Behind the Illuminati?

Could the Illuminati really just be a hoax to distract or mislead truth-seekers, hence letting the real 'not-so-secret' societies off the hook? The Illuminati could just be a well-played card [by someone truly in power], only to keep us in fear; to shut us up and force us to look the other way. I'm wondering if the Illuminati was formed by the men in power to make conspirators look stupid, as they would if they were chasing something that really didn't exist at all. From what I can tell, the Illuminati is just a scapegoat so that the revealed secret societies can look innocent. Any comments?

The Illuminati' cover was blown in the 18th century, I think, and the name was outlawed. Other fronts, like the Bilderberg Group were founded.

In the end , I think it doesn't really matter who is actually in charge behind the scenes. People will still recognise the secret front societies and if there will be a revolution of some sort, it will initially be aimed at the governments, and when they fall, the people in power behind them will fall too.

I refuse to comment, so says plucky.

Originally posted by enigmania
The Illuminati' cover was blown in the 18th century, I think, and the name was outlawed. Other fronts, like the Bilderberg Group were founded.

In the end , I think it doesn't really matter who is actually in charge behind the scenes. People will still recognise the secret front societies and if there will be a revolution of some sort, it will initially be aimed at the governments, and when they fall, the people in power behind them will fall too.

I see, I understand, and I do hope so. Thank you for your response.

Originally posted by enigmania
In the end , I think it doesn't really matter who is actually in charge behind the scenes. People will still recognise the secret front societies and if there will be a revolution of some sort, it will initially be aimed at the governments, and when they fall, the people in power behind them will fall too.

That's a nice idea and all... but do you honestly think that the people in power, the ones behind the scenes that is, would willingly give up that power without so much as a fight? Not likely. More likely they would stand to gain more power from the unbalance that a revolution would bring that they would loose from the regime that they had in place falling from grace.

The main problem with your theory on the shadow societies falling from grace just because the government it supported did, is simple. Something as old and well connected as the Illuminati supposedly is would certainly see the tides of change coming long before the average person would. Meaning they would already have a back up plan in place to cover that eventuality. Also what's to say they wouldn't be the ones to start the revolution to begin with?

As I mentioned above they would likely stand to gain more power by allowing the old government to fall than trying to keep it around. Because no matter how well organized that new government would eventually become they would still face the transition phase that all new governments do. Not too mention the new government would still require all the same (if not more) resources than the original government did. Resources like Money, international support, trade agreements, and military backing. All things a shadow society would have access to in spades. Making them the most valuable ally that the new government could hope to have. Allowing the shadow society to install themselves in a perhaps more secure position, and most certainly a more influential position, within said new government.

The thing about shadow societies is that, any worth their salt are exceedingly hard to get rid of. If discovered they would likely change their name, operating procedures, and level of new inductions, but they would still exist all the same. Most likely they would operate on a cell by cell type structure, meaning that while one cell might get compromised the whole as a group would remain unaffected.

Now to clear things up a bit, I am using the term Shadow society simply because if a secret society is known about it is no longer a secret but can still operate within the shadows all the same.

Anyway just my two cents on the topic.

reply to post by looneylupinsrevenge


Your two cents have been well-taken. Thank you for your input. This only stresses the idea that the human race can never die completely until the divine intervention occurs. That divine intervention can be taken as either an asteroid hitting our planet, the sun exploding millions of years from now--both still under scientific speculation, I believe--, or massive nuclear warfare.

However, what about all the people who believe the world is coming to an end?



[edit on 10/28/2007 by Godknown]

lol ok or. they put illuminati out there so the ones who arent incredibly good at figuring stuff out would take what they hear as the truth, then the ones who truly think about stuff would write it off as its to out in the open. they know that you know that they know so they take it a step farther and use your intelligence against you. i dont know how to explain what im saying in a simple fashion basically they knew alot of people would write off illuminati as being too obvious and the rest wouldnt question what they hear in conspiracy documentaries so the truth stays hidden. the trick is to not limit yourself to seeing one organization as the capstone of the pyramid cause that could be the illusion explore anything you find suspiscious in great depth. great line of reasoning though keep it up.

reply to post by justanothergangster


I understand what you are saying. Thank you.

reply to post by looneylupinsrevenge


The governments are the ones that enforce law upon the citizens directly, not the ones on top of the piramid. What are they going to do, once the governments they control, are overthrown? They're just a handful of people, once the masses rise, no one can stop them.

reply to post by enigmania


Exactly! If my point didn't support what you just said, then might as well throw what you said in there.

Don't you think that if there is a revolution, specifically an armed conflict/struggle from a segment or population of society that the power structure of the government of the country would use that as a justification to bring forth an even stronger police state under the guise of "keeping order".I don't think that a revolution is capable of happening in the United States or any non third world country at the moment.Your average Joe on the street isn't going to take up arms,he still has to pay his mortgage,feed his family,etc. Not to mention most people would not want to live in a war torn area.If there were a revolution, it would be played up in the media, and the fear/terrormongering would go into overdrive, and people would start to give up their rights for security, just look at the freedoms that were given up post 9/11 and look at what the original Patriot Act called for.It can not be summed up any better than this quotation...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Bro. Benjamin Franklin

reply to post by brotherforchrist


It has to be more of a spiritual revolution, violence isn't nessescary. Once a critical mass is reached and people march the streets, what can they do? Do you really think the militairy and the police are going to fight their own brothers and sisters if they rise by the millions?

reply to post by enigmania


The new age is also the age of power in numbers.

reply to post by brotherforchrist


Election 2008? maybe maybe not! The trouble with elections is it would take 6 years to replace everyone. Where is our National Gaurd?
How many people In this country own guns? You have to break a few eggs
to bake a good cake. The one thing constant in all governments is they fall!

TH GHOSt

Originally posted by enigmania
Do you really think the militairy and the police are going to fight their own brothers and sisters if they rise by the millions?

Certainly there would be those that would, and those that wouldn't.

Two words: Civil War.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

For what it's worth, I think the OP is onto something here. It's been said here before, but by Masons mostly, myself included. Perhaps someone without that stigma is what that statement needed in order to be really heard.

We are the boogeymen, after all.

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by brotherforchrist

 

Do you really think the militairy and the police are going to fight their own brothers and sisters if they rise by the millions?

Two words: Civil War!

Its already happened once in American History... so why wouldn't it happen again? Why Couldn't it?

Originally posted by justanothergangster
lol ok or. they put illuminati out there so the ones who arent incredibly good at figuring stuff out would take what they hear as the truth, then the ones who truly think about stuff would write it off as its to out in the open. they know that you know that they know so they take it a step farther and use your intelligence against you. i dont know how to explain what im saying in a simple fashion basically they knew alot of people would write off illuminati as being too obvious and the rest wouldnt question what they hear in conspiracy documentaries so the truth stays hidden. the trick is to not limit yourself to seeing one organization as the capstone of the pyramid cause that could be the illusion explore anything you find suspiscious in great depth. great line of reasoning though keep it up.

I only used the Illuminati because it was the first one that popped into my mind while I was writing My other post. Whether or not they exist is really more of a personal opinion than any real fact. But that's besides the point. The point is, that for years now, even before the founding of the US or Canada, people with money decided what happened , when it happened, and where it happened. It's true that one organization might not be in control of the entire world, but it seems likely that if there are more than just one that they likely work together to at least some degree in order to boost their own portfolio rather than the betterment of the general masses under the government which they control.

Though I guess control might be too strong of a word in some sense. Personally I don't think that any organization would bother with controlling the day to day operations of a government, rather they would put people in places of power that would be sympathetic towards their causes. Thus allowing them to push though bills and laws that will help them gain more money, and thus more power. Because think about it for a second, place yourself in a position of power, say president, or prime minister, your primary financial backer comes up to you six months before the next election and says.

"Bob (just a random name), I think this bill could be to the betterment of the entire country. Of course it means that certain individuals need to give up certain liberties. But really, it's nothing they can't live without anyway, right? Besides it would be in both our interests to see this bill put into action. I would hate to see you loose the position you worked your entire life for over some silly little thing like morals. But If it eases your mind, simply think of it as a down payment on the money we have lent you in the past to fund your campaign, as well as small token of good faith towards the next campaign fund. Think about it."

What do you do? Do you reject it? Taking the high road and risk loosing all the finical backing for your next run at office? Or do you sit down shut up and go along with what your being told to do?. More than likely you will simply go along with it, accept your cut back when the time comes and keep your mouth shut. Greed is universal and by in large the main driving force in politics, Otherwise our leaders wouldn't get the amount of money they do, for the little they contribute.

Again just my two cents on the topic.