Do you believe in the Hollow Earth, with people running around on the inside, building cities and sneaking out of a hole near the poles to wreak havoc on us, the surface dwellers/ I mean, there is no evidence of it, but it could still be true, could it not?
More to the point, it DOES follow that there is no secret cabal running things, since we already know pretty much what happened in every major social and political event for the last few hundred years and we know who did what and who said what. This indicates that what happened and what we think happened are the same. For there to be some cabal pulling the strings, we should be able to see unexpected things happening in a uniform way that can only be explained by “mysterious forces.” If the cabal is simply pulling the strings to make things happen in the way that they were going to happen, anyway, they are a pretty weak execution of power.
And, as I alreay noted, your grasp of what actually has happened is so weak as to eliminate you from the list of people who are even capable of continuing this discussion. Added to this your persistent misreading of the text that has been provided in this thread along with your failure to understand what you have read in outside sources, makes this a truly worthless discussion. You are neither understanding what we say, nor, apparently, understanding the meaning of what you say. So, unless some other CT supporter shows up to spread misinformation, I am probably outta here.
Well, you’re convincing me at this point that you’re either paying zero attention, or you’re just throwing stuff out there in the hope that as long as people have to keep responding to you, your claim that the CT is “possible” remains alive. (It doesn’t.) You mentioned those two members who wielded “great” power; tomndebb said they didn’t count for much in the large and splintered German federation and asked you if there were other powerful Illuminati supporters. Then you posted the name of the guy who crushed the Illuminati. See the problem? That’s not a supporter.
Thinking outside of the box is what they WANT you to do! Why do you think they make non-reactive tin foil (it’s not even real TIN for the same of the gods!) these days? THINK about it…
What unexpected things would we see? Serious question. You’re geting at the basis of CTs.
I posted that I rejected the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, I rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I do not reject the Bible conspiracy theory, i.e. Jesus had a wife and had children. It is possible. I do not reject conspiracy theories involving coups d’etat. One really happened - Operation AJAX, and it had some interesting participants. So I believe in at least two conspiracy theories.
What he means is that there should be something “fishy” strung throughout all these events that can’t be explained by what we already know about the situation.
Do you think Santa Claus was behind 9/11? No. Why? Well, that entire situation is explainable without the need to invoke Santa Claus. If Santa Claus really were involved, he sure didn’t do much – because the situation turned out the same way as if he hadn’t gotten involved in the first place.
Same applies to the “underground cabal” theory. Is it possible? Yes, but so are infinitely many other things. There’s no reason to believe in one over the other unless there’s good, compelling evidence to suggest so that isn’t better explained by other frameworks/evidence.
You haven’t explained what they are or how they prove it, and you haven’t dealt with the minor inconvenience of the evidence saying they haven’t existed since 1785. That’s sort of a problem in connecting them to the NWO, the military industrial complex, or anything else. Do tell us what this has to do with Orwell.
The problem with this sort of thing is that you are claiming mysterious forces when we already know pretty much all the facts-none of which required any outside manipulation.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is a good case in point.
The U.S. was already engaged in a number of hostile actions against North Vietnam. When several of those actions occurred at the same time, the North Vietnamese perceived a concerted attack and decided to attack the USS Maddox to make a point. The Maddox fought them off without any problem. Two days later, the Maddox, joined by the USS Turner Joy, “saw” another attack based on bad weather and inexperienced technicians messing up the radar and sonar. Even though no attack had occurred, the Johnson administration, already looking for a fight, used the reported attack to get Congress to authorize a more direct involvement in the Vietnamese civil war.
We know that the first attack did occur, (and why).
We know that the second attack never occurred.
We know that Johnson and McNamara were looking for an excuse and two “attacks” in two days gave it to them.
We know the captain of the Maddox was already disclaiming the second attack on the same day that it happened, but that those later corrections did not make it to Johnson before he went to Congress.
Johnson was too eager to believe what he needed to hear, but the reports of the second “battle” were not invented. There was no “conspiracy” on the part of the captain of the Maddox to give a false report–in fact, he provided corrections as he discovered the errors.
While it was certainly a hasty decision to go to war based on bad information, there was no “conspiracy” involved.
Using the Gulf of Tonkin as an example of a “conspiracy” is silly.
No, no, you got it all wrong. Orwell, VT was the birthplace of physicist Louis Winslow Austin, known for his research on long-range radio transmissions. Those researches lead directly to the development of HAARP. Don’t you see? Wake up sheeple!
Sure, if you believe that those radar and sonar technicians weren’t Illuminati agents. C’mon, what were their names? They fade back into the woodwork as if they never existed; gone, untraceable.
Proof of the Illuminati? That’s a rather strong claim, I hope you know – proof of X means you actually need proof of X. If your “proof of the Illuminati” is better explained by other means, then it’s probably not very compelling evidence.
There is absolutely nothing in here that serves as “proof of the Illuminati.”
Typically, the most “famous” portion of that speech is as follows:
"“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex,” Eisenhower warned. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never
let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” "
I may be putting words in your mouth but I assume this is the part you refer to.
Possibly worse than useless. Like I said earlier in this thread, evidence against the conspiracy is eventually just rolled into the CT narrative to “strengthen” it. Then the CTers demand evidence of something else and do the same thing again.
Ah yes, this is true. I recall bringing up the Academic Index as strong evidence against the opponent’s position, to which he began to completely butcher up its meaning and interpret it as being a strong point in his favor instead.
If I recall, even the very study he cited – his own cite! – did not agree with the position he was taking, and yet he rolled it into his narrative anyway and acted as if it did.
So what? It is not a cabal. (For heaven’s sake, go look up the meaning of that word.)
It simply means that the military likes toys that they can get from industry and industry likes to make money building military toys, so they tend to work together toward the same end. They do not do it in secret. They do not plot to overthrow the government to make it happen. They do not do anything more than openly engage in the activities that they do well, lobbying Congress for the funds to carry out their programs. Ike merely noted that the government should be aware of the natural synergy of those institutions and try to avoid letting them have their way without question.
No plots. No secret societies. No shadow organizations that “really” run things.
Sure, the military-industrial complex can be said to exist, but it is all done out in the open. You are being silly.
Yeah, my words. My words say that you are ranting on for multiple pages with no idea what you are talking about and not the slightest shred of evidence for your claim (or that you even understand the issues). You do not understand eighteenth century political philosophy. You do not understand what it would take for some secret group to really control the world. You really have no idea even how to find evidence of your boogeymen.
Do you believe the nonsense printed in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion? Why or why not?.
For that matter, aside from slavishly following a couple of eighteenth century crackpots, why would you ever believe in the Illuminati (other than as a loose bunch of political thinkers whose organization was broken up over 200 years ago)?
