Anarch may be a term of convenience rather than the person’s supposed job title, but Kozmik blurs a lot of distinctions. He doesn’t always make it clear if he thinks something is happening or if he’s just arguing that it could happen, and I’m not sure about his ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.
As annoying as Koz can be and how pointless this thread is, I cannot tear myself away. I guess I am hoping he will see the light of day, not counting on it just hoping. Kinda like watching a slow motion car wreck.
Capt
If you’re enjoying the show and want to see what this sort of “thinking” can lead to when put into practice, be sure to check out this thread.
Which is not to suggest that Kozmik himself would engage in harassment, and he has stated that he doesn’t believe the Sandy Hook event was a hoax— but it’s precisely that kind of crap that prevents me from seeing kooky conspiracy theories as harmless fun anymore.
Have been lurking in that one don’t want to post because I have a cousin who believes that Aurora and Sandy Hook are related conspiracies because of LIBOR. She also believes the flouride thingy, you should see her rotten mouth. She makes me stabby
Capt
I’m glad someone is using “suspended judgment”. You are asking inquiring questions. That is good. Who is in these secret organizations are those who are “at the very top of the pyramid”, those who are “above”, those who are “higher”. They operate something like an amalgamation of the heads of government and the royal family.
Do you not see that “authority” throughout history changes? The Emperor. Then the Pope. Then the Pope and the kings. Then the kings. Then the heads of government.
Kennedy knew of the Illuminati. Did you ever listen to his “secrecy speech”?
Nixon not only understood in 1960 that he was going to lose the 1960 election but he understood also that he was going to win in 1968 and 1972. Nixon did not know of the Illuminati. Remember that he was Eisenhower’s VP. Eisenhower knew of the Illuminati. Remember also that Nixon was very paranoid. Nixon was wrong about the Jews, though. Nixon was also very naive. Paranoid and naive - usually not a good combination!
You assume that the 192 heads of government is “the very top”. That is why I created the thought experiment of the G-192 summit.
The Illuminati would not necessarily, in your words, be “invisible”. They would be anonymous, hidden in plain sight. Think purloined letter.
Yes, they run the world. However, their only weakness, their “kryptonite”, their “Achilles’ heel” is that they must remain anonymous.
You’re analogy is not apt. Let’s say you’re a sentry at Tehran in 1943. Two cars race up. Three men get out of the first car: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. One man gets out of the second car: an Illuminatus. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin appear to disagree amongst themselves. They seem to settle upon one course of action or inaction. The Illuminatus talks to them and they reply to him. The Illuminatus gives you a conflicting course of action or inaction. Which course of action or inaction do you take?
I anticipated that someone would make this important point which is why I created the “hostile thread” before I created the “non-hostile thread”. I understand chess. I’m smarter than most people think. I also know more than most people realize.
Do you know the origin of bureaucracy ?
cite: Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Diocletian”
The Pope is a decoy for the Illuminati. sisu seems to understand that whether or not he or she believes it. At least sisu is exercising “suspended judgment”.
The term Anarch may have been invented in 1977; however, the term Illuminati was not.
hint: The Anarch is to the heads of government what the Pope is to the rulers of Europe.
You need more time.
Yes, “currently”.
The Papal order of precedence applied to those kings who recognized the Pope as their overlord.
Not all kings did:
Can you understand this? Overlord. Understand?
Good question, though your question has a narrow view. One result of the Reformation challenging the authority of the Pope, was that the kings would not have an overlord. One consequence of this is that, for example, the king or queen of England is Fidei defensor. Another thing to keep in mind is that after the Roman Emperor Diocletian created the Quattuor principes mundi among him, Galerius, Maximian, and Constantius, in 313, Constantine converted to Christianity. Then after the fall of the Roman Empire, there would be kings and the Pope, until, of course, after the Reformation, when it would just be kings.
The Illuminati exerted their power through the Emperor, then the Pope, then the Pope and the kings, then the kings, and now the heads of government.
I will answer these condescending questions with this answer:
It doesn’t matter what I believe.
Excellent question. Remember that Diocletian in the line of Roman Emperors was before Nero, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and after Diocletian was Maximian, Galerius, Constantius (three of the Quattuor principes mundi), Constantine, and Romulus Augustus.
According to Wikipedia, the Roman Empire reached its greatest territorial extent under Trajan. Then Marcus Aurelius maintained that expanded Empire. Nero, of course, is known for his persecution of Christians.
It was likely decided when the *Quattuor principes mundi * was established among Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius that each would succeed each other, first Maximian, then Galerius, and finally Constantius. Constantine converted to Christianity and I don’t think I need to explain the significance of that. Last but not least, Romulus Augustus was the last Emperor with the fall of the Roman Empire.
All this paved the way for the Papacy who’s authority would be challenged with the Reformation.
Another excellent question. The Illuminati is the power behind the Pope - that is the assumption.
From Wikipedia:
Also:
So the Illuminati, which is behind Catholicism, Protestantism, and freemasonry, (1) forbides Catholics to become Masons, (2) does not object to Catholics being Masons, and (3) instigates Protestant objections which may or may not have a grain of truth to them.
Yes! Vicar. And what does “vicar” mean?
Thank you.
Reality defined. Take your pick. Also notice reality check - “something that clarifies or serves as a reminder of reality often by correcting a misconception”. As in: The New York Times is my reality check.
How condescending! Also Muffin would disagree with you. (See above, in this post.)
Weird how the all-powerful global conspiracy that can get whatever it wants with a simple phone call didn’t think to call the president and tell him not to give a public speech about them. Oopsie.
Nine pages and your explanation still boils down to “I believe it because I believe it” with no hint of proof or evidence. We get it.
Weird how the message was received in Dallas in 1963. Oopsie.
It doesn’t matter what I believe. Do you get it? Do you?
Nope, that’s a total failure. You’ve proposed a conspiracy that can pull off all kinds of convoluted nonsense and can get whatever it wants with a phone call. Now you’re saying JFK not only defied the all-powerful conspiracy by speaking openly about it in April 1961 (and nobody else confirmed what he was saying), but in addition to failing to stop him, they couldn’t even get back at him for another two and a half years.
Kozmik it is in no way condescending to hope that a fellow Doper who lives in a fake town populated by washed up child actors might see reality. This is IIRC the first time you have actually responded to me directly, how about a reply on the factual stuff?
Capt
They didn’t want to make it look obvious. They waited until after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. They wanted to make it look like it was communism that was behind the assassination.
And who could confirm what he was saying?
Here’s exactly what’s condescending:
and what’s not condescending:
Have you noticed the forum you are in? Also it is pointless to talk in circles to someone who seems immune to logic or evidence. The only reason I am here is the vain hope that atleast once you will see one of your theories is hogwash and begin to see the world as it actually is. That whole “Fighting Ignorance” thing, which unfortunately in your case, is going to be a steep climb. Koz I hate to say it but you are ignorant as to how the World works, and all the time you have wasted on all this BS will all be for naught. Sorry if this sounds harsh or condescending, but it is true
Capt
They’re doing an outstanding job of that.
Do you understand that is gibberish? Do you?
But the kings already have an overlord - the Illuminati, right?
Why go from a situation where you have an all-powerful Papacy who can rank the kings in some sort of order which they must accept to a situation where the Illuminati now have to deal with dozens, hundreds of different rulers?
How does that even begin to make sense? If I want to give an order to an employee of mine, I don’t hire somebody else (or 200 somebody elses) to dilute my message.
No, you’re dodging the first question: how did they fail to stop him from speaking? Presidents don’t write their speeches alone. They discuss them with teams of speechwriters and others. If there were a conspiracy, why didn’t they know and how did they not stop it? And why do they care if it looks obvious? Don’t you think their plans appear in the New York Times?
They couldn’t have manufactured a reason earlier?
The Cold War was already tense. If they had made up the Oswald story, they could have made up something substantially the same before April 1961 or right after.
All the other world leaders who have to answer their phone calls. :rolleyes:
Not only that, the “all-powerful papacy” was for a relatively short time. When there was too much power there was a natural push back against it. Two popes, the reformation, the rise of science… Not to mention it wasn’t all powerful in a large section of the world. His whole logic is that some people have more power than others therefore there has to be one person pulling all the strings. And his misfiring neurons can not grasp that there is no logic there.
The beauty is that all questions can be answered with “because that’s what they wanted to do” and you can’t refute it. No matter how illogical a sequence of events can be to a supposed worldwide conspiracy, they meant to do that.
There’s no way to distinguish between a carefully crafted, long term, complex plan and random shit happening. That’s the beauty of it.
Which is exactly what they wanted.