No, because the facts and basic logic say so.
Is there no conceivable way that the 192 heads of government could have a super-secret meeting?
There’s the G-8 summit. There’s the G-20 summit? Are you saying that there couldn’t be the G-192 summit?
If 191 heads of state took trips abroad on the same day, don’t you think someone would notice?
It’s the 21st century. They would not all need to be physically present at the meeting.
The G-20 and G-8 summits are not secret. They are well publicized and reported on. In fact there is a nearly daily meeting of the 192 governments. It’s called the UN. You can take a tour when you’re in NY.
Good shit, do you honestly not see how these two statements are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?? There is a VAST gulf between “a super secret society with near omnipotent control” and “heads of government having a meeting”. Besides, you keep telling us that the 192 governmental heads are NOT the real people in charge, so by your own “logic”, the two concepts have nothing at all to do with each other. Answering the one claim with such a ludicrously unrelated counterargument is exactly why most people here now think you’re insane.
Also, yes, it would be next to impossible for 192 national leaders to have a secret meeting. Do you really think all 192 of them could just disappear for a few days and have no one at all in the entire world notice?
Why am I bothering to have this argument?
If the Illuminati are relying on Skype to communicate, I doubt they’re able to accomplish much of anything.
No, that’s backwards. The whole point of government is to be composed of people in charge. There aren’t other people in charge of the government. Then you’d need another someone to control that someone, and so on, indefinitely.
To put it in your terms, the Illuminati control the governments, and Mysterious Someone controls the Illuminati. So who controls the Mysterious Someone? Who controls the controller? Who controls the controller controller? Do you see the problem? At some point, it has to end. Why not eliminate unnecessary complications and have it end at the original 192 governments?
No one is in charge at the head of government level.
It ends with a “higher power”.
Simple answer: I’m not naive.
Read your fucking links next time. That doesn’t say anything even remotely similar to “no one is in charge at the head of govt level” - merely that there is no one in charge at the world level (i.e. “there is no Illuminati”).
Why did you ignore everything I said, Kozmik?
I answered your multiple choice question. What other questions do you have for me?
Wow.
I just can’t help myself; I just can’t look away from this.
Kozmik, here is my question for you about the Illuminati:
How do they enforce their will on the governments of the world? What is the incentive for Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, and Vladimir Putin to heed their commands, and how will they be punished if they don’t heed the Illuminati’s commands?
By what mechanism do the Illuminati - and whoever leads them - coerce the popularly-elected governments of the world into doing what the Illuminati wants?
Fudge
The Illuminati enforce their will on the governments of the world by causing, among other things, financial crisises.
The governments of the world can only respond.
How? How how how? How do they do this? How do they force the heads of banks or whoever to do their bidding? Or are the heads of banks, in fact, the Illuminati? What happens if the heads of banks refuse to do it?
And ‘among other things’ means that there are other things. What other ways do the Illuminati do it?
And then we come back to the fact that we know the causes of the financial crisis, meaning we can explain what happened without a secret international cabal that has at least one other cabal inside it.
Why would they need to respond? They only do the bidding of their masters right? And yet not one has stopped and began yelling “Help Help I’m being repressed!”
This is fucking ridiculous. So, one proposed method of Illuminati control is financial crises?
The type that tie up government resources to the point the government is less capable of doing things, you mean? Or the type that lead to massive austerity measures that also reduce any government’s capacity to do anything? That incites public demonstrations and changes in government, as we saw in Greece?
It is not credible that one of your proposed methods of maintaining (or increasing) control over governments is by undermining those governments’ very ability to function.