How does one join the Illuminati

Originally posted by Paranoid Pain
BTW is the illuminati sign that one where you put out your hand and stick out your index and little fingers?

LOOOL, my friend, that is the rock and roll sign, aint it. hold out one hand with your index and little finger sticking out, its the ign of rock, lol, ROCK ON. ya never know, maybe all us rockers are illuminati, hhhmmm, were watching.

BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI
Founded by Hassan i Sabbah, 1090 A.D. (5090 A.L., 4850 A.M.)
Reformed by Adam Weishaupt, 1776 A.D. (5776 A.L., 5536 A.M.)

THE ANCIENT ILLUMINATED SEERS OF BAVARIA

invite YOU to join

The World's Oldest and Most Successful Conspiracy

Have you ever SECRETLY WONDERED WHY The GREAT PYRAMID has FIVE sides (counting the bottom)? IS there an ESOTERIC ALLEGORY concealed in the apparently innocent legend of Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs?
WHAT IS the TRUE secret SINISTER REALITY lying behind the ANCIENT Aztec Legend of QUETZLCOATL? WHY do scholarly anthropologists TURN PALE with terror at the very MENTION of the FORBIDDEN name YOG-SOTHOTH?
WHO IS the MAN in ZURICH that some SWEAR is LEE HARVEY OSWALD? WHAT REALLY DID HAPPEN TO AMBROSE BIERCE?

If your I.Q. is over 150, and you have $3,125.00 (plus handling), you might be eligible for a trial membership in the A.I.S.B. If you think you qualify, put the money in a cigar box and bury it in your backyard. One of our Underground Agents will contact you shortly.

I DARE YOU!

TELL NO ONE! ACCIDENTS HAVE A STRANGE WAY OF HAPPENING TO PEOPLE WHO TALK TOO MUCH ABOUT THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI

May we warn you against imitations! Ours is the original and genuine

"Nothing is true. Everything is Permissible"
- Hassan i Sabbah

NIL
CARBORUNDUM
ILLEGITIMO

Oh man.... how long did it take you to put that together?

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by The_Final
Yea see that is the idea I was trying to get away from sebatwerk Because that my friend cannot not happen. Our country is billions in debt but we can offord to put cell towers on every street corner??? Makes no sense.

That's the beauty of private enterprise. Just because the country is in debt does not mean that companies within it cannot operate their business. I don't understand what this has to do with the conversation?

But the way that it was being refered to was saying that the government did this. Also I was just showing you it...basically nothing to do with our conversation. I dunno I was probably really tired or something

Originally posted by The_Final
But the way that it was being refered to was saying that the government did this. Also I was just showing you it...basically nothing to do with our conversation. I dunno I was probably really tired or something

I doubt the government has anything to do with putting up cell towers. Even if they did, they would contract it out to a private company, like they do everything else.

Anyways, the point is that government, like business (and even like individuals, to an extent) have learned to operate and grow under debt. That's the whole point of credit.

Originally posted by roygin
sebatwerk the lower orders of the maisons do not no of the illuminati's exictice but you seem possible to recruit if you where say near a possition of the high lodge of britain

Can you support this with conclusive evidence, or give us SOME kind of fact to support this claim?

It's easy to just make something up and say it, but it's A LOT more difficult to actually support it with solid evidence. MOST of what people say about the Illuminati had been conjured up in somebody's imagination. For conspiracy theorists, if something is remotely POSSIBLE, then it must be TRUE.

I think you should first learn to spell, then learn about Freemasonry from legitimate sources.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by sebatwerk]

In order for you to get into the illuminati, according to my research, you will need a lot of power. It is not so much blood as power. You see, the illuminati thrive for control. They don't care how they get it, but they want it. They have done a pretty good job so far. In order for their things to be done, they need connections. They have secret representitives in power (IE: Senetors, Cabinet Advisors, Presidents, etc...) to do their bidding. They usualy only give membership to those who can get their work done. They will bribe them or even threaten them if necessary.
I believe blood has a limited factor in it, but it is not the first priority to them. They do take blood into consideration though. I maybe wrong, but I have had research performed on this, I even have a friend who once did have an invitation to join the illuminati. He was given the choice, and he refused. They did not do anything to him. My evidence is pretty much common sense to me. If you were the illuminati, would you offer membership to a bum, or someone in power? Who would you pick first :

A: A person with the "correct bloodline" who has no power
or

B: A person without the "correct bloodline" who has lots of power

Don't get me wrong, I have more evidence than this. I have a few eyewitness accounts, such as my friend, and my research done on the Klu Klux Klan, Cults, and several other secret groups, and they are all the same: They want people who have lots of power to join them. This is my theory. I'm not 100% sure it is true, but I'm convinced it is a possibility.

5aret



[edit on 26-6-2005 by 5aret]

Originally posted by 5aret
Don't get me wrong, I have more evidence than this. I have a few eyewitness accounts, such as my friend, and my research done on the Klu Klux Klan, Cults, and several other secret groups, and they are all the same: They want people who have lots of power to join them. This is my theory. I'm not 100% sure it is true, but I'm convinced it is a possibility.

Wait a second... you state that you have evidence of what you claimed, but then you say you're not 100% sure? EVIDENCE is what PROVES something. Proof is knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. Something tells me that you have no proof whatsoever aside from what a few other conspiracy theorists have told you and from what you have read in books.

Evidence doesn't necessarily prove that something happened, evidence is whats used to distinguish between opposing or competing theories. So we can theorize, say, that the illuminati do this, and have evidence that seems to support it, but then still ultimately reject the theory with other evidence.

Saying one has evidence of something usually does mean that you can sufficiently demonstrate with that evidence that that something is occuring tho.

But disproving a theory for which you have evidence with contrary evidence usually means that the evidence which supported your theory must be disproven of refuted. I mean, you cannot conceivably have evidence which supports a theory, and evidence which refutes it.

Okay, if you believe the illuminati exists, then you have GOT to check this out. You'll laugh...you'll cry...you'll applaude and ask for more!

Or not...

skepdic.com...

I did not want to get into an evidence fight, but, okay.

To clear things up, here is the definition of evidence from dictionary.com:

ev·i·dence
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

Evidence is things Helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement.
Evidence does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of something.
You would need several pieces of evidence to form a hypothesis, which I have. I say this is not 100% because, hey, try to prove bigfoot exists, or not exists. There is evedence on both sides, so it is possible for both sides.
No offence, but this is not a court case and we don't need beyond a reasonable doubt to post our theory. No conspiricy or theory can be proven 100% because there are

1. To many theories to sort through

2. There is evidence on both sides.

3. Lack of evidence of both sides.

Yes, I know there is lack of evidence. Try to do this:

You see a man in a tall tree, dead. He had scuba gear on and many broken bones. This is a dry forest he is in with many forest fires in it. His friends hated him. His friends were lumberjacks. What happened to him?

I would judge that, based on the evidence, that he was ambushed underwater, taken in the back of a car or truck, and thrown up a tree he could not climb down and died there.

But, there is another theory that can be claimed on this, and that one is correct. Try to figure it out. You see, I used the evidence to my judgement, but it was not 100% correct. It is a theory I used from several pieces of evidence. Also, If you have evidence on both sides, that does not mean one is wrong and one is right. (usually the case) It could be a mixture of theorys using all of the evidence. Try to watch CSI or something like that and you will know what I mean. That was just a simple homicide case. If you think that was challenging, try conspirecy theorys.

Bottom line: You can have evidence to support your theory you are not sure that is not 100% accurate. I mean, this is conspiricy theorys we are talking about here, no one has proven 100% of conspiricies like roswell, area 51, etc. but there is evidence. They have just used the evidence to their theory. If I have a theory though, I don't just copy off other researchers work. I study it myself with eyewitness reports, physical evidence, etc. I do like to here other researchers work, though. I agree with them on some matters. Others, I have my own theory on.

I do not want to continue this matter about evidence. Lets get back on the topic, or I'm not going to post in this topic.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
I mean, you cannot conceivably have evidence which supports a theory, and evidence which refutes it.

Oh no, you definitly can. For example, in the question of the evolution of birds, the identity of the digits of the hand is critical. Phylogenetic studies (ie paleontological studies of fossils) clearly show that dinosaurs had their hands reduced to three fingers in a specific order, loosing one digit after another until we get this, digits I II and III

However, bird hands are formed, in their ontogeny (the development of the individual in the egg) form digits II, III, and IV. That can be thought of as evidence that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. But, most other evidence supports their evolution from dinosaurs. So scientists have to examine all the evidence together and see which theories are better supported.
Or in a similar vein, the existence of lemurs in india and madagascar for example, can be cited as evidence for the existence of lemuria (indeed, thats where the idea of the island of lemuria came from, the theosophists adopted it and made it their own). On the other hand, that same evidence is evidence for continental drift, when taken in the context of all the evidence.

So in many cases its like those old multiple choice tests. You have to pick the best answer, often all the answers are essentially correct, but you have to pick the best one. Here, you can infact have evidence that supports contradictory theories, and you have to use a rational methodology to distinguish between them.

So, for example, a conspiracist can say 'looking at the inter-relationships of the various corporations and powerful families, we can conlcude that there is coordination between them and that somthing like the illuminati exists", and, indeed, you can find evidence that in general can be said to support this theory (supposedly anyways). However, when all the evidence is taken together and considered logically, you end up rejecting the conspiracy theory in favour of the non-conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by 9890
So I hear all about the Illuminati who secretly control the government and all that but how does someone join that soceity? Do they have to be part of the 13 bloodline thing or are they invited? What is involved when you join?

step 1) don't post your interest on the internet
step 2) come up with a billion or so
step 3) join S&B, bilderburg, buy a few dozen banks
step 4) they will find you

[edit on 27-6-2005 by syrinx high priest]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by sebatwerk
I mean, you cannot conceivably have evidence which supports a theory, and evidence which refutes it.

Oh no, you definitly can.

If theorists come to a situation where there is evidence to support and refute a theory, then the logical conclusion is that one piece of evidence is wrong, and the theorists just don't know this. While it may SEEM like there's evidence to support both conclusions, only one piece of evidence is truly correct, and can be either supported or refuted by further evidence which may not have yet been provided.

Well, part of the problem is getting at 'the truth'. In some things, we can say that there is a 'truth' out there, like in history we can say its true that the americans fought a war against the british and gained independance from that, and the evidence that supports this is the newspapers, the archaeology, the declarations, etc etc. So if we had something claiming that there was no such war, say that someone states that "NY wasn't destroyed, and yet this 'war theory' claims it was captured twice, the stability argues against the war' we can say 'well, you've misinterpreted the evidence'.

But, with most scientific endavours, we don't expect science to get at 'The Truth', we hope that is 'truth-like'm, but we know that we can't know, for certain, that we've reached 'The Truth'. So we can't say 'this stuff looks like it supports Theory A, but we now know that Theory B is correct, therefore we have misinterpreted this evidence as for Theory A'. No, it can still be said to support Theory A, even tho Theory A is rejected.

Its difficult to apply this to the theory that the illuminati run everything, (in part because its not actually a testable and scientific theory), because we can in fact 'know' that they aren't, its not like we're talking metaphyics here. I mean, most evidences given to support the conspiracy theory infact don't support it at all, and are merely interpreted wrongly. But I suppose that something like a book written by a 33degree mason saying 'I am an illuminati" and "we run the world, mwa hahahaha' (thats the subtitle) could be said to be evidence that supports the theory, even tho the theory is ultimately wrong (of course the problem here is that the 'evidence' isn't misinterpreted, its an outright hoax).

HAHAHA is "we run the world" part of the book's subtitle, or just the evil "mwahahaha!" laugh?

I think your absolutely right about the existence of the Illuminati not being testable, but it is provable. It is something that could be easily proven, yet hasn't been up until now. This is what leads me to believe that there is no such thing.

As for there being evidence to both support and refute a theory, I'm not sure I agree. I can't think of one example where there has been conclusive evidence to both support and refute a theory/claim, all while we actually believe we know the truth about this theory. Coming to a conclusion about a claim would involve disproving evidence one way or the other, with something conclusive.

But I guess what I'm really talking about here is CONCLUSIVE evidence, which proves or disproves something, and not merely evidence or facts which support a theory.

There are sometimes when pieces of evidence refute each other. This does not nessacceraly mean that one is right and the other is wrong. It could be a mix of two theories. Everyone has the same evidence. It is how we interperet the evidence that gets our theory. You cannot disprove one theory without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory is correct. I agree that if you have two pieces of evidence that condridict each other that you will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either one is right and the other is wrong or it is a mixture of theories put together.

I believe that the illuminati do not control the whole world, on the contrary. I think they are a secret organazation that is looking for world power at any time, if it exists at all, which I believe.

5aret

Sorry, sebatwerk, I haven't check this thread in a while.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
This is exactly the way government works, and that is what causes BEAUROCRACY.That's my point precisely. An organization like what the Illuminati supposedly is would involve MANY people, it would be large, slow, inefficient and beaurocratic. It would be full of corruption, leaks and do-good whistle-blowers. NO organization is exempt from this.

Not if one would keep fewer people in the know and task them to carry out the plans upon the rest of the people not in the know. From the top-down, it is better to keep few trusted people in the know. From the perspective of the Illuminati, this is the approach. Bureaucracy is not part of its agenda.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
It's human nature. This has been demonstrated over and over and over again. The larger an organization grows, the harder it is to maintain secrecy and efficiency. An organization that large and that has been around that long is certainly going to have leaks, errors, failures, mistakes, corruption, detractors and just about any other problem that plagues ALL organizations. No organization has ever been exempt from this. To think this wouldn't happen to the Illuminati is pure fantasy. Then again, just about everything that is said about them seems pure fantasy.

I understand your skepticism and you haven't been in the know lately. No fair, though. However, there are few elitist people who are a part of a grand illuminated agenda to control the world for some actual benefits unknown to us. For example, when you're in a part of an important game or strategic plan with few others, it would be important to plan and tread carefully with others as not to give away too much details to your rivals who could use one-two of your people as spies OR you do not wanted to give away to others who may or may not have yours or your fellow planners' best interests in mind. It's a tricky issue to walk on and it's all come down to knowing and trusting the right people for the right reasons.

That is how the elite of the world operate that way: using their influences, wealth and/or powers to know and trust the right people to do the right jobs for the right reasons, like-wise.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
From the top-down, it is better to keep few trusted people in the know. From the perspective of the Illuminati, this is the approach. Bureaucracy is not part of its agenda.

Assuming that the Illuminati exists, exactly HOW do YOU know that this is the Illuminati's approach?

I understand your skepticism and you haven't been in the know lately.

No fair, though.

What are you talking about???

However, there are few elitist people who are a part of a grand illuminated agenda to control the world for some actual benefits unknown to us.

What makes you so sure of this? Surely someone as intelligent as yourself wouldn't blindly believe in something like this, right? You must have seen something, some kind of evidence, that makes you so positive that this is truly going on...?

That is how the elite of the world operate that way: using their influences, wealth and/or powers to know and trust the right people to do the right jobs for the right reasons, like-wise.

EVERY person, regardless of how rish or powerful he is, is restricted by the will and desire of the people he governs. Quit your conspiracy theory B.S. and start to realize that nobody can take from you what you are not willing to give them. Also, realize that even people in positions of power have a sense of their own ambition, and they too think that they are doing what is best for everyone. Nobody, even those in a position of power, is purely evil.