to conspiracy, as it's URL says), deals with the relationship of the Bavarian Illuminati and the Jesuits. As you may know, or not, a recent more or less prominent CT deals with the idea that the Jesuits ie the roman catholic church are behind every evil in the world.

Now, while most people here including me write this off as BS, the article presents some facts about Weishaupts Gang that aren't usually mentioned. The Bavarian Illuminati were an Educational Foundation in the spirit of Enlightenment, just like the JREF, but they used the instruments of other secret societies of that time - like the JREF might be forced to use after Palin gets President (;)). They copied the organisational structure of the jesuits to achieve completely oppposite goals, like education of the masses, rational thought over superstition and so on. Nothing to do with "the occult" yadda yadda. Got it?

OK, gotcha.

You think that Sarah Palin might introduce draconian, unconstitutional, and anti-JREF legislation if she became POTUS. Now, excuse me, but even if that happened, how would that affect JREF? I am not American and you aren't either. Neither is gumboot. Are you suggesting they might be after RandFan and WildCat?

Maybe we could invite them to move to Canada. There's not much chance that the evil schemes of President Palin would reach this far.

I could also offer that Sarah Palin isn't even Catholic. She's a Protestant although I am not sure of which denomination. Of course you could cite Pope Benedict XVI as here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8t86d280&show_article=1. Mind you, the current Pope is critical of an awful lot of things and still his authority is very limited.

I hope this clears up your fears, CE.

[stilicho]

My German is limited to the following:

1] Ich spreche nicht Franzosiche.
2] Ihre Kopf ist in flammen.
3] Diese weg sur Gaskammer.

[Childlike Empress]

I have no time for your games, stilicho. Why don't you just say "i now understood that you have nothing in common with people who promote Nesta Webster as the real thing and while i'm not sure what you're talking about, i'll look into it, or not. Sorry for treading you like a wacko." and move along?

Why has it always to be winning or losing on this board? Why is nobody interested in the truth™?

[stilicho]

I have no time for your games, stilicho. Why don't you just say "i now understood that you have nothing in common with people who promote Nesta Webster as the real thing and while i'm not sure what you're talking about, i'll look into it, or not. Sorry for treading you like a wacko." and move along?

Why has it always to be winning or losing on this board? Why is nobody interested in the truth™?
So it wasn't about Sarah Palin? Or some kind of threat to constitutional freedoms of expression, speech, and religion, in the USA? I could have sworn that's how you explained it.

OK: What DID you mean?

[Pardalis]

Why is nobody interested in the truth™?

The Illuminati is a dead end, do you at least agree with that?

[Childlike Empress]

So it wasn't about Sarah Palin? Or some kind of threat to constitutional freedoms of expression, speech, and religion, in the USA? I could have sworn that's how you explained it.

OK: What DID you mean?


Did you notice the emoticon, genius? It was about the Bavarian Illuminati. You are off-topic and acting extremely silly, pal.

@Pardalis: Absolutely not. It is a topic historians in the english speaking world should adress as fast and deep as possible, to counter reactionary propaganda. Agree?

[Pardalis]

@Pardalis: Absolutely not. It is a topic historians in the english speaking world should adress as fast and deep as possible, to counter reactionary propaganda. Agree?

Do you seriously believe this small group of people survived for hundreds of years, kept their ideology and goals intact through generations, kept unnoticed and yet remained extremely influential?

How can an organization be that secretive and powerful at the same time?

[stilicho]

Did you notice the emoticon, genius? It was about the Bavarian Illuminati. You are off-topic and acting extremely silly, pal.

@Pardalis: Absolutely not. It is a topic historians in the english speaking world should adress as fast and deep as possible, to counter reactionary propaganda. Agree?
I understand that but when I ask you to explain yourself you start mentioning Sarah Palin. Emoticon or not, I don't get the connection.

As for your assertions about the "Illuminati" being responsible for concepts such as the education of the masses, you couldn't be more mistaken. None of Locke, Bayle, Rousseau, Spinoza or Fichte were members of the "Illuminati" and it was they who helped produce the concept of general education. Add to that the revolutionary "Sunday schools" introduced in Britain by the Methodists--of all people.

Whoever Adam Weishaupt was, or whatever he and his pals envisioned, it was not even close to being influential on any level whatsoever. Your clue ought to be the fact that the only time the "Illuminati" is even mentioned on the internet or in books is in conspiracy literature. I have yet to see Fichte mentioned in any regard on a conspiracy site but you, as a German, ought to acknowledge properly that he had a greater influence on public education in your own country than any "secret society" ever did.

[Childlike Empress]

@Pardalis: How dense are you? NO I DONT BELIEVE THAT "THE ILLUMINATI" EXIST TODAY AND RULE THE WORLD!!! How can you read my posts on this thread and communicate with me and still insinuate that this is my believe? You are an airhead, comrade.

[Pardalis]

Also, it seems to me they've been at it for so long, they've screwed around with historical events, manipulated governments for centuries and yet they've never achieved they true goal: world domination. They never quite got there, which kind of reassures me that they probably never will, that they really are incompetent at what they are doing, well, except of making themselves invisible of course, who wouldn't after all this failure?

[Pardalis]

@Pardalis: How dense are you? NO I DONT BELIEVE THAT "THE ILLUMINATI" EXIST TODAY AND RULE THE WORLD!!! How can you read my posts on this thread and communicate with me and still insinuate that this is my believe? You are an airhead, comrade.

Then why did you say this:

@Pardalis: Absolutely not. It is a topic historians in the english speaking world should adress as fast and deep as possible, to counter reactionary propaganda. Agree?

Why should historians give a damn? Why are the Illuminati that important to you, if they're only a short lived historical curiosity?

ETA: added the bolding

[Childlike Empress]

I understand that but when I ask you to explain yourself you start mentioning Sarah Palin. Emoticon or not, I don't get the connection.

As for your assertions about the "Illuminati" being responsible for concepts such as the education of the masses, you couldn't be more mistaken. None of Locke, Bayle, Rousseau, Spinoza or Fichte were members of the "Illuminati" and it was they who helped produce the concept of general education. Add to that the revolutionary "Sunday schools" introduced in Britain by the Methodists--of all people.

Whoever Adam Weishaupt was, or whatever he and his pals envisioned, it was not even close to being influential on any level whatsoever. Your clue ought to be the fact that the only time the "Illuminati" is even mentioned on the internet or in books is in conspiracy literature. I have yet to see Fichte mentioned in any regard on a conspiracy site but you, as a German, ought to acknowledge properly that he had a greater influence on public education in your own country than any "secret society" ever did.


They were busted after a few years, remember? They had members like Knigge and Goethe and they were very influential because many of them were authors, journalists, poets, philosophers. You are making my point by the way. The JREF should or could be concerned about the slander of these people. They were neither crypto-(jews, jesuits, what the CT says) nor pagans, occultists, but radical rationalists fighting against an overwhelming zeitgeist of woo.

[Childlike Empress]

Why should historians give a damn? Why are the Illuminati that important to you, if they're only a short lived historical curiosity?


To me they are fascinating for several reasons and in spirit of the topic of this thread, it is very easy to debunk the claims made about them by CTs.

[Pardalis]

To me they are fascinating for several reasons and in spirit of the topic of this thread, it is very easy to debunk the claims made about them by CTs.

Why did you say "as fast and deep as possible"? You've established that you don't believe in the Illuminati woo, that's cool btw, but why the urgency then?

[stilicho]

They were busted after a few years, remember? They had members like Knigge and Goethe and they were very influential because many of them were authors, journalists, poets, philosophers. You are making my point by the way. The JREF should or could be concerned about the slander of these people. They were neither crypto-(jews, jesuits, what the CT says) nor pagans, occultists, but radical rationalists fighting against an overwhelming zeitgeist of woo.

So what you are saying is that "they" (possibly Sarah Palin) might equate JREF with the "Illuminati" and convince law enforcement people in the USA that American JREF-ers should be eliminated.

If that's what you're suggesting, it is all the things I said (draconian, unconstitutional, impossible), and wouldn't seriously impact the influence of "scepticism". It would probably reinforce "scepticism". Not to mention the Supreme Court would overrule "President Palin" immediately.

I know it's anecdotal, but I have personally never experienced any hostility at all (excepting from skeptigirl on this forum) for expressing my agnosticism. Is this about to change? If so, how?

[Childlike Empress]

Why did you say "as fast and deep as possible"? You've established that you don't believe in the Illuminati woo, that's cool btw, but why the urgency then?


Why the urgency? Because the illuminati are at the center of nearly every unified conspiracy theory promoted today and that cornerstone can be easily kicked. Isn't that what the whole debunking business is about? I'm very interested in seperating the wheat from the chaff, because, as you know, i believe in one or another conspiracy that i think should be dealt with, and for that we need people unaffected by idiotic reactionary stuff that muddies the water.

[Pardalis]

Why the urgency? Because the illuminati are at the center of nearly every unified conspiracy theory promoted today and that cornerstone can be easily kicked. Isn't that what the whole debunking business is about? I'm very interested in seperating the wheat from the chaff, because, as you know, i believe in one or another conspiracy that i think should be dealt with, and for that we need people unafflicted by idiotic reactionary stuff that muddies the water.

Now that's an answer, thanks, if only you had said that from the beginning. Fine, I can go with that. :)

See, when you don't say what you mean and are being antagonistic, then we can only assume what you mean, and get the wrong idea.

[Childlike Empress]

So what you are saying is that "they" (possibly Sarah Palin) might equate JREF with the "Illuminati" and convince law enforcement people in the USA that American JREF-ers should be eliminated.

If that's what you're suggesting, it is all the things I said (draconian, unconstitutional, impossible), and wouldn't seriously impact the influence of "scepticism". It would probably reinforce "scepticism". Not to mention the Supreme Court would overrule "President Palin" immediately.

I know it's anecdotal, but I have personally never experienced any hostility at all (excepting from skeptigirl on this forum) for expressing my agnosticism. Is this about to change? If so, how?


I said no such thing ... but here's a song for the night ... in fact it's already day here .. cu

RGqA1lNXYhg

[Pardalis]

Now as far as the point you are making in this thread, which I understand now, is that of course the kook are weary of rationalists, because since the kooks are by nature paranoid, they will automatically lash on to the one's who are on to them, the skeptics, and accuse them of being either "in on it", like the Alex Jones-type truthers do, or flat out invent an entire Grand Conspiracy about them, like the Illuminati CTers.

Opposition is to them proof of a conspiracy, and the more we oppose them or try to debunk them, the more they will believe we are the ones who are actually behind everything. Which makes me think sometimes that we really should ignore them, this way we won't reinforce their beliefs.

[stilicho]

...we need people unaffected by idiotic reactionary stuff that muddies the water.

...I said no such thing ... but here's a song for the night ... in fact it's already day here .. cu

I guess I am more easily confused than Pardalis is.

Didn't you just explain to Pardalis on the previous page about the imprecision of using "we" to describe our personal opinions?

Who, exactly, is the arbiter of "idiotic reactionary stuff"? And doesn't linking to conspiracy sites to make a point often muddy the waters?

If the fates of Knigge and Goethe are not about to be repeated ("I said no such thing") then isn't your entire addition to the thread just a little futile?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

...[snip]...Do the religious right not conflate atheists with Satanists sometimes? I sort of had the impression that some of them think that atheists don't really exist, and therefore must be lying about their stated position. This seems to be predicated on the idea that a "religous urge" is built in, presumably by their god

You would be correct Fiona.

Example 1 (http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheists-are-satanists.html): This blog claims that Satanists are atheists therefore atheists are Satanists. An individual in the comments section claims there is no distinction between atheism, Satanism, and secular humanism.

Example 2 (http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml): Rather lengthy thing that I don't expect anyone to completely read. The jist of it is that atheists are liars and heathens who know God really exists but because they are Satanists will never admit; which is contradicted several times in the article when he attempts to make a logical argument that atheists deny the existence of God. He also calls the dictionary definition (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+atheist&aq=f&oq=) of atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_(band)) deceptive.

Example 3 (http://thegreypoint.blogspot.com/2005/04/atheism-satanism-humanism.html): Classic paranoia plus strawman arguments. This link makes the claim that atheism is little more than Satanism plus humanism and that the two are morally linked.

Of course if any of these individuals did an ounce of research they'd probably find that secular humanist atheists are in as much conflict (http://blackwood666.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/atheism-and-satanism/) with LaVeyan and Theistic Satanists as anyone else. About a month or two in my blog I criticized the Theistic Satanic group "Cathedral of the Black Goat" for misrepresenting natural selection to mean something along the lines of a Satanic call for anti-Christian violence. Numerous other atheists have attempted to discredit (http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/05/26/blogsnark-atheism-satanism-humanism.htm), rather well I might add, the notion that atheism and Satanism (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080814140545AApcIAT) (See comment by Geezah) are inexplicably linked (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_Satanists_call_themselves_that_if_they_don' t_worship_Satan_Surely_they_should_be_called_somet hing_else).

So yes Fiona. It’s a sad but true fact that Christian fundamentalists accuse atheists of being Satanists. I think the worst of it comes from the groups who are fringe even by the standards of the larger groups who argue that there is some sort of nefarious atheist conspiracy going on. Usually this involves science, evolution, and accusations that atheists are secretly controlled by a Satanic cabal who is spreading their master’s work of fooling atheists into believing God doesn’t exist. Similar to one of the claims in the Elder Scrolls of Zion about Jews using Communism to spread atheism before reclaiming the world under a Jewish order…but not quite so anti-Semitic. Christian fundamentalists need Jews in Israel and constantly fighting to fulfill their prophecies that would otherwise be left unfulfilled and foil the carefully laid plans of the creator of the entire cosmos.

Of course there are alot of groups who claim that atheists are apart of the Illuminati. Others claim that they're merely pawns in the whole thing as evidenced by some claims in this website (http://www.fdrs.org/the_illuminati_plan.html). And video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT51RcGjhro&feature=related). So according to this argument atheists, nihilists, liberals, communists, etc. etc. are all just pawns of a mass banker conspiracy who has sold their souls to the devil and assassinated Lincoln. Too bad with all of their infinite power and influence they weren't able to keep themselves from being essentially purchased by the American government as a result of a disastrous sub prime mortgage fiasco, am I right? There’s no need to debunk these claims as they conspirators present no evidence. Listen to the video, listen to the entire series. An enormous amount of claims are made but during this time no evidence is presented. In fact; no one ever presents evidence. Why don’t I debunk the claims that it was Bush behind 9/11? Because no one ever presents evidence that’s why I, nor any other rational individual I know, bother to debunk those claims. At best what conspiracy theorists do is present hypothetical scenarios using minor factual anomalies and what if scenarios and tout them as being the only possible explanation for x event(s). At worst they attempt to aggregate irrelevant data until they get a conclusion they like.

ETA: Sorry I had to break up the tiff Childlike Empress, stilicho, and Pardalis were having. ;)

[stilicho]

ETA: Sorry I had to break up the tiff Childlike Empress, stilicho, and Pardalis were having. ;)

Eesh, yeah, sorry about the punctuation in there.

I know it's anecdotal but I know some fundamentalists of the hand-waving variety. They know of my lack of "faith". Not one of them has ever suggested I was a "Satanist". I even wear dark colours rather frequently and still nothing.

Do I just know the wrong type of fundamentalists?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Eesh, yeah, sorry about the punctuation in there.

I know it's anecdotal but I know some fundamentalists of the hand-waving variety. They know of my lack of "faith". Not one of them has ever suggested I was a "Satanist". I even wear dark colours rather frequently and still nothing.

Do I just know the wrong type of fundamentalists?

Well I've met a few from my church who didn't suggest that I'm a Satanist but believe Satan has deluded me; which is roughly the same thing in their minds. The only one's I've ever actually heard ouright claiming all atheists were Satanists were the nut-jobs on the internets. Regardless; mainstream America doesn't have a particularly enlightened view of atheists which tends to breed these CTs. Then again I've only ever met three 9/11 deniers as well. One was a fellow student through-out high school. Another was the dumbest freshman I've ever met in my life. And the third was a teacher's assistant who called me a sheep when I corrected her about a point she attempted to make regarding the pieces of United 93 found near Indian Lake (I pointed out that debris typically doesn't travel by road).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Adam Weishaupt? Nesta Webster? Sheesh, all I'll need to see mentioned is Albert Pike and this thread will be a "Pastor David J. Smith" trifecta for me.

[Fiona]

I And doesn't linking to conspiracy sites to make a point often muddy the waters?



Well, no, I don't think it does if the question is what do conspiracists believe and what, if anything, should be done about it.

I really cannot see how you and paradalis could have read Childlike Empress' contributions as you did.

[Pardalis]

Well, no, I don't think it does if the question is what do conspiracists believe and what, if anything, should be done about it.

I really cannot see how you and paradalis could have read Childlike Empress' contributions as you did.

There's a whole history of CE posting conspiracy material she believes in.

[Fiona]

I did see that CE said there are some she believes in earlier in the thread, but I was only judging by this thread, since I do not usually go to the CT stuff and do not know the personalities.

[8den]

CE Don't mix up confusion with incomprehension. It's not that I don't understand this woman's point, it's just too bizarre an argument to bother with.

Oh Childlike far be it from me to take my cue's as to what's cool from a german guy who calls himself "empress".

[Elizabeth I]

Why the urgency? Because the illuminati are at the center of nearly every unified conspiracy theory promoted today and that cornerstone can be easily kicked.

How can something "at the center" be a "cornerstone"? Don't those two concepts contradict each other?

[Lonewulf]

My German is limited to the following:

1] Ich spreche nicht Franzosiche.
2] Ihre Kopf ist in flammen.
3] Diese weg sur Gaskammer.

1) "I speak no Frensh"... es ist besser, wenn man "Ich spreche kein Franzosisch" spricht. Oder "Ich kann kein Franzosisch".

2) "Youer (plural, informal) heads are on Fire". Man soll "Ihr Köpfe sind in Flammen" oder "Dein Kopf ist in Flammen" sagen.

3) "This way sur (?) gas chamber". -- "Dieser Weg zur Gaskammer" ist vielleicht besser.

Aber ich bin nur Anfänger des Deutsch. ;)

Es tut mir leid, dass ich so spät bin.

[Axiom_Blade]

*Cough* Cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll) *Cough*

[stilicho]

Well I've met a few from my church who didn't suggest that I'm a Satanist but believe Satan has deluded me; which is roughly the same thing in their minds. The only one's I've ever actually heard ouright claiming all atheists were Satanists were the nut-jobs on the internets. Regardless; mainstream America doesn't have a particularly enlightened view of atheists which tends to breed these CTs. Then again I've only ever met three 9/11 deniers as well. One was a fellow student through-out high school. Another was the dumbest freshman I've ever met in my life. And the third was a teacher's assistant who called me a sheep when I corrected her about a point she attempted to make regarding the pieces of United 93 found near Indian Lake (I pointed out that debris typically doesn't travel by road).

Being prone to delusion is almost a natural human trait. I know what you are saying about people attributing that delusion (or even a contrary perspective) to some mysterious agent.

I would like to see a baseball or football game played in its entirety some day in which none of the players display religious symbols or gestures. I really don't think Jesus is going to help anyone hit Francisco Rodriguez' slider.

[dudalb]

The Illuminati is a dead end, do you at least agree with that?

No way I agree with that.
The Illuminati Card Game is an absolute blast!

[dudalb]

I did see that CE said there are some she believes in earlier in the thread, but I was only judging by this thread, since I do not usually go to the CT stuff and do not know the personalities.

CE is a hard core 9/11 Truther. She has a certain reputation here.

[Childlike Empress]

CE is a hard core 9/11 Truther. She has a certain reputation here.


Thank you Fiona. As you know, a lot of people on this board think that someone who challenges the orthodoxy on one topic is fair game for ridicule and not to be taken serious on any topic. My view as a 911 skeptic is only in so far hardcore that i'm a member here for over two years and still not convinced that there is nothing to see beyond the official story. I reject a lot of theories put forward by the "truth movement".

But what to expect from a person like dudalb who does nothing but going around and slandering people? A few days ago he called me a terrorist wannabe. Thankfully the mods try to be fair and at least modboxed his disgusting post after i've reported it.

Pardalis, who manages to misunderstand me since we first communicated, and others at least not sink to lows like that, so sometimes i enjoy playing with them.

The 911 CT subforum, however, has gone from bad to worse and i prefere letting them rot in their own stink.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Being prone to delusion is almost a natural human trait. I know what you are saying about people attributing that delusion (or even a contrary perspective) to some mysterious agent.

Right; that's what I was taught all throughout Sunday school as a young Christian. My church was one of the really hardcore anti-evolution anti-atheist chuchs that you sometimes hear about on websites like these. Our Pastor fully admitted that atheists are smarter than him only that it didn't matter because they were wise in human knowledge and humans are incapable of knowledge that doesn't come from God. Very anti-intellectual, very racist, very homophobic, very xenphobic, very KJV-only. We were basically taught that all knowledge that humans could attain was false, a delusion created by Satan, and that the bible was the only source of true objective knowledge. Ironic that they also taught God wants us to excel at school. This seemed contradictory to me so I asked the Pastor and he said to excel but never believe any of it.

I would like to see a baseball or football game played in its entirety some day in which none of the players display religious symbols or gestures. I really don't think Jesus is going to help anyone hit Francisco Rodriguez' slider.

That'd be something but I guess the both of us will just have to keep dreaming; the only contemporary athlete I know of who is an admitted atheist is Lance Armstrong.

[stilicho]

Right; that's what I was taught all throughout Sunday school as a young Christian. My church was one of the really hardcore anti-evolution anti-atheist chuchs that you sometimes hear about on websites like these. Our Pastor fully admitted that atheists are smarter than him only that it didn't matter because they were wise in human knowledge and humans are incapable of knowledge that doesn't come from God. Very anti-intellectual, very racist, very homophobic, very xenphobic, very KJV-only. We were basically taught that all knowledge that humans could attain was false, a delusion created by Satan, and that the bible was the only source of true objective knowledge. Ironic that they also taught God wants us to excel at school. This seemed contradictory to me so I asked the Pastor and he said to excel but never believe any of it.

My experiences with Christianity were rather different in spite of being a preacher's kid. I remember many of the things my dad used to tell me, including "don't believe everything you read". I asked him once if every law in Leviticus was true and he said, if it was, nobody would have been left alive to write the damned thing.

My dad's side of the family had regular reunions until a few years ago and everyone would bow their heads in prayer for grace at the barbecue and then an unending stream of beer and friendly verbal jousting: 'Oh yeah? Well you're full of ******!' 'Really? No way--you're full of ******!' I still recall helping carry my grandpa to a taxi. There were never any fisticuffs and the feelings of love were palpable and decidedly irreligious.

Atheism or agnosticism in our generation (assuming you're roughly the same age as me) comes from disparate influences. It comes from tolerance as well as reaction. The thing is, there is no "Society of Atheism" because, like religion and Heinz sauces, it has so many varieties. The age of reason, the reaction against the Enlightenment, idealism, romanticism, nationalism, agonisticism, and atheism, are very young in their development in popular culture. Their influence might be temporary but successive generations appear to develop an immunity to religion.

At least in North America.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Just a quick response on the age thing but I'll have been twenty for two months come October 2nd.