Bias Clock: Conspiracy and the Illuminati

Great Debates
1

Ok, so in the vein of the political compass threads, I have decided to start a series called the Bias Clock. The reason I chose the term Bias Clock is because I like the way it sounds, and because nothing relieves humanity of its biases quite like the passage of time.

What I would like to get to the bottom of, is how our semantic biases color the way we view words, and thus color the subjects those words are attempting to address. Amongst my friends, we refer to this as “Semantic Space”, basically determining the size, shape and scope of the memes we are using. So here in particular I am handling common western biases that are passed down socially, sometimes by the general populace, and othertimes within the pedagogy. A common mistake I see people making is dismissing the truth of a viewpoint that opposes their bias simply because the opposition is also heavily laden by their own bias. The perfect example of this would be partisan bickering. Both Democrats and Republicans are right about some things and wrong about others, but oftentimes close themselves off to hearing the message of ‘the enemy’. I encountered this while reading “House of Bush, House of Saud.”, by Craig Unger and fielding questions about it’s bias. Though I do not doubt that Craig Unger labored under his own biases, leading him to some inaccuracies from time to time, the book overall is very well researched and much of the information contained within is easily obtained through other sources.

So in this particular edition of the bias clock, I want to address the words: Conspiracy and Illuminati. When these words are brought up, many of us immediately scoff. It is hard to have a reasonable discussion using these words as the way this argument is framed is often in a way that we can’t get to the heart of the subject but end up getting stuck on the semantics of the words.

So first, the definitions:
Conspiracy

con·spir·a·cy Audio pronunciation of “Conspiracy” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

  1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
  2. A group of conspirators.
  3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
  4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Illuminati

il·lu·mi·na·ti Audio pronunciation of “illuminati” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lm-nät)
pl.n.

  1. People claiming to be unusually enlightened with regard to a subject.
  2. Illuminati Any of various groups claiming special religious enlightenment.

Now the problem here is that when we hear of a conspiracy theory, we oftentimes immediately assume falsehood. This is a mistake, many conspiracy theories contain a morsel of truth, and sometimes contain quite an extensive body of the truth. What makes us falter on this one is that the information is framed as a conspiracy. The person presenting the information immediately assumes evil intent, thus labelling it as a conspiracy. It would be of course naive for us to think that secret power games, and backroom deals are not being made without our knowledge, and as such have been for thousands of years. There is a great tradition of secret societies that oftentimes have their hands deeply involved in the politics of state, religion, and academia, helping to form how we teach the next generation of youth. I propose that this is not necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it can seem or even be quite sinister in its effect.

For example I will use two well known historical societies, both quite extensive. There are the Freemasons* who’s core values are building a strong society using metaphors taken from the actual craft of stoneworking as a way to define a moral code by which to live. The next I will refer to is the Society of Assassins or the “Hashishin”, who’s purpose was to dominate the world by an elite group of assassins willing to die for their cause. I am not stating anything about the effectiveness of either group to attain it’s stated goal, only pointing out two secret societies that are commonly known. As we masons like to call them “Not so secret socities.”

So Secret Societies are a fact of life, and integrally part of human culture in every society on Earth, to deny that there are secret plots that affect the high level decisions in any aspect of culture is simply, incorrect.

On to the illuminati. Now, I am perfectly willing to accept that some people are more enlightened than others. As this is an academic board, we could easily refer to these people as the "Cognoscenti which is a word that I believe has fewer subjective biases mucking up its interpretation. Now, I don’t know if people will deny or not whether it is possible for some people to know more than others. Somehow on this board I doubt it. Now, I propose that by the very nature of knowing and understanding more, one is more likely to be in a position of power. Knowledge is power so they say. So it is not unfair to reason that there are people who have a greater knowledge of what is going on in the world, and thus a greater ability to affect the stream that we call ‘consciousness’, or if you will the greater body of knowledge available to man.

So what I am saying without singling out any particular person or group, is that it is not unreasonable to state that there are Cabals of Cognoscenti specifically making attempts to engineer the course of history.

I believe that tackling this particular bias is a healthy way to promote a greater understanding (fight ignorance) of the way that the world works, and if we can help dismantle this bias and see the nature of it more clearly that it will help this board with its stated objective.

I will leave this thread, with this quote on bias from Idries Shah, a renowned Sufi teacher, from his book “Knowing How to Know”.**

*Caveat: I am a Freemason, I of course believe in the tenets of masonry, therefore I of course believe that Freemasonry is a helpful thing for society.
**Idries Shah believed strongly that lessons should be tailored to the audience, “Knowing How to Know”, is written in English specifically for a western audience and is about the common mistakes we make in our quest for knowledge that make it more difficult for us to obtain that knowledge.

Erek

2

Looks to me like you’re trying to use reasonably-seeming baby steps to walk off a cliff.

3

When walking toward the edge of a cliff one should not take baby-steps but should walk confidently, with a commitment to one’s decision in order to maintain a perfect vigilance over the forces that will be transferred throughout the body, so that the super-structure of the organism will be capable of transferring the energy in multiple directions that it may be moved appropriately, so no particular beam in its structure will absorb the full force of impact, thus avoiding the possibility of being shattered on the rocks below enabling the being to minimize its recovery time, and quickly adapt to the transition.

Erek

4

Or at least you’re required to say that! :wink:

5

Yeah I signed the contract when they gave me my Aston Martin, and the keys to the harem.

Erek

6

There are certainly many specific examples of such. E.g., Adam Weishaupt’s original Illuminati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati#The_Bavarian_Illuminati) – which, so far as we know, was effectively suppressed by the Bavarian government in 1784 and never succeeded influence the course of history nowhere, nohow.

The mere existence of “Cabals of Cognoscenti specifically making attempts to engineer the course of history” is a matter too trivial even to consider, let alone debate, unless you can add some evidence that some such cabals have had some success, or appear likely to have some in the future.

IMO, the real Powers that Be in our society (and most others) are exactly who and what they appear to be – persons of wealth and privilege who, more than anything else, want to remain where they are. No mystery there.

7

When people talk about conspiracy, they’re not talking about things that fit the relatively modest dictionary definition of conspiracy. They’re talking about much larger plots that are usually unsupported by evidence, which leads to a lot of cherry-picking. And often, those theories make more sense on the surface than in practice. So I think you’re using words like conspiracy, Illuminati and Cognoscenti in a way that is less restrictive, and thus different, from the way they’re often used by people advancing conspiracy theories. That there are groups of intelligent people looking to influence history is obvious. How many think tanks and policy institutes are there in this country alone?

8

The big problem with ecouraging conspiratorial thinking is that it tends to paralyze effective effort and leads to illogical and damaging actions.

Why should one work towards reasonable and achievable reforms, when the Powers of Darkness™ hold such terrible control?
As an example, there is dissatisfaction with the development and marketing of new drugs, which in the view of the conspiracy-minded translates into the Big Pharma/Medical Establishment Conspiracy to thwart cheaper, “natural” alternative therapies. Potential reforms are ignored as the anti-conspirators gravitate to a variety of unproven and outright quack remedies.
In my view, most people devoted to unmasking conspiracies are seeking excuses to avoid the hard work necessary to take control of their lives.

9

I gotta start hanging out with a better class of people. Typically, amongst my friends, conversation topics tend to range from:

“Who was hotter; Betty or Veronica?”

to

“Who was hotter; Wilma or Betty?”

10

I presume you’re talking about the Nizari. Give a cite for them calling themselves or being known as a “Society”, and also for the idea that they aimed to take over the world. Cite for them being in any way “elite” while you’re at it.

11

I’m still a little hazy about exactly what the question is. Are you asking how each of us views the words conspiracy and illuminati, independent of the dictionary defs? Are you asking how each of us views people whose conversations are dominated by those words?

You have left us a wide field of view, without much idea where your focus might be. That’s my impression, and I could be mistaken.

12

Well, I would go with Betty, but I’d be thinking about Wilma.

13

Er, if they’re all willing to die for their cause, who’s left to dominate the world?

14

I think he’s trying to lead us into a trap in which we’re all forced to admit that we should be much more credulous about conspiracy theories.

15

My guess is you’re reading into his intent, at least on the latter question. It sounded to me like he’s simply asking us to look at whether the very utterance of these words by another gets our mental back up, in which we immediately move into eye-rolling mode for purposes of defense.

Good post, mswas. I personally agree the words have become bias triggers of sorts. I also believe there have been at least as many conspiracies affecting world events as there have been cataclysmic f*ck-ups.

16

Thanks, and you hit the nail on the head. Basically what I am referring to is how one can mentione well documented cases of people like George HW Bush and James Baker making back room deals with the Saudis vis a vis the Carlyle Group, and people start to snort and scoff. I’m not asking people to accept the more outlandish stuff outright without evidence, but this stuff is easy to corroborate there is lots of evidence that Bush Sr. has been doing a lot of crazy back room oil dealings in the Middle East. I have however seen people scoff at this and jump in shouting the word ‘conspiracy’ as though it debunks the case you are making.

I personally do not dismiss ideas of deeper conspiracies such as Weishaupts illuminati which the history that was most widely circulated claims was crushed. The truth of the matter is that I just don’t know one way or the other what happened to Adam Weishaupt and his band of merry men.

A cite for the Hashishin

This cite is taken from ‘Secret Societies: A History’ by Arkon Daraul. Arkon Daraul is a pen name for the Sufi teacher Idries Shah, who himself fought with the Mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan in the 80s. This is a man who travelled all across the world, and was involved in many different things. Now, he wrote this book, and this book may very well be total fabrication, but if so the fabrication itself is evidence of my point, a very smart man making efforts to go around and either teach or manipulate the way people view history. Idries Shah himself had something of a following, and you can get his books at Barnes and Noble. So with that in mind, I am not stating that one should believe my cite as gospel about the Hashishin, but to keep in mind that true or not it is evidence of said manipulation.

Mainly what I am getting at is we are oftentimes too quick to dismiss the fantastic, and dismissal of the truth is ignorant, whether it is a dismissal of the fantastic or not.

Now, I’m reading Idries Shah, and I find him to be a very fascinating teacher with much to offer me at this point in my life. Do I take what he says as Gospel? No. But I am also willing to give his writings the benefit of the doubt, long enough for me to draw a more educated conclusion.

jackmanii I am far from saying we should engage in conspiratorial thinking. I do not think that there is a big conspiracy out there trying to keep me down specifically. In fact I would go the opposite way, and say that many of these groups are downright friendly to me, and simply exist as an avenue for me to pursue higher study in fields that I’d like to go into, so that I can understand more deeply the way things work. I would generally look at legitimate Sufis in this manner, that they are trying to enact change in the world, only that it is not with some sort of sinister intent. I mean I look at Freemason websites with Baphomets and glowing skulls and all that shit, and I think it’s kind of corny. However, on the other hand Conspiracy sites are where I found out about organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations. My friend when in a more conspiratorially minded phase in his life introduced me to the Trilateral Commission. I do not think that these groups are “Out to get me.” however.

On the other hand, I think that using Big Pharma as an example is a bad one, because Big Pharma like any other company does what it can to squash competition. There is something sinister going on there in that we give mind numbing drugs like prozac freely to people but for some reason our society has effectively squashed MDMA and LSD. I think that Big Pharma definitely lobbies so that drug regulations will benefit them and their investment and like to make it difficult for herbal remedies to be obtained. Did you know that it’s illegal for an herbalist shop to instruct you in the usage of the herbs they are providing? Of course the conspiratorialists have their own subjective bias holding them back from knowing teh truth, but their lack of nuance does not dismiss the point they are tryign to make outright. This is the essence I am trying to distill.

Basically I think dismissing conspiratorial ideas outright is just as naive as thinking that the big bad government is out to get you. I think conspiratorialists have a difficult time distinguishing between “Immoral” and “Amoral”, and their detractors have a hard time distinguishing between, “Not entirely accurate”, and “False”.

Erek

17

Your cite is unbacked by cites of its own and appears to be a credulous rehashing of myths. Even so, it does not back up your key claim - that the Nizari aimed to take over the world.

I can’t make it through one of your incredibly long posts, laden with redefinitions of commonly used phrases. Are you upset that people scoff at the idea of the Illuminati, whereas you find such an idea to be credible? If so, say so, in as many words.

Noone’s saying there aren’t groups of people out there aiming to manipulate things for their own ends - political parties, for instance. If you’re positing super-powerful, super-secretive organizations along the lines of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Illuminati or Reverse Vampires, you are flatly wrong.

18

<Milhouse>

You have to got out only at night to avoid them!

19

A lot of modern scholars, not least of which, Bernard Lewis, say that the link between the Assassins and hashish or other drugs to put members in an altered state was a slander spread by their enemies, and that the actual hashishin strongly disapproved of all intoxicants or mind-altering substances. And, their targets tended to be people who persecuted them or Shi’ites generally…they didn’t kill offensively, with the goal of taking over the world or anything like that. The killings were “defensive” and limited in scope.

20

Hardly my key claim at all. My key claim is that people are too quick to dismiss conspiracies as having no merit, when they have some merit, just not complete merit.

Exposing the commonly held bias of semantics that occludes finding a deeper meaning to something, is hardly redefining commonly used phrases. There is no where in the word conspiracy that word has a definition that claims conspiracies never happen, yet so many people who fashion themselves as educated act as though it does.

Illuminati on the other hand meant something specific, but is largely used as a catchall phrase in the modern parlance for a much older more venerable idea that isn’t entirely inaccurate.

The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group actually exist though. The Trilateral Commission has a website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm
http://www.trilateral.org/

You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that I am trying to expose with this thread. There is a world government it does have prominent leaders that are hidden from view by thousands of layers of bureaucracy, but we still in effect do have royal families that run thing, whether their name be Rockefeller or Rothschild, Saud or Bush, it’s not completely irrelevant, and crude attempts to learn about these structures are oftentimes shot down by people who know a fraction more than the person making their baby steps toward learning a difficult subject, as proposing a conspiracy theory.

Erek