Are Illuminati Bad?

I agree with Rant's post here.


What the NWO theories are going to do is lead us to a war between fundamentalist religious countries.

Ultra-Fundamentalist Islamic rule (State governed by religious rules) = Ultra-Fundamentalist Christian Rule (State governed by religious rules)
Islamic Terrorists (al quida sp?)= The ultra right wing Militia Movement (McVey etc..)
Beware of the great Satan (USA) = Beware of Satan (NWO/Illuminati/Satanists)

Not a whole lot of difference IMHO.


I have nothing to offer as proof but it rings of truth to me.



[edit on 16-4-2005 by Cug]

Fundamentalist wars between countries?

I think this is exactly what knowledge of the Illuminati is supposed to prevent, Orchestrated War! How can we not see their aim for what it is?

How many people realize the size of China's army and nuclear arsenal, and that their weapons ban has been lifted?

How many realize that China wishes to use its army for more than defence, much like the United States?

Again, I offer you evidence from World War II, as to manipulated warfare:
D-Day, June 6, 1944.
Lets call 44 4+4=8

So we have 6/6 and 8. Well, 8 is actually symbolic of a 3 mirrored across itself, oh its true. So 8 is 33 (if one was backwards). 3+3=6

So we have D-Day, 6/6/6

And there are 110 000 graves from the event, believe it or not. They love their numbers (the amount of graves and the date are hardly accidents for the kind that spend months planning), and they like mass death. Is that bad?

(Incidentally, this was posted at 11:11 ET...)

[edit on 16-4-2005 by akilles]

I still can't get over this idea that "The Illuminati" are scientists, they clearly aren't if they have any relation to Adam Wieshaupts group.

They take the opposite direction to scientific experiment in that they do not question or attempt to disprove their own theories, they just persist with "the great experiment" regardless of what is visibly happening in front of their very eyes believing that it will all come good in the end and that any means justifies the ends.

A lot like what is going on in the current war against terror with the USA punching itself into a financial, political and militay corner by expending massive amounts of effort against phantom enemies that pose no real threat.

I feel like a broken down record the amount of times I post this link but no one else seems to have bothered to read the book:
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism by Barruel

Originally posted by MrNECROS
I still can't get over this idea that "The Illuminati" are scientists, they clearly aren't if they have any relation to Adam Wieshaupts group.

They take the opposite direction to scientific experiment in that they do not question or attempt to disprove their own theories, they just persist with "the great experiment" regardless of what is visibly happening in front of their very eyes believing that it will all come good in the end and that any means justifies the ends.

A lot like what is going on in the current war against terror with the USA punching itself into a financial, political and militay corner by expending massive amounts of effort against phantom enemies that pose no real threat.

I feel like a broken down record the amount of times I post this link but no one else seems to have bothered to read the book:
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism by Barruel

Well, I'm not going to spend $58 to read what I already know or any number of websites document for free. Of course the French Revolution (just as the American revolution) was Illuminati inspired.

I'm actually a huge fan of the Committee on Public Safety and much maligned Maximilien Robespierre. America could stand dusting off the guillotine once a generation in my mind if for nothing else than to shake up the pyramid.

No, it's not a "scientific" approach, but that doesn't exclude scientists from being revolutionaries as I think the best ones all were to some extent. By definition then, the "illuminati" are indeed treasonous. Good for us. I mean them. In my thinking, there were "illuminati" long before Weishaupt. All reformers the span of human history were "illuminati" with many being persecuted for their reforms. Jesus, Buddha, Galileo, Luther, Calvin, even completley fictional characters like Socrates.

It's the oldest story in the world. Reformers that are persecuted for their beliefs at the hands of unjust authority are "illuminati."

Who else would dress up like Indians and dump tea into a harbor screaming "No taxation without representation" but illuminati? Classic.

Except when they "win" or start movements or form groups (like the Committee on Public Saftey), the cycle just continues with the revolters becoming the bad guys they once championed against. The Committee on Public Safety becomes the bad guy. America becomes the bad guy. The Roman Catholic Church becomes the bad guy. The "Illuminati" (proper) always becomes the bad guy once they come to power, and a new "illuminati" is formed in opposition.

It's a cycle. Obviously I'm predominantly talking about the philosophy of illumination (almost as a virus) more than any organized movements or groups, for once they organize (and you know their name)... they aren't the illuminati anymore in my mind.

You're only "illuminati" as long as you toil in obscurity. George Soros, perhaps one of the most powerful "illuminati" agents on the planet, stopped being so the minute the world knew of his existence.

It's almost a Schrodinger's cat conundrum. And why I think anonymous Internet bloggers and mysterious websites (like this) are the new coffee houses and meeting places of the world's next generation of illuminati.

RANT, I think you are purposefully ignoring attempts by the Illuminati to control both sides.

You make it sound like the cycle is OH SO NATURAL, that the first modern Intelligence Agency (the Jesuits) just came out of nowhere, when the *Evil* Illuminati Protestant Church was formed.

Yet this is a perfect example. Everyone in the known world was already Catholic by default, but not BY FORCE. So the opponent to Catholicism was set up, because many had already turned away from the Illuminati RC Church, and of course, they knew they could not risk people coming up with their own alternatives.

Now that there was an opponent, there was an excuse for Jesuit 'missionaries' again, because there were 'unconverted' sinners again, and God's 'bidding' to be done in the New World.

So just as they had set up both sides of the religious conflict, they proceeded to take up both sides of the science vs religion conflict, and then finally, advanced to taking over both sides of The People vs The Crown, giving us 'our' idea of Democracy.

Thats just the way it goes.

Read Rite of the Revolution. Tells how America was shaped by the Illuminati.

Illuminati members are dualistic. What that means is that they live their lives doing good deeds as well as bad. The good deeds are usually done to benefit themselves or their family (bloodline), and the bad deeds are indeed horrific, but they feel that they are necessary in the continued implementation of their lifelong goal to achieve a new world order.

So if you want to think about it in terms of them vs. us, then yes they are bad. But if you think about it in terms of them trying to achieve goals that they feel are necessary, then I'm sure they wouldn't consider themselves to be bad at all.

If anything, I think they would consider themselves burdened. Burdened to create a better existence for us all (in thieir minds) all while keeping us out of the loop (which is becoming much harder to do).

It is very obvious that this question is very important. To understand modern Illuminism, you have to go no further than the Theosophical Society. From what I have read in the French Revolution documents, Illuminism is very anti-christian and will kill all who apposes it. Very good question though.

I will try to write an article about this asap.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Read Rite of the Revolution. Tells how America was shaped by the Illuminati.

This is a historical fiction book. I could recommend "In the name of Solome" by Julia Alvarez and it would weigh as much for evidence. You have to look at articles, see names mentioned, and look for primary sources.