So, based on the juxtaposition of this statement and the one to which you linked, someone totally unknown to the entire world, who is neither intelligent nor competent, has managed to acquire the power to direct all the world’s activities, yet remain totally hidden from everyone including his (or her?) minions, despite the incompetence that he has displayed.
With that level of brilliant logic, I am beginning to see just why and how you have been holding on to your beliefs.
Your post is your cite. Got it.
Feigned incompetence.
And I wasn’t referring to the “incompetence that he has displayed”. I linked to a post that stated that there are “powerful men that are also incompetent”. To the highest level, they - “powerful men that are also incompetent” - are neither powerful nor competent.
Obligitory quote from Easy A:
Remember the royal we? Something like that.
You know how there are folks in Montana who believe that “they” have all the power and all the wealth and that “they” are doing this and that. “They” is singular not plural.
When I checked the history it is clear that there is no need for any other. Nor there is any good evidence for someone else.
Once again, no evidence of that.
And once again, as it seems you are missing the point, this kind of conspiracy theory is like the ones from the past that told many that sinister forces were behind the failure of a nation, while there is stability those theories only harm very few, but once chaos comes they are used by demagogues to control the population to do their bidding.
Just as many in Europe used the fake protocols of Zion, what I see is that with the also fake Illuminati theory is that current and future demagogues will give the title of “Illuminati” to any members of an elite that the demagogue considers them to be the enemy. That path, under unfortunate conditions that are not so farfetched to see in the future, leads to the worst acts that humanity can offer.
But your link ponted to this mysterious, unnamed character as the highest level. Now you are saying that your link meant something different than what you posted.
That is OK. Your whole need to see Conspiracy is just silly, anyway. You never did say why you have such a need to believe this nonsense.
However, I suspect that we have actually reached the end: you just have an odd need to believe that someone, somewhere is controlling the world–and using an extinct bunch of philosophers, who never had any power when they were alive, to do it.
If it makes you happy, I guess you aren’t hurting much more than the bandwidth sucked up to continue this discussion.
Did you notice what I said in the post about propaganda for the propagandists? You know what propaganda for the people is obviously. It is not so obvious, though, what propaganda for the propagandists would be. I’ll give you a hint: At the highest level it is not 1%, it is one person.
And what do they - the “Illuminati” - think of current (and future and past) demagogues (and of the 1% and of the 99%)?
Who is the enemy? Who indeed?
Illuminati, c’est moi.
No evidence at all of what you are claiming there about the Illuminati.
Meh, you are just like a follower of Discordianism then
Wilson would be proud, but the Illuminati remains a fairytale nowadays.
Demagogues too.
It’s not exactly a belief:
Let’s look at the evidence:
Neither do I.
It’s not this.
Or that.
It’s something like this.
Let’s analyze GIGObuster’s significant post.
GIGObuster refers to “current and future demagogues”. In this post I asked - What do they - the “Illuminati” - think of current (and future and past) demagogues (and of the 1% and of the 99%)? Then GIGObuster refers to “the title of ‘Illuminati’”. In this post I stated - At the lowest level is governments, at a higher level is the Illuminati, and at the highest level is someone - known to no one - manipulating the Illuminati for their own design. Manipulating the “elite” and manipulating “the demagouge” and manipulating everyone. Someone whose absence would be noticed.
Again, “evidence of X” does not mean your “evidence” is actually “evidence of X,” let alone real evidence at all.
You do not have “evidence of the Illuminati.” All the evidence is consistent with no Illuminati existing at all because everything can be explained in terms of things that we do know and have evidence for.
You’re consistently ignoring the notion that even if the Illuminati existed, they are doing a shitty job because their impact is indistinguishable from no impact at all. It’s an important point and you’ve been dodging it this entire thread.
Sorry Kozmik, but I can’t read this thread anymore. It is no longer funny.
You have made me very concerned for you, and I hope you have spoken with mental health professionals to examine why you feel the need to believe this nonsense.
But would you call belief in God nonsense? What about someone with a belief in a higher power?
Please stick to the topic. You’ve been avoiding questions and playing coy for several pages. If this continues the thread will probably be locked soon.
I’ll repeat it so you can’t ignore it/pretend you didn’t see it, Kozmik:
Ok. I’m sorry. I replied to DrFidelius’s with something off topic about God because his post really offended me and I wanted to tell him that people who believe in God do not need to speak with mental health professionals about that belief and, likewise, people who believe in a higher power or the Illuminati do not need to speak with mental health professionals about those beliefs either. I won’t mention anything in this thread about God again.
I should have ignored his post, but I didn’t. Again, I’m sorry.
I won’t ignore your post:
Indeed.
However, it is not always the case:
Their impact - the real attacks, not the ‘Israel did it/Bush let it happen/the buildings were full of thermite and the planes carried missiles’ nonsense - is not indistinguishable from no impact at all - - the real attacks.
I believe:
I think you misunderstand what I mean by impact.
Of course the real attacks had impact. I’m talking about, for instance, the guys out there who think the buildings were loaded with thermite or that Bush let it happen, etc. All of those paranoid theories are indistinguishable from nothing at all, because we can explain the real attacks without invoking stuff like thermite or Bush coverups or whatever such nonsense.
Same applies to the Illuminati. The analogy here is like you’re arguing that there’s evidence the buildings were loaded with thermite even though we don’t need thermite to explain the attacks or how things went down. It’s like you’re saying “here’s evidence of thermite!” when your “evidence” is not evidence of thermite at all but is best explained via other means which are far more consistent and likely.
Right.
How?
Same answer applies to both cases: We don’t need thermite/Illuminati/etc to explain.
We don’t need thermite to explain September 11, 2001 and we don’t the Illuminati to explain - what?