Well, I’m convinced. We live in terrifying, incoprehensible, and demon-haunted world. From now on I won’t try to figure out why people believe weird things, I’ll just accept the facts as they are given out.
Invulnerable, evil organizations delight in tormenting us, sometimes for gain, sometimes for entertainment, sometimes for reasons so esoteric as to be incomprehensible to the unitiated. The forces arrayed against regular people are vast and, for all intents and purposes, omnipotent. We are as blades of grass vs. Godzilla and 99.99% of us don’t even know Godzilla is there.
What the hell do we do? Even exposing a sloppy, junior-level Illuminatus delivers no real satisfaction. There ought to be a guide outlining the behaviors and preparations that will give us the greatest, although still miniscule, chance of living in relative peace and comfort. Or maybe we should all kill ourselves now, and deny the puppetmasters the pleasure of watching us dance on our strings.
You begin with false premises, follow no logical progression of thought, have no concept of what constitutes corroboration or evidence, and reach unfounded conclusions. You are incapable of telling the difference between a random thought and an established fact. Your reading comprehension is so poor that you believe any sentence which contains a word you recognize somehow supports your position.
And you would rather use a smiley than examine your delusions.
I’ve asked this before, but I’m compelled to again: do you realize that virtually all of your responses come across as cryptic, illogical, off-topic, not based in fact, seem to have very little effort put into them, or just plain doublespeak?
I am certain I’m speaking for other posters in saying this. I commend you on coming back to this thread time after time, but I’m not sure if you realize that it is very hard for you to be convincing to us because your responses aren’t really sensical.
For example, in a recent post you dismissed the Easter Bunny as fantasy but stated your belief (not proof or evidence) in the Illuminati. I’m pretty sure most readers of that chuckled a little bit, because nearly everyone is certain the Illuminati are just as fictional as the Easter Bunny, because there’s no evidence of the Illuminati having any power whatsoever, and the theories of power that do not include secret societies pulling the string of power are simply much better than the alternatives.
I know nobody here will convince you that you’re wrong. I do hope that our comments will make you realize that what you say simply doesn’t make any sense. That would be great progress as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t believe you’ve asked that before; however, I am going to answer your question and reply to the rest of your post.
No, I did not realize that virtually all of my responses came across as cryptic, illogical, off-topic, not based in fact, seem to have very little effort put into them, or just plain doublespeak. I am going to put effort into this post so that this post does not come across as cryptic. At least you don’t assume that you are speaking for other posters, i.e. “I am certain I’m speaking for other posters in saying this.” That’s more than I can say for those other posters. Are you saying that you’d be convinced if my responses were “sensical”? Is that all it is?
Do you realize that “nobody here will convince you that you’re wrong” because everyone here is convinced that they’re right?
Maybe you’re wrong or maybe I’m wrong, or maybe we are both wrong. I am not trying to convince you (or anyone) of anything. I am showing you (and others) how your argument is narrow.
Ravenman, yes, in a recent post, I dismissed the Easter Bunny as fantasy but stated my belief (not proof or evidence) in the synarchy; furthermore, in that same post, I stated by belief (not proof or evidence) in the oligarchy. Nearly everyone is certain that the oligarchy is just as fictional as the synarchy, right?
Ravenman, consider: The oligarchy - the royal family and the Pope - is just as fictional as the synarchy - the Illuminati. I am going to put effort specifically into explaining that statement because otherwise you might accuse me of being cryptic. So allow me to explain that statement. No, the oligarchy is obviously not fictional. There is, in fact, a Pope, who incidentally will be resigning at the end of the month. There is, indeed, a royal family whose members theoretically can all be accounted for as in this listing. So there is proof and evidence of the oligarchy. Realize, though, that I would believe in the oligarchy even if there were no proof or evidence, even if the royal family were all like King Arthur, even if the royal family were like the Greek gods. The oligarchy can be considered fictional in a metaphorical - not literal - sense. Really what is royalty and the Papacy anyway? People wearing “funny” robes and crowns? Like what the point, right? I think of how some people are wondering what the big deal is that the Pope is resigning. Uh, well, it hasn’t happened in nearly 600 years for one thing. I think of how some people do not realize that 600 years ago the royal family and the Pope had the power.
What is the difference between an insane man screaming “I’m king of England!” and an insane king screaming “I’m king of England!”?
I’m quite certain that other people find your responses unhelpful or bizarre because that’s pretty much what has been implied in most debates with you for the past year or two. So yes, I’m quite confident I’m speaking for others here. If anyone disagrees, please let me know.
I don’t think that anyone will be convinced of your conspiracy theories if you explained them better. However, there are many debates on this board where people can acknowledge that reasonable minds can differ. See, for example, the Iraq war thread in GD on whether Bush lied about WMD, or whether he was simply wrong about WMD. I understand where my debate opponents are coming from, they lay out facts coherently, they come to reasonable conclusions, and so forth.
We don’t get that from you. For example, you’ve said in the past something like, you believe the Illuminati exists because if all heads of government got together, that would be a G-192 meeting. I realize I’m off on the details a bit, but it’s hard to repeat something that is gibberish.
Honestly, I only occasionally drop into this thread to see how its going. I think you’re trying to make a clever point in your last sentence there, but it is lost on me because I’ve long ago come to the conclusions that there’s no proof, facts, or evidence that would show that shadowy people control the world. Since you’re not attempting to provide the proof, facts, or evidence that they do, and I take it you’re just talking about your unfounded beliefs, I’m not inclined to get into discussions about ways in which leprechauns differ from menehune.
My point here is simply to raise an issue that your explanations overwhelmingly tend to be nonsensical or off the point.
The statement by the commoner is one piece of evidence of his insanity. The statement of the king is not evidence of his insanity. But again, what your point is here is totally not clear. It seems like you’re just being clever.
Since reasonable minds cannot be convinced then they can acknowledge that that they can differ.
Expanding on the above point, can they understand how (and why) they differ?
I believe that (1) the Illuminati exists and I believe that (2) if all heads of government got together that would be a G-192 meeting. Two separate beliefs.
What brought you to that conclusion?
Yes, I am not attempting to provide the proof, facts, or evidence for the synarchy; just the same, I am not attempting to provide the proof, facts, or evidence for the oligarchy.
World events can be explained without the involvement of a shadowy, powerful organization like the hypothesized Illuminati. In addition, there is no material evidence for the existence of a shadowy, powerful organization like the hypothesized Illuminati. Therefore, there’s no reason to believe that a shadowy, powerful organization like the Illuminati exists.
Kozmik, I think you dispute the first statement in the previous paragraph, but not the second (correct me if I’m wrong). On the first (that the Illuminati are not necessary to explain world events), can you think of any world events that can’t be explained without involving the Illuminati?
Wow that is possibly the most delusional series of statements I have hear short of the guy using wood chisels to shape the granite curbs of San Francisco.
No, there is reason to believe that a shadowy, powerful organization like the Illuminati exists because similarly shadowly, powerful organizations like the royal family, like the Papacy, like the Mafia, like Al Qaeda have existed or currently exist, even though in the present they might not necessarily be as were in the past.
I believe I am in this post (correct me if I’m wrong).
So you think world events cannot be explained without an organization like the Illuminati, but you won’t give me an example of such a world event? That’s not very helpful.
But why does the existence of the Mafia and Al Qaeda imply that the Illuminati exists? This does not follow logically to me… the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants (from X-Men comics) is a hypothetical shadowy, powerful organization, but the existence of other shadowy, powerful organizations does not imply that the Brotherhood of Mutants is real.
Since when? The first Brotherhood (under Magneto) was just a handful of people. The second (under Mystique) was a handful of people with some governmental influence as Mystique had killed and replaced an important agent of several secret government agencies.
There was a miniseries entitled The Brotherhood (revolution not evolution). The organization in the series pretended to be shadowy and powerful but was actually only a handful of mutants.
So your proof of the existence of a shadowy powerful organization of which the members, structure and methods are unknown and unknowable is to name organizations (to use the term loosely) in which the members, structure and methods are all well documented and easily found.
You came up with your world view through some need to find order in chaos and you are desparate to showhorn reality into beliefs. Everyone here is telling you it is not working. Logic is spilling out all over the place. But you’ve already heard that.
Reasonable minds can differ when the underlying disagreement is logical, explainable, supportable, and reasonable. For example, it’s reasonable to disagree whether root beer is the best beverage ever. Some people may think the bitter taste is great, others think its horrible. That’s simple.
It is not reasonable to have a disagreement on whether root beer turns people into vampires. That’s a patently absurd claim with no evidence, therefore anyone who proposes that is being unreasonable. From what you’ve presented and argued, there’s no reasonable claim that shadowy people control the world.
The very same arguments and logic that leads me to believe that astrology is nonsense also leads me to believe that conspiracy theories about Illuminati and whatnot are also nonsense. Events can be adequately (and even best) understood through historical and social science analysis; there is no credible evidence for the existence of such shadowy rulers; the explanations of the conspiracies are implausible at first glace; and the credibility of those who advocate such theories is shot because they often also advocate other nonsense, like UFOs, lizard men, or other nonsense.
I have degrees in the study of the theory of international relations and diplomatic history, so I’ve read quite a bit about world events and can analyze them using different theoretical models. So, based on my academic experience, and also my professional experience, as well as my innate judgment on what is plausible and what is not, I come to the conclusion that there’s not a single grain of truth in the idea that the Illuminati can made phone calls to people in powerful positions and instruct them on what to do.
You’re talking about your unfounded beliefs as opposed to trying to convince us that those beliefs are supported by facts and reason. That’s fine, you don’t have to try to convince us of what you believe – you started this thread and you can make this thread about anything you want. Again, I’m just trying to point out that nobody thinks the points you’re making are actually compelling or worth careful consideration.
In fact, when I sometimes check in this thread to see what’s happening, I laugh because guys like Loach seem to be drawn back here to beat their head against the same brick wall time and again, and never seem to get any satisfaction for participating in the thread. I read their posts and it is almost like I can see them playing with that sore tooth – the tooth that hurts to play with, but they just can’t leave it alone.
Actually, you can read all that if you want, but let me boil this down to just a few words.
If I were asked to judge what is more reasonable:
that a group of unknown, shadowy individuals have controlled every major world event for the last several centuries, and they have managed to hide any proof of their existence for all that time; or
the person who argues that #1 is true has some type of mental illness;
… there is not a single doubt in my mind that #2 is ten thousand times more plausible.
There’s the Mafia and Al Qaeda, there were the communists of the USSR and et. al., there’s supposedly the Jews, there’s the royal family, and there’s the Pope, and then there’s countries; China, India, The United States, ect.
The Mafia, arguably, are a shadow of their former self. Al Qaeda (and the War on Terror) will go the way of the USSR (and the Cold War). As for the communists of the USSR and et. al., they were revolutionaries and the Illuminati will make all revolutionaries look like amatuers. The Jews are not part of any conspiracy as far as I know and, as for conspiracy theories go, are a red herring. However, the royal family and the Pope are the real deal, and I believe that members of the royal family, if not the Pope, know the Illuminati.
The existence of the royal family and the Pope imply that the Illuminati exists.
Not proof, not even evidence - an indication.
So you understand that there can be (1) organizations in which the members, structure and methods are all well documented and easily found and that there can be (2) organizations in which the members, structures and methods are unknown.
(1) indicates (2).
No, I came up with my world view through some need to find chaos in order.
Not just for the last several centuries - for millennia. For example, the Pope is resigning at the end of the month. That’s not something that ordinarily happens. It’s, for lack of a better word, extraordinary. The last time a Pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. Next month, there will be a conclave. From the Encyclopaeda Britannica article on conclave:
The cardinals elect the Pope.
However, sometimes, someone outside the college of cardinals can be involved in the election of the Pope, like an emperor, as the Holy Roman Emperor was at one point in history.
And, sometimes, lacking authority, lacking a Pope leads to someone unexpectedly filling the power vaccuum as a local magistrate did in 1268.
That’s ok because drewtwo99 can:
I know that while drewtwoo99 can explain she does not necessarily believe. Which is more than I can say for you.