Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy
This topic is about The Orphan Conspiracies
244 views
NEW WORLD ORDER > Those Illuminati conspiracy theories just won’t go away

Comments Showing 1-50 of 129 (129 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jul 15, 2017 12:40AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:

Have you noticed how every incident of national importance that has a whiff of conspiracy about it is linked to the Illuminati?

In recent times, the secret society has even been linked to actor Robin Williams' tragic death (International Business Times, Aug. 18), to Katy Perry seeking to join the society (RollingStone, Aug. 2) to electric-pop trio London Grammar denying they are members of the society (The Independent, Aug. 7) and the list goes on...

Author Dan Brown’s 2003 mega bestseller The Da Vinci Code introduced many in the mainstream to the Illuminati, even though a thousand and one NWO theories had referred to this mysterious group well before the novel ever hit bookstore shelves.

But like the novel, the infamous Illuminati secret society is a mixture of fact and fiction. And probably more fiction than fact...We cover a lot of the Illuminati historical facts (in the 1700s) and lack of historical facts (in recent times) in our book The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy to support our opinion that there's very little hard evidence of the secret society existing today.

But please post your thoughts on how prevalent you believe the Illuminati really is. Do you agree the theories are either totally false or at least highly exaggerated? Or, did Dan Brown get it right in the likes of The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, The Lost Symbol and Inferno?

The Da Vinci Code (Robert Langdon, #2) by Dan Brown Dan Brown Angels & Demons (Robert Langdon, #1) by Dan Brown Inferno (Robert Langdon, #4) by Dan Brown The Lost Symbol (Robert Langdon, #3) by Dan Brown Origin (Robert Langdon, #5) by Dan Brown


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments There's been much written about the Illuminati in a historical context, and one needs to see them in the overview of a network of secret societies such as the Rosicrucians, Freemasons, The Bavarian Illuminati/The ancient Illuminati etc. I think it's just become a generic term for 'The Conspiracy', rather than 'The Illuminati' meaning much in itself any more.

It was good that Dan Brown's book brought it to the attention of the world, but perhaps people are unaware of how it simply ripped off the true investigative story Holy Blood Holy Grail. (As a friend of mine pointed out, even Dan Brown's character Teabing is an anagram of Holy Blood author Baigent!)

Also, are people aware of the book Bloodlines of The Illuminati? A good place to start, as well as David Icke's books. Even if he's not for you he has a lot of great, solid information in his early books, particularly in '...And The Truth Will Set You Free.'

All you've gotta do is read, read, read and study, study, study and forget the huge amount of YouTube type dross about the Illuminati out there, before you cast it into fact or fiction. For me, the one, great Conspiracy has been going on for thousands of years. Call it by what name you like.


message 3: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 23, 2014 04:05PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Hi Harry,

I agree with what you say about the Illuminati sometimes being used (either knowingly or unknowingly) as a generic term. And that's an interesting observation re Dan Brown's character Teabing and the link to Holy Blood, Holy Grail (I recall the authors of that book tried to sue Dan Brown). And yes David Icke does sometimes bring up some interesting facts among all his conjecture and rumor-filled writings.

However, my issue with the Illuminati term specifically relates to concept of the organization itself, not the generic definition you refer to. i.e. ever since Dan Brown's books brought The Illuminati to the mainstream awareness, many conspiracy theorists adamantly believe it's a fact the organization still exists and is in full swing. According to my research, and correct me if you know better, there's no hard evidence to suggest the organization itself still exists. Nor has there been any evidence for about a century or two!

So when certain authors and conspiracy theorists say things like Robin Williams' death was a sacrifice for The Illuminati, and then in the same book or article or post mention things like the Bavarian Illuminati and the early (and only) proven history of the Illuminati, I personally think it's obvious they are referring to the organization itself rather than a broad term to fit a larger conspiracy of various societies controlling the planet. Either that, or they mix the two (the specific usage of the term and the generic) to conveniently suit their argument.

But yes, when it comes to using the name to refer to some wider, overarching conspiracy then you are dead right - the term can make sense in that context. I just think in those instances people would be better off using another term - in The Orphan Conspiracies we sometimes use the term "global elite" as it avoids any confusion and puts distance from all the tinfoil hatters who shout "The Illuminati" at the drop of a hat. Also, rather than using some generic umbrella term to talk about dark things occurring in the world, it's more meaningful in my opinion for people to actually mention specific secret societies and real organizations (such at the Bilderberg Group, for example) that they believe are behind key events.

The term "the Illuminati" now comes loaded with sooooooo much BS and few in the mainstream (i.e. non-conspiracy theorists) take the name seriously at all.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Yes, I completely agree with you. You're right about the name 'The Illuminati' not being used in historical references for a very long time. (Although I do believe that some mind control victims and whistleblowers still refer to that name).

For me, 'The Conspiracy' has been around for a long time, and they have moved through different organisations and secret societies. If there is a one-world conspiracy, as I believe, then of course we won't know the actual name of it. It's a handful of people secretly ruling our world!

David Icke does a great job of connecting dots, following the money trail, the businesses, the people involved with 'The Conspiracy', from ancient Babylonian times, through to the Knights Templar, royal families, the Bavarian Illuminati and right up to our present day Bohemian Grovers and Bilderbergs, as you'll be aware. There is much 'evidence' -and, no, not 'proof'- that the same players and organisations have been in charge all along, and it's only the name and tactics that change.

When it comes to the YouTube Illuminati Generation- and especially, as you've mentioned before, Project Monarch, of course most of it's bulls***. People love to jump on bandwagons and believe there's conspiracy in everything, which only helps to devalue the true research that has been done by many devoted writers and researchers.

Some people love to bang on about conspiracies and the Illuminati purely for sensationalist purposes, which helps devalue the whole notion more and more, when there are those of us who simply treat it in the same way as anything else: research, study, conclude etc.- who are doing that because they want to expose the true evil that's secretly happening in this world. Some of us want Truth and Justice, not a million hits YouTube vid about bloody JayZ!

(Yes, they tried to sue Dan Brown- which shows how good lawyers with money are. Brown claimed he'd never even read Holy Blood Holy Grail, despite it being the equivalent of the popular sensationism that The Da Vinci Code was, a couple of decades previously- and anyone who's read Holy Blood KNOWS Brown had to have ripped it off! My mate's Teabing/Baigent observation has never been noted elsewhere as far as I know!)


message 5: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Hi Harry, you bring up some good points all round.
Maybe you should've saved that Teabing/Baigent observation for your next book!
And you're right about all those YouTube Illuminati videos being less about honest truthseeking and more about generating hits and going viral via sensationalism and celebrity adoration.

I think I read somewhere Dan Brown is the son of at 33rd Degree Freemason and some say he got his knowledge from his father. But as you imply, there certainly were some strong coincidences to Holy Blood, Holy Grail.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Cheers James.

I can't claim Teabing/Baigent as my own discovery, so I'm happy for that to just be out there!

Laurence Gardner's Bloodline Of The Holy Grail is also an interesting read, as it claims to follow family trees from Jesus's family to present day, though I'm not sure I trust all of Gardner's conclusions!


message 7: by Mikhayla (last edited Aug 25, 2014 05:51PM) (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments The Illuminati as a historic fact can be found in the work of Nest Webster along with quotes of Weishaupt. She also links the Illuminati to the quasi-Masonic occult orders that spread at that time, especially Germany. The Illuminati can be linked to the rise of Nazi Germany. The Nazi SS was a quasi-Masonic occult fraternity of "warrior monks," the "Black Order." When Intelligence agencies recruited Nazi War criminals under Project paperclip, these Nazis were set up with jobs at Radio Liberty, where even today they spew Illuminati conspiracy theory. The Illuminati is very real, along with their objective of a New World Order. This is after all the agenda of the Illuminati-Nazis. The ridiculous Illuminati conspiracy theories pointing allegations toward the global elite are spewed by the Illuminati themselves. The agenda of the Illuminati was to dismantle governments in order to replace the leadership positions with their own satanic leaders. Illuminati-New World Order conspiracy theorists are linked to Neo-Nazi, anti-government militias, and Terrorist acts like the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Illuminati is very real, but they are not the global elite. On the contrary, they are the Illuminati conspiracy theorists themselves. They do not care that they sound like nuts. The more nutty they sound, the less likely intelligent thinkers will explore the gross criminal acts attributed to the Illuminati. Ritual Abuse, MK-Ultra is linked to the Illuminati. Survivors will tell you that the Illuminati are responsible. Survivors are telling the truth. They are. The only thing they are missing is that the Illuminati are not the global elite generally, they are the Illuminati conspiracy theorists themselves, and David Ick is one of them. David Ick is not just a nut. He is an Illuminati propagandist. His toting around of the Survivor who was programmed to experience an alien abduction is enough evidence of that for me. Reptilian humanoids? Really? I suspect Ick knows very well the programming that creates these horrific memories in survivors. The abuse is real enough, the aliens are not.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments I agree with much of what you say, Mikhayla, but I've never understood the claim that Icke is a conspiracy propagandist himself. Back in the eighties/nineties, before the internet, he was practically the only person getting out the information that conspiracy researchers now refer to. (At least, in the U.K). He's endured so much ridicule over the years, and yet he still puts the info. out.

How do we know about Bohemian Grove, Cathy O'Brien, the links of secret societies through the money trails? Who was the first to mention the 9/11 conspiracy (in his book Alice In Wonderland and the World Trade Disaster) before anyone like Michael Moore took it up, and to the current day beliefs where half of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job?
If he is a propagandist, then I find it hard to understand why he'd be the first to put out this type of info, when this is the info that we now 'accept in conspiracy circles'. All of the Nazi connections you mention, I was first aware of because of him.

I guess I get fed up with in fighting in conspiracy circles. Obviously everyone has their own opinions, and because Icke combines spiritual beliefs with conspiracy beliefs, I understand it's hard for non-spiritual believers to take what he says seriously, but surely if (as I believe) there is a One Conspiracy, surely we should all be grateful for whoever's put that info out in the first place? It doesn't mean we have to agree with all that's said.

"Reptilian humanoids? Really?" you say. Sure- sounds crazy enough. Just as crazy as shamans seeing demons, Christians believing the world's run by Satan, Muslims believing in Jinn, people believing in aliens etc. My point being, there's always been similar beliefs in this world.

Just 'cos one may think Icke's more bizarre claims of reptilians etc. are ridiculous, he often gets overlooked for the factual work he's done, that spawned virtually everything on this discussion group.

As you say, "I suspect Icke knows very well the programming that creates the (false) memories in survivors". Yes, he does- he's written loads about mind control and false memory syndrome etc.
You also say the agenda of the Illuminati was to replace governments with satanic leaders- so: leaders who believe in devils then?


message 9: by Mikhayla (last edited Aug 29, 2014 11:53AM) (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments Harry,
Icke is far from being the first Illuminati conspiracy theorist. Move back in time to just after World War II; No, move back in time to the 1800's.
The Bohemian Gove is a crock spewed by Illuminati propagandists as well, and Cathy O'Brien is the mind-controlled sex slave of Mark Phillips.
Believing that 9/11 was an inside job is not necessarily a good thing for America. There is no evidence of that, despite the squibs. Perhaps the terrorists who did it might be interested in promoting this sort of propaganda. It's an equally, if not more likely possibility. A professional demolition, or no, this does not prove it was an inside job. If it was, well, so was the Oklahoma City bombing, and that would be considered Domestic Terrorism, and is also linked to Illuminati conspiracy theorist. McVeigh, was an Illuminati conspiracy theorist nut after all.
You will be more than just a little "fed up" with me. I make no bones about the very clear indicators that the Illuminati conspiracy theorists ARE the Illuminati propagandists.
As long as you brought up Icke's spiritual beliefs, let's go there. Icke praises the work of Madam Blavatsky. This is fascinating. Do you know Madam Blavatsky was responsible for spreading the quasi-Masonic occult orders which are intimately linked to the Illuminati and rise of Nazi Germany? Did you know it was Madam Blavatsky who brought the symbol of the swastika back with her from Tibet to be perverted? It would seem to me that Ickes "spirituality" is in question, given the tainted souls he is in bed with. You can believe what you want, as for me I'm not into following cult leaders blindly. I like to test their personal motive.
Ritual abuse survivors have come to realize that memories of alien abductions have been created with elaborate staging. The point of which is to discredit them when memories surface. These memories are not necessarily false then, are they? They are simply tampered with. The founders of MK-Ultra openly stated that the purpose of creating false memories was to "discredit subjects."
Yes, "leaders who believe in devils." Leaders within the Illuminati to be more precise, NOT the leaders they intend to dismantle, with perverted ridiculous lies and accusations of being in the Illuminati.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Hi Mikhayla,

I didn't mean to imply I was fed up with anything you said yourself- simply that there's so many factions within conspiracy circles these days, when surely anyone who believes this stuff (whether it's the factual conspiracies of dodgy politics in the vain of John Pilger/Noam Chomsky or the extremes of Icke) should be coming together. Divide and Rule tactics seem to be working in conspiracy circles as much as anywhere else! We should all be on the same side! :)

I had a brief look at your website/profile/book, so I can see that you're getting the information out, so I thank you for that, and I'll look at your stuff in more detail soon.

So- a few points in response:

There's a mountain of stuff on the internet about Icke being a Theosophist, and yet nowhere has Icke claimed this himself. To quote him from his 'Global Conspiracy' book:

"Count Saint Germain...is a central figure in the beliefs in a 'Great White Brotherhood' of 'Ascended Masters' guiding humanity. This is...promoted by the Theosophical Society of Helena Blavatsky, but 'bollocks' is the word that comes to mind."

I guess I feel the need to stand up for Icke, seeing as I started reading his work twenty years ago- when he was only into spirituality and not conspiracy. The first book in which he mentions the reptilian conspiracy was far into his career (Children of the Matrix) and the book doesn't even mention Blavatsky. His main sources were Credo Mutwa and Arizona Wilder- and personally I don't trust her as a source.
Man, I remember the days when Icke was playing to two people in a village hall. (Seriously!) Personally I'm proud to see him now being able to sell out Wembley. I've yet to come across any credible reason for Icke being 'in on it'. (And I didn't mean to imply he was the first theorist- there's Robert Anton Wilson etc. etc. -only that Icke's the one that's put all the threads together.)

9/11: There's an absolute ton of evidence it was an inside job, but not proof. (The government flying Bin Laden's family out of the country in no-go air space the very day after the attack, the U.S ties with Saudi Arabia, Norad being forewarned and doing nothing to stop it- just like Pearl Harbour etc.)

Cathy O'Brien is Mark Phillips sex slave? This one's new to me. Please let me know any further info you have on that. I find it hard to believe seeing as he was the one that 'saved' her and how they've been trying to get court trials and Cathy being the first to come out as a mind controlled slave. But, seriously, if you know otherwise about that, would love to know.

Bohemian Grove: well, we've got Alex Jones' video footage, but obviously what is actually going on is up for debate. People of power wearing hooded gowns attending a weird Babylonian stage show of sacrifice seems pretty odd to me!

I must admit, I'm a little confused with your own beliefs about the Illuminati. Do you think the Illuminati themselves are into esoteric stuff/devil worship or not? Just trying to gauge your opinion on that side of things.

I don't mean to run my mouth off, but replying to you in an open forum at least helps other people investigate things their own way.

At the end of the day, we all just want truth, justice and a better world. Personally I think anyone who believes in any type of One World Conspiracy- be it simply bankers and oil merchants or the crazy Icke stuff- need to come together for the greater good. I mean, EVERYONE believes politics is corrupt after all!

Best wishes to you Mikhayla. I'll check out more of your stuff soon.


message 11: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 30, 2014 09:14AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Harry wrote: "People of power wearing hooded gowns attending a weird Babylonian stage show of sacrifice seems pretty odd to me!"


You're right, it's bloody odd, Harry!
If these people weren't our elected officials who WE THE PEOPLE put into power, then they could do whatever they want and run around naked in their Bohemian Grove forests like whackos...But we have a right to know. Period.

Everything must be disclosed. Until that happens, the public will never trust politicians again as the masses have woken up now...



message 12: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments Harry,

Thank you for your open conversation,

My first inclination that Illuminati conspiracy theorist ARE the Illuminati spewing propaganda begins with the fact that the Nazi war criminals who immigrated to America after WWII, with the blessings of the CIA, were set up with jobs at Radio Liberty. Radio Liberty is a prime example of a place you can find Illuminati conspiracy theories, with blatant Nazi overtones. No, wait, my FIRST inclination is the fact that my own family got into Illuminati conspiracy theories, and are involved in the organization that uses children as test subjects in their sadistic experiments (MK-Ultra).

Yes, I’m looking for the truth, but it became clear somewhere along the line that the truth is hidden in “chaos magic” but it is also “In Plain Sight.” It would be so nice if we could just all be on the same side, except that the Illuminati works by being infiltrators. The Illuminati are in virtually every group. They are weeds. There are more weeds in conspiracy theory groups, and Christian congregations, than any other. The purpose for infiltrating conspiracy theory groups should be obvious. They need to cloud the facts and make sure the facts that might expose them remain hidden from the masses. How better to do this than to pose as a conspiracy theorist and spew crap that is not just easy to discredit, but nutty.

Your addition regarding Icke supports my point… ‘Great White Brotherhood.’ Yes, ‘bollocks’ indeed.

9/11: I’m not convinced that 9/11 was not an inside job, but neither am I convinced that it is, and pointing fingers as though we know the facts is not productive in any way. Demanding an open investigation is one thing; assuming theories to be facts is quite, a dangerous, other.

I wrote a book review on TRANCE Formation, but I will need to write it again… Mark was NOT the one who ‘saved’ Cathy. He just said he was, and she agrees. He was a hypnotist, a con, stating he has resources within the CIA. His methods for ‘curing’ her are not just methods of mind control but his sources are concerning. Dr. Milton Erickson was a specialist in hypnosis who was sexually inappropriate. Once he asked his female client to strip naked. William S. Kroger was a specialist in hypnosis and a gynecologist / obstetrician. He used hypnosis as an ‘anesthesia,’ demonstrated in breast surgery. There are pain holders that dissociate, but the pain remains. He was consulting editor of “The Journal of Sex Research.” He worked with the FBI. The methods Mark describes in his ‘deprogramming’ of Cathy are precisely the methods of mind control. Isolation, hypnosis… I was very interested in a comment others might have missed. The first morning after Cathy’s ‘rescue’ Mark kisses Cathy’s forehead and says, “Wake up Sleeping Beauty.” They acknowledge the use of children’s stories themselves in mind control. Guess where I recognized this line within the context of mind control? Try reading “Secret Weapons: Two Sisters’ Terrifying True Story of Sex, Spies and Sabotage.” This line prompts a sleeper agent to surface. It is more likely that Cathy is a sleeper agent being used by Mark Phillips to spew propaganda. The lies they tell are numerous, insulting to survivors and politically dangerous. Every Senator, every president, and half a dozen Nashville country singers are perpetrators and cocaine addicts or sex slaves? NOT! They twist facts in perverse ways too numerous to mention here. My book review is in the works.

Bohemian Grove is an exclusive club, like a sort of camp. There is ‘feasting and revelry,’ so what? They show plays. The owl is their mascot, so what? Homophobe, and Christian fanatic, Alex Jones claims “cult members… thank their deity,” and sacrifice infants. Those are the words of Alex Jones, and have nothing whatsoever to do with facts. There may have been many who have seen the play Dracula too. That doesn’t make them vampires. Try reading Them, by Jon Ronson.

Yes, I believe the Illuminati are very evil, Satanists, responsible for crimes beyond human imagination, but I believe they are an underground criminal organization, just as they always have been. They are not aliens or the global elite. It would be more useful to think of them of a Nazi mafia, and homegrown terrorists. Yes, there will be Illuminati leaders in positions of power. Their goal of world domination is as real as it was when Hitler took the world by storm. They could easily rise to power again. To avoid this I would keep a close eye on the Tea Party if I were you. Think Nazi. Calling Obama an Illuminati Satanist, Muslim, who wasn’t born in America, and hates America are poisonous lies and propaganda, and may be all that they need to dismantle a good president and raise up their next Hitler. They want to impeach a good president, FOR WHAT, all the lies they have accused him of?

I don’t believe politics are corrupt. I believe there are politicians who are corrupt. Weed them, but we need to be very careful that we don’t weed the food and flowers. Personally, I would start with Boehner and the Koch brothers.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue,

Mikhayla


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Thanks for taking the time to reply Mikhayla.

I completely agree that the Illuminati have fingers in all of the pies, and that they have infiltrated conspiracy research as much as anywhere else, but it does leave us in a Kafka type world where everyone's discrediting everyone else. Personally, I feel that people working for The Conspiracy/Illuminati have tried to discredit David Icke, seeing as anyone who reads his books knows he's all about love, truth and freedom. He used to be labelled as an anti-Semite, now he's labelled as a Theosophist or even having a coke habit. Any such stuff is abundant on internet forums, and yet nowhere is there ANY evidence, let alone proof, whatsoever. My quote from Icke was HIM saying Blavatsky and all was bollocks.
I probably have a different reaction to Icke, being from the U.K, rather than elsewhere in the world, because I remember the days when he was a humble footballer and have seen the immense public humiliation he's suffered over the years. I remember seeing a documentary where Jon Ronson said to David Icke: "When you say it isn't a Jewish conspiracy, is that code for 'it's a Jewish conspiracy?'" You can't win! But enough about Icke- I just want to highlight that there is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever that he's part of the sick game. Just because some conspiracy theorists etc. may be propagandists, doesn't mean they all are- otherwise, we could point the finger at ourselves and James and Lance Morcan!

9/11: as I said, there's loads of evidence but no, not proof. Yes, an open investigation is needed.

I've never extensively researched Alex Jones himself, so it's new to me that he's homophobic. Bohemian Grove: just a fraternity type club? Yes, the footage is of a stage show, not an actual sacrifice, but the stage show does show an effigy being burned, and there is a lot of unknown ancient language being used throughout 'the show'. I don't necessarily believe they're actually sacrificing at the Grove, but it's not exactly in the same light as going to a performance of Dracula. I've not read 'Them' by Ronson, so thanks for the heads up. Will do.

It's a very good point you make that politics isn't corrupt, but politicians are. Yes, I should have been clearer in that distinction myself.

If the Illuminati are 'satanists' as you believe, and that they infiltrate every group going, as I also believe, then isn't it possible they're 'in' Bohemian Grovers, and isn't it possible that if they serve 'satan', then they believe supernatural demons are very real and are the actual masters- exactly in the way that Icke believes, only he calls them 'reptilians'?

The whole Cathy O'Brien thing I find confusing, simply because it was her and Mark Phillips who brought the now commonly held notion of mind controlled slaves to public awareness, but it sounds like you know a lot more about this than me. Regardless, as you're obviously very aware yourself, sick ritual abuse and mind control IS prevalent, so I guess for me, that's the more important bit rather than the ins and outs of specifics, but I will certainly look at the whole thing in more detail and look forward to reading your Trance review.

I appreciate that it's something personal to you, and I can't imagine what you must have been through yourself, so once again, thanks for getting the info. out.

Keep the comments coming!

My very best wishes to you,

Harry.


message 14: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments Harry,
The thing that must be carefully considered is this: Conspiracy theorist make horrible nightmarish accusations with nothing more than wisps of imagination, shadows and illusion, to support them, and the consequence is mass hysteria, and those who are so convinced that they carry torches. It is as important to be as critical of those conspiracy theorists who have nothing but storyline to support their story, as it is to support those with legitimate cases that support the accounts of survivors. The research of intelligent investigative journalists is vital, and so is silencing the propagandists who have nothing but hateful propaganda and lies. Political "patriots" who hate our president, and the Queen of England based on the lies of Illuminati conspiracy theorists for example. If the president deserves to be impeached, than impeach him, but they should be expected to come up with a better reason than that he is a high ranking Illuminati member and a Muslim who hates America. Accusations that the Queen of England is an Illuminati elite, reptilian humanoid and drug dealer (as promoted by Icke) is an aggressive politically motivated attack, for which evidence is rightfully expected. This ridiculous lies serve only to discredit those who are hoping to convince the public that the Illuminati is still an active threat; people like me.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Couldn't agree more Mikhayla. Any conspiracy theory needs to be looked at in the same way as anything else: rumours and claims that can't be backed up aren't worth listening to. Evidence, however, needs to be viewed as such and debated. It is then up to the individual studying such things to arrive at their own conclusions, in the way that a jury would weigh up the evidence in, say, a murder case.

There's an abundance of evidence- no, not proof, regarding the British royal family having ties to the 'Illuminati', and that is what Icke has put out. Yes, he's come to his own conclusions, but he never asks anyone to blindly believe without weighing up the evidence for themselves. Just read his books.
The reptilian thing re; the royal family came from Arizona Wilder's claims (and other sources that Icke mentions) that she performed ritual sacrifices for the royal family/saw them shapeshift. And Icke has shown the family tree bloodlines of the Windsors (an adopted name to hide their German heritage) tying in with other 'known' Illuminati bloodlines such as the Merivognians, that can be traced back to having links with secret societies for hundreds of years.
Things like our Prime Minister David Cameron being a cousin of the queen are never reported. Exposed paedophile Jimmy Saville being a personal friend of the queen and having Christmas dinner at her personal residence a dozen times is also little known. It is this type of EVIDENCE that Icke puts out. (And he's never claimed the queen is a drug dealer).

I do not blindly believe anything. I look at the information, see where it's come from, how reliable it is, how it fits into the greater picture, and what the motives are behind it. Having done that with Icke's work (and, no, I don't believe everything he says, as that is a wrong mindset to have) I have to agree with what he says in the majority.
There is never ANY hate from him, unlike the people who try to discredit him.
As the title of one of David Icke's books says: Infinite Love Is The Only Truth. He is an ambassador for peace and truth, as I believe we should all be trying to be.


message 16: by James, Group Founder (last edited Sep 08, 2014 01:18PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Hi Harry & Mikhayla,

I find it hard to believe David Icke could be a disinfo agent. I have also recently been accused of being such an individual i.e. secretly working for the Illuminati...Which I found pretty funny when I first heard about it...Almost every alternative-thinking author has been accused of such things, I guess...

Of course I could be wrong about Icke and if anyone in this group has verifiable evidence of his affiliations with the global elite, then I'm all ears...

But Icke has been through so much public humiliation in the UK that it seems very unlikely he could be working for "the bad guys". Afterall, why would they secretly hire him then orchestrate mass ridicule via the media? Once somebody is mocked or criticized to that extent by the press, it is very hard if not impossible for that person or his/her ideas to ever be taken seriously by the masses again. The amount of damage control needed to overcome the level of ridicule Icke faced and continues to face would be a bridge too far for even the best PR specialist...So on the surface at least that seems to contradict the "Icke is an Illuminati puppet" theory. But again, feel free to point me toward any evidence to the contrary that shows he's been working as some undercover agent all along.

My thinking is the global elite don't care much about anyone or anything UNLESS it hits the mainstream popular consciousness (like the Occupy movement successfully did). Until certain concepts and theories are broadcast far and wide to the masses like the Occupy Movement's messages were, then it really doesn't matter to the elite. Therefore in my opinion all this talk of little-known conspiracy authors either working for the Illuminati or else being killed or silenced in other ways seems to stretch credibility in most instances. It probably does happen occasionally, but nowhere near as much as conspiracy theorists like to believe.

I don't mind Icke overall and read a couple of his books a few years ago and I agree with Harry that Icke probably is working toward what he believes is for the good of the planet. However, as his career went on he has relied more and more on rumors and less and less on facts (and he rarely reveals his sources on his most controversial theories - as a reader you are just expected to trust him and make regular "leaps of faith" that his books require of you).
This YouTube video of Jesse Ventura meeting David Icke and asking him to provide proof or facts or ANY supporting evidence whatsoever about his reptilian theories is an example of what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg_3c...

For the record, I thought the macho Ventura was a little bit hard on him and possibly approached the interview in the wrong way. Plus Ventura is more of a black and white thinker and probably not open minded enough to stop to consider Icke's theories which involve quantum physics, other dimensions, parrallel universes etc. On the other hand, Ventura still gave Icke ample opportunity to mention what evidence he had to support his reptilian theories and Icke failed to come up with anything at all and finally walked out of the interview. And maybe Ventura did actually approach this interview in the right spirit given the history of the theory he was investigating... Afterall, most or all reptilian theories about politicians originate with David Icke and many others have since regurgitated them as if such theories are supported by a mountain of evidence. So either Icke got tongue tied in the heat of the moment with Ventura, or all he has to support his argument about the world's leaders being reptiles are his own personal beliefs...

Due to some of his more "out-there" theories like politicians actually being shapeshifting reptilian lizards, Icke is therefore moving further and further away from the mainstream and the global elite would hardly be likely to view him as a legitimate threat. He certainly does have a degree of fame, especially in the UK, but much of that is probably more infamy (primarily due to the much talked about British TV show he was mocked on in the 1990s). Let's face it, the man himself is much better known to the masses than are any of the theories he writes about.

Factual whistleblowers like Julian Assange - yes he's a definite threat to the elite - but not Icke who is viewed by most (rightly or wrongly) as being on the crackpot fringes of society. None of this assessment is to say David Icke's theories are wrong. Nor is it to ignore Icke's dedicated cult following around the world. But the fact remains he is not reaching the mass populace and by Icke's own recent admission, he recognized that you cannot generally influence the masses unless covered by mainstream media. That was why he said he recently set up and partly financed his own UK television channel - but that failed to stay on air due to internal disputes apparently.

For me though guys, this whole discussion thread all comes back to whether the Illuminati is actually still in operation in this era...Or even if it has operated at all in the last 200 years...Again, there is no absolute proof that I have come across (and correct me if I am wrong) that it has survived and most of the so-called evidence about the Illuminati is shaky at best...So if the Illuminati no longer exists and is more a myth, then conspiracy theorists would be wise to start using another term for the elite ruling class. By continuing to use the word Illuminati it heavily implies a direct link/lineage to the only factual and historically proven Illuminati group in Bavaria, Germany of the late 1700s.

Dr. Richard Spence, Professor of History at the University of Idaho in the USA, is one of the world's foremost experts on the history of secret societies and I get the sense his extensive research also indicates the modern Illuminati references lack any recent historical facts to support them.

We were fortunate enough to get Dr. Spence to write an afterword for The Orphan Conspiracies and this is what he wrote about the Illuminati:

"Maybe the most dangerous thing about the “Illuminati” isn’t that such a master cabal has ever existed, but that some people believe it should and wreak havoc under the delusion they run the world."

I think that's an intriguing counter theory and should be thrown into the mix of possibilities. Maybe none of these secret societies run the world, or maybe in some cases they don't even exist anymore like the Illuminati perhaps, but certain people try to act it out on the world stage anyway...For example, I've heard Henry Kissinger loves to promote his New World Order idealogies in private talks (and perpetuate the idea that he and his Bilderberg cronies completely rule the world) even though many of Kissinger's contemporaries or even senior leaders above him apparently think his theories are a load of hogwash. Likewise, maybe some conspiracy theorists may inadvertantly be part of this illusory game by being super fearful of the MINORITY ruling elite and stating or implying we are all doomed, instead of recognizing that we "the people" are the 99% and can take absolute power anytime we decide to...

If say 5 million people in a mass protest rock up to the White House or the Pentagon and demand certain actions like ending wars or stopping bank bailouts, could "they" suppress that many? And if 5 million people demanded to walk inside the White House or the Pentagon or the CIA HQ, could anyone kill or otherwise stop that many innocent citizens???

I'm not saying I know the answers to those hypothetical questions, but I just don't think the answers are the no-brainer some would have us believe when they state or imply it's impossible to overpower regimes. Revolutions have happened throughout history and will continue to. Corrupt governments can either be toppled or restructed by their citizens who afterall hold the true power (due to their numbers).

I mean, surely there has to be a limit to the power of the 1% and maybe some who promote certain fear-based conspiracies exaggerate the elite's abilities while underestimating people power.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments James said: "This whole discussion thread all comes back to whether the Illuminati is actually still in operation in this era...Or even if it has operated at all in the last 200 years...Again, there is no absolute proof that I have come across."

O.K, to get things back on track to the topic of this thread, here's a brief summary of facts about the Illuminati taken from Robert Anton Wilson's book 'Everything Is Under Control':

"(Historically), the Illuminati were founded by Freemason Adam Weishaupt in 1776 and (disbanded) when they were banned as a group by the Bavarian government in 1785.

Many conspiracy hunters following Abbe Barruel believe the Illuminati merely regrouped under other front names after 1785 and still continues to this present...
According to Masonic historian Albert G. Mackley, the Illuminati...had at least 2,000 members in Masonic lodges (throughout Europe).
...Abbe Barruel linked the Illuminati positively to the Order of Assassins, the Knights Templar and a worldwide Jewish plot.

Both Daraul's 'History of Secret Societies' and Nesta Webster's 'World Revolution' mention a revived Illuminati group in Paris in the 1880s. (Though there are arguments over whether this was a copycat organisation or not).

(There was also) the Order of the Illuminati founded by Freemasonic druggist Theodor Reuss in Munich in 1880. This was joined by actor Leopold Engel, who founded his own World Leauge of Illuminati in Berlin in 1893.
In 1896, Reuss, Engel and occultist Franz Hartmann co-founded the Theosophical Society of Germany, and in 1901 Engel and Reuss produced or forged a charter giving them authority over the re-established Illuminati of Weishaupt. Also in 1901, Reuss, Hartmann and metallurgist Karl kellner founded the Ordo Templi Orientis and appointed William Wynn Westcott (of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) Regent of England.
(Around) 1912, Reuss conferred the ninth degree of the Ordo Templi Orientis upon (well known occultist and Satanist) Aleister Crowley.
In 1934, the Gestapo forcibly suppressed both the Order of the Illuminati and the Ordo Templi Orientis in Germany- along with all other Freemasonic orders and lodges. The Ordo Templi Orientis survived elsewhere, but the Illuminati as an occult order only seem to exist in Switzerland at present.(1998 at time of writing)."

So, it all very much depends on your take as to whether later 'incarnations' of the original Illuminati are the same thing or not. What seems more important than debating over the name 'Illuminati'- and does it still exist?, is the factual evidence that most secret societies stemmed from one another, and had/have the same players taking part. (Just look at our current world of presidents belonging to all of the same secret societies of Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove and the Biderberg Group for instance).
It's clear that Freemasonry alone had a huge part to play in the Bavarian Illuminati and later orders. Freemasons set up these organisations- which isn't to then point the finger and say 'Oh, right, it's The Freemasons who are ruling the world!' because they themselves can be traced back to the ancient times of King Solomon and ancient Egypt. (As is reffered to in a plethora of books, such as The Messianic Legacy where the authors link Freemasonry with Knights Templar, Opus Dei, the Vatican, the CIA, the KGB and the Mafia- or the book The Hiram Key where Freemasonry's ancient ties are exposed.)

If there is a One Conspiracy Group who has been in control for hundreds/thousands of years, then of course they're going to weave through one organisation to another- leaving us stupid people to debate 'What's in a name?' when they're getting away with (literal) murder.

Robert Anton Wilson's sources:
Encyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert G Mackey (1966)
History of Secret Societies by Akron Daraul (1961)
Magik by Aleister Crowley (1973)
The Illuminoids: Secret Societies and Political Paranoia (1978)


message 18: by James, Group Founder (last edited Sep 04, 2014 02:56AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Hi Harry,

I am totally with you that there is some kind of NWO type conspiracy happening (in one form or another) and it is very important to expose that to the masses. We are on the exact same page there, mate. That's the purpose of this group in fact, to help in our own small, humble way by discussing important issues that relate to trying to create a fairer world with equality and greater distribution of wealth.

However, I feel it is very important in that aim to differentiate whether we (and all those other writers and theorists who mention the word 'Illuminati') are talking about the organization and its verifiable offshoots or just some vague code word for a ruling elite or NWO. Otherwise, there is a very real danger of mixing apples with oranges and therefore deceiving casual readers (either purposefully or inadvertantly, depending on the morality of the author) into believing that certain powerful individuals of our era are working for a direct continuation of the Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt's short-lived society in Bavaria.

If it's the not same group, then I cannot understand why some authors still persist calling the global elite or the powers-that-be the "Illuminati" when it allows any scholar, historian or even 1st year history student the ability to belittle or debunk their theories due to the ambiguous or confused usage of the name.
Outside of some conspiracy circles, there is simply zero credibility left in that word anymore and most mainstream or non-conspiracy thinkers will instantly dismiss any talk of the Illuminati. Essentially the name has become a big joke to the masses and in the media (and that's not without due cause when you consider all the crackpot YouTubers who try to say every major celebrity and politician is secretly working for the Illuminati).

All the sources that I have read after 1785 (including the ones you list above from Robert Anton Wilson) are highly speculative and remain totally unproven.
For example, you're absolutely right that Albert G. Mackey recorded that those original Illuminati members in Weishaupt's organization did in fact become members of other Masonic lodges throughout Europe...But don't forget Weishaupt and most or all of his followers were ex-Freemasons (beforehand) and therefore it makes perfect sense that after their Illuminati group ended they'd rejoin Masonic lodges (after all, they had to go somewhere, right?). So according to what I read on those who have analyzed Mackey's writings, none of his references to what happened to ex-Illuminati members meant that he knew for a fact that the organization itself continued (underground and stealthly) beyond 1785.

Another of Robert Anton Wilson's sources was Abbe Barruel...
Hmmmmm...Um, where to begin...
Abbe Barruel's ideas of the Illuminati sound a little crackpot in my opinion and he's hardly a worthy source given he had an agenda (which is something you always need to look out for especially with authors/historians pre 20th Century as they often had a serious religious or political agenda). Admittedly, I have not read Barruel's works, but I do know he was linked to the now proven anti-Semitic forgery called 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and was a notorious anti-Semite of the era and blamed the Jewish people for everything. And if it's true what Wilson said that Barruel linked the Illuminati to "a worldwide Jewish plot" (which wouldn't surprise me) then that sounds like the exact same mistake that those peoples who fell for fascist ideologies made pre WW2... And remember at that time (i.e. 1920s and 1930s) the word Illuminati was almost solely used in Europe to mean a Jewish conspiracy - all claptrap designed to bring about anti-Semitic legislation - which worked beautifully, as you know, with the Nazis sweeping into power.

I recommend this excellent article by the UK newspaper The Guardian which mentions how the early disjointed pieces of the Illuminati myth can be traced back to the French Revolution and how Abbe Barruel blamed the Jews entirely and incorporated the legendary Knights Templar in amongst his anti-Semitic ramblings: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002...

Wilson also mentions the Theosophical society in relation to so-called Illuminati outfits of the late 19th century, but the Theosophical Society was a classic example of a group who loved building themselves up by saying they descended from numerous ancient orders (including the Illuminati and other far older groups). So I'm not sure we can treat their claims too seriously at all, especially as the Theosophists were more of a religious group and other-worldly and the original Illuminati were more political or revolutionary or practical. Many such groups say they are re-establishing older orders, but that's often more about advertising rather than anything serious.

As Dan Brown himself wrote in Angels & Demons: “It means that when organized philosophies like the Illuminati go out of existence, their symbols remain...available for adoption by other groups. It’s called transference. It’s very common in symbology. The Nazis took the swastika from the Hindus, the Christians adopted the cruciform from the Egyptians”.

Whatever your opinion of Dan Brown and his works are, you'd have to admit this passage needs to be considered when analyzing ancient symbols in more modern groups.

Likewise, when you state Freemasonry can be traced back to the ancient times of King Solomon and ancient Egypt, that is still a theory in my opinion. You may well be right (in fact, if I had to guess I'd say you are right about Freemasonry), but it's still important to keep looking at things with a skepitcal mind and always playing the Devil's Advocate (while retaining open mindedness).

So although I agree all the clues and symbols and signs surrounding these more modern secret societies seem to indicate they DIRECTLY descend from ancient orders, we don't know for sure that it's not just the "transference" phenomenon that Dan Brown mentioned.

I do agree however, that the Gestapo banning the group the Order of the Illuminati is probably the strongest piece of evidence to support conspiracy theorists claims about the Illuminati surviving beyond 1785. I seem to recall though that most researchers believe the Order of the Illuminati/the Ordo Templi Orientis simply took the Illuminati name for sensationalism and little appeared to link them to the Illuminati of the late 18th Century.


So if we can agree at least that while there may be some circumstantial evidence here and there to support the possibility of the real Illuminati surviving beyond 1785, there are still no facts or hard evidence to suggest they still exist in our era.

Which means all we know for sure is there are elitists or powerful people who do terrible things in this world like getting away with murder - literally - as you say.
But the thing is, how do we know all those elitists are united? Using the name Illuminati heavily implies these elite rulers are all together and on the same page (like Adam Weishaupt's original members were). And that's another big problem I have with its usage. This term and concept allows for no nuances like for example there being much infighting in the various networks of the global elite.
Nor does the term and concept of the "Illuminati" give the impression that there could be numerous organizations/societies/agencies (some secretive, some not) who all have different and even opposing agendas.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments James said: "It's still important to keep looking at things with a skepitcal mind and always playing the Devil's Advocate (while retaining open mindedness)."

Absolutely mate! And I thank you for detailing more about the information/quote I included in my above post.
As you say, there is a real danger of people blindly believing things without researching them themselves, and I have no way of knowing if modern-ish groups calling themselves offshoots of the Bavarian Illuminati
are so or not.
For me, it's about looking at the people involved with all these groups, looking at the money trails, the bloodline families etc. because we'll never agree on a One Name.
Sure, any scholar needs to be distinctive between one group and another, and there is much BS on YouTube and elsewhere these days of people using the word Illuminati as though it's fact, when it's not. As I said before, for me, it's just become a generic term for 'The Conspiracy'. Maybe it shouldn't be. But whatever word one uses: Global Elite, New World Order, Freemasons, Illuminati... will always be debunked as the word stemming from a certain point in time.

Abbe Barruel: yep, a dodgy piece of work. I was only citing Robert Anton Wilson's sources, not backing them up! The whole Priory of Sion thing was very dangerous, and I'm in no way saying 'there's a Jewish plot'. Having said that, I think the Protocols of the Priory of Sion aren't as easily confirmed as being an absolute hoax (although they probably were), but because any mention of Jewish people being involved in a conspiracy is the last great taboo, because it could be seen as being anti-semitical, it does mean researchers tend to just leave it all alone. I think that disinformation (as the Protocols probably were) can sometimes be seen as evidence towards it being a part of the conspiracy!
If there is One Group in control, they'll try to cover their tracks by any means- including putting out propaganda and lies- and truths- to make it nearly impossible for any academic researcher to prove anything one way or another. That's the bloody problem conspiracy theorists face in trying to get out their research.


message 20: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments No worries, Harry. I wasn't implying you were anti-Semitic, but sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Just meant Robert Anton Wilson citing Abbe Barruel hardly inspires me with confidence in his sources.

But yeah, basically I think you and I are on the same page and fighting the good fight.

So how about a truce? I offer you my hand (etherically) for an Illuminati/Masonic handshake!


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Ah, I didn't think you meant that- just wanted to make myself clear! Cheers James.
Yep- a handshake it is- you do know that special Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Conspiracy Theorist handshake, yeah?


message 22: by James, Group Founder (last edited Sep 05, 2014 09:19PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Welcome to the Illuminati, brother!
Congratulations, you are now in the 1% and have left the 99%...But don't tell anyone as the organization needs you to be a disinfo agent.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Hellelujah brother!

I should have also been more clear that Robert Anton Wilson wasn't endorsing his sources or presenting them as proof in the quote in the post above.


message 24: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments I feel it is important to remind people that the Illuminati were not Freemasons. They infiltrated the Freemasons in order to utilize the cloak of another group and they perverted the Masonic rites. The Illuminati were not the global elite in 1776, it was their objective to dismantle the elite, so why are we allowing them to move in the direction of dismantling the elite, by pointing to the elite and claiming that they are the Illuminati? The Illuminati were, and are, an underground criminal organization, not the global elite, although they do aspire to these positions.

When people (like Ike) talk of money trails and bloodline families they stand out as propagandists to me. What money trail? What would a money trail mean? My family is bloodline. Using the term bloodline to imply that there is some sort of right to an Illuminati elite thrown is not just bunk, but completely unsubstantiated bunk. Bloodline, implies that one is from a generational aspect of the cult. It is very exclusive, you are either born into it, or you marry into it, and it's not all the glitz and glamor of being among the ruling class. The generational aspect makes it impossible, or nearly impossible, to escape, and children begin the process of being indoctrinated through torture from day one. Bloodline may well imply being from Germanic decent. I am.

The Illuminati are linked to anti-Semitism both historically and in the present day. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were a hoax intended to create anti-Semitism. They were largely copied from the book by Maurice Joly, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu. Both were modeled after the Illuminati, but the Illuminati were not even close to being a Jewish conspiracy group. On the contrary, they would not allow a Jew to be a member.

If there is some consistency regarding people in positions of power being members of the Illuminati I might vote for such figures as Allen Dulles, Ewen Cameron, and Michael Aquino, as being likely members. Presidents who have been accused of being Illuminati have not even been aware of the atrocities being committed by theses criminals with too much power. I wouldn't point at presidents. I would point at those with secret power, in the military and especially intelligence.

The Bohemian Grove, does not in anyway incriminate anyone who attends. So the wealthy get together, eat, play, and watch a theatrical event, so what. The Bilderberg Group does not incriminate anyone who attends. The topics almost always include a movement toward world peace and the actions of those who attend move to cooperation between other countries. There is no reason to assume the worse.

The most useful way to look at the Illuminati are to consider them an underground criminal organization that rules by trauma, fear, and lies. I would add the word Nazi to them, in every instance. It explains quite well what they are about and is constantly linked to the word historically, and presently, every inch of their journey.

I look forward to the day that the mass media, and the public, recognize the threat and take up arms against them, with a rational clear understanding of who they are. To do that we will need Homeland Security, FEMA, and our police force. It doesn't surprise me that these organizations are so attacked by Illuminati conspiracy theorists.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Mikhayla, we seem to agree on much more stuff than what we disagree with, and we're both working towards the same thing: TRUTH. For me, there is a One Conspiracy Group who have weaved their way through secret societies, governments, banking etc. (inc. Illuminati, Freemasons etc.) For you, you believe the Illuminati put people in positions of powers within these organisations, but aren't yet ruling. So, I'm just saying- let's look at the people involved more than the name of secret societies which any researcher will find hard to back up with evidence to simply claim: 'It's the Illuminati' or 'It's the Freemasons.'

Let me be clear about 1) Money trails and 2) Bloodlines.

1) should be apparent. Following money trails to see who financed what, who profits from war etc. is one of the best ways to see what people are on what side and what their true motives are. 'Who profits?' is always the question to ask. So, in modern times, this can be seen with things like the U.K were still financing Assad well into the beginning of the Syrian war- just as the U.K and U.S used to finance and support Saddam Hussein in the late seventies/early eighties. Or how about Michael Moore showing how the U.S and Saudi Arabia governments are linked by money and therefore agendas? The list goes on and on.
Rothchilds, Rockerfellers, Bushs- key players in 'the conspiracy' partially because we're able to follow the fingers they've had in all the pies. Here's a quote from David Icke's first conspiracy book Robots Rebellion:

"Among the financial backers of the Nazis were the German chemical giant I.G. Farben, among whose directors were Max and Paul Warburg who ran banks in Germany and the U.S. The Warburgs were instrumental in starting the American Federal Reserve System and...Max Warburg was...a source of funds for Lenin and the communist revolution of Russia! The Bank of Manhattan was a Warburg bank, and one of its directors, H.A.Metz, was from I.G. Farben, which had been a central cartel partner of the Rockefeller Corporation's Standard Oil Company before the war. Standard Oil supplied the Nazis during the war through Switzerland, and Avery Rockefeller had set up a company which combined their interests with Schroeder, Hitler's personal bank. The Guaranty Trust and the Union Banking Corporation of New York were among the biggest backers of the Nazis. One of the UBC's directors was Prescott Bush, father of George (senior)."

And it goes on and on. THAT is the sort of thing I mean when I refer to 'money trails'.

Which then ties into what I mean my 'Bloodlines', seeing as the same families have always been involved.

So, 2) I'm sorry if I hadn't made myself clear about my definition of Bloodlines, and for your benefit and other readers, let me be perfectly clear. I use the word in terms of its dictionary definition and nothing more- 'all the members of a family group over generations'.
With regards to bloodlines/families/ancestry within the conspiracy, there are many, and I kind of thought you'd know who I was referring to. So, let's just cut to the most famous family bloodline within conspiracy circles: The Merovingians.

To quote from Robert Anton Wislon's (non-biased) conspiracy reference book, Everything Is Under Control, for a brief synopsis:

"The Merovingians, a Frankish Dynasty that reigned from the fifth century to 751 A.D, have become of great concern to conspiracy theorists, because many of the 'mysteries' connected to Rennes-le-Chateau, the Church of Mary Magdalene and The Priory of Sion have been linked to them. Gerad de Sede...claims that the Merovignians were descended from matings between extraterrestrials from Sirius and the Tribe of Benjamin in ancient Israel, and other notions are equally remarkable.
In their book Holy Blood, Holy Grail(the authors) produce elaborate bloodlines relating the Merovingians to many important persons in the modern world, including Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands, founder of the Bilderbergers, and Otto Van Hapsburg, member of both the Biderbergers and the Knights of Malta."

(The Knights of Malta date from Crusade times and recent members of the group have included: Franz Von Papen, who helped Hitler become Chancellor of Germany, William Casey, head of CIA and many more).

In Laurence Gardner's book Bloodline of the Holy Grail he continues the themes from Holy Blood Holy Grail- which made the case for a family tree dating back to Jesus, up to modern times- and which included the Merovignians and other royal and noble families. (Incidentally, to go full circle back to the start of this thread, why are we so hung up on Dan Brown reintroducing the concept of 'the Illuminati' into popular culture, more than the concept of the bloodlines, which has so much more evidence?) In Gardner's book, he traces the family trees intricately. He says:

"In medieval literature, the Grail was identified with a family and a dynasty...The lineage of Jesus included the Fisher Kings and Lancelot del Acqs. It descended to the Merovingian kings of France and the Stewart kings of Scots, and included such reputed figures as Guilhelm de Gellone and Godefroi de Bouillon."

He goes on to say: "By the time of the Norman Conquest of Britain in 1066, the Merovingians of France had been formally ignored for some 300 years. They were far from extinct, but they had certainly been manoeuvred out of the picture as far as the church and its dutiful historians were concerned. During their reign, however, the Merovingians had established a number of customs which prevailed... One...innovation was a system of regional supervision by chief officers... called Counts. As deputies of the kings, the Counts acted as chancellors, judges and military leaders."

It's worth noting that David Icke doesn't trust Laurence Gardner's opinion. It's also worth noting that there have been a number of myths and legends attached to the Merovingians over the centuries- such as spawning from aliens, being born of a sea serpent, and most recently, as we'll be aware, Icke's Reptilain theory.

Now, I'm not trying to offer ANY of the above as proof of anything. Only to show exactly what is meant by 'money trails' and 'bloodlines'. Although they're quite lengthy excerpts, it's just a drop in the ocean of the amount of research out there. See Bloodlines of the Illuminati as well. It's up to individual readers to explore these issues themselves.


message 26: by Sterling (last edited Sep 19, 2014 03:45AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Sterling- what's your opinion on the whole bloodlines thing? Would be good to get some more members' input regarding the issue!

Best wishes,

Harry.


message 28: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments Harry,
I agree, I am seeking the truth. I have read Bloodline of the Holy Grail. I noticed that the references reveal that this is mostly just wishful, what-if, thinking, and falls once again into dangerous promotional propaganda suggesting that the bloodline of Jesus made it's way into royalty. These books are fiction. If Jesus did produce offspring I am more inclined to believe his linage is Jewish.
You do have my attention as you follow the money trails. Money trails do not say anything regarding membership in the Illuminati, but most certainly provide an indication of a dangerous use of power, and money most certainly is power. I do make note of those who funded the Nazis. Yes, the connection to Allen Dulles and the Bushes to both the funding of the Nazis, Skull and Bones, which was funded by the opium trade, and of course the CIA is very concerning.
I do not lack interest in watching the activity of the Bilderberg Group, but I do not assume the worst. The activities of this group lend more to the notion that they are working toward world peace than world domination. I'm not convinced we need to go overboard in promoting the notion that our leaders are always up to no good. It's just as possible that they have our best interest at heart. There are leaders who have attended the Bilderberg meetings I greatly respect and have no reason to doubt their motives. The topics of these meetings are made public, and the topics do not suggest anything but positive motive.
Deciding who might be members of the Illuminati amounts to following the linage of the illuminati, in my estimation. They are responsible for the rise of quasi-Masonic occult orders (The Freemasons are not an occult order). These occult orders are linked to the rise of Nazi Germany. The Thule Society, and the fact that the Nazi SS was an quasi-Masonic occult order modeled after the Templars, but because they have any linage with the Templars, but because Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels idolized them and modeled his order after them. Then the "linage" can be followed into America through the recruitment into our Intelligence Agencies after WWII, where they were given jobs at Radio Liberty and even today spew right-wing extremist Illuminati conspiracy theory. If they can't deny their existence then they can make their existence seem a ridiculous notion. Meanwhile they provide training in Sadistic mind-control methods they used in the concentration camps to the American Nazis like Allen Dulles and Sidney Gottlieb in their MK-Ultra mind-control project. This linage has well documented evidence. I am grateful there is information out there. Analyzing the motive of the authors is useful.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Yep, you make some interesting and good points Mikhayla. I don't necessarily believe 'the bloodline' is from Jesus (and before him- the line of King David)- but then I'm dubious that Christ ever existed anyway, but what I do find relative is that the same family trees do always seem to have had positions of power and dealings with secret societies for hundreds/thousands of years. Personally, I find the research by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Fritz Springmeier's Bloodlines of the Illuminati to be much more factual, questioning and in depth than Laurence Gardner (who some have accused of being 'part of the conspiracy.')

I would argue with you over the Bilderberg group though, seeing as they only became more public very recently and only started giving out flimsy agendas of their meetings even more recently (once the internet gave conspiracies a platform). It would be nice to think that they have our concerns at heart and are trying to make a better world... but then why doesn't that ever happen, and why do governments, politicians and bankers continue to f*** up this world?

Personally I think we should just make the Dhalai Lama and Keith Richards the rulers of the world!


message 30: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments Harry and James,
You are right on. This has been a very good thread. Regardless of what takes place in the Bilderberg meetings, certainly the people should be assured to have a say in how things run, in a democracy. I could not agree more; the Dalai Lama has my vote!
James you have provided some great research. Given that the NWO was a sort of stated agenda of Nazi types it certainly can be assumed to be someone's agenda, but it has come to be muddled with various assumptions regarding what it means and who is involved in promoting it. I figure it would be most accurate to assume that nothing has changed. It means and is promoted by the Nazis who promoted it in the first place, in my opinion. And the Nazis have immigrated to almost every nation, including America.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Mikhayla, it's good to have someone to passionately debate stuff with to get to the truth. I'll convert you to David Icke yet though- y'know he has an extremely similar view to the world as the Dalai Lama! :)
Speaking of which, wouldn't it be great if the Buddhists really were in charge of the world. Who WOULDN'T give them their vote? I'm not talking beliefs here, but who's ever known a bad Buddhist? It'd be great!
Though I'll keep Keith Richards in the mix, as we need to keep a balance with good ol' rock 'n' roll fun as well!


message 32: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Harry wrote: "Yep, you make some interesting and good points Mikhayla. I don't necessarily believe 'the bloodline' is from Jesus (and before him- the line of King David)- but then I'm dubious that Christ ever existed anyway, but what I do find relative is that the same family trees do always seem to have had positions of power and dealings with secret societies for hundreds/thousands of years. Personally, I find the research by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Fritz Springmeier's Bloodlines of the Illuminati to be much more factual, questioning and in depth than Laurence Gardner (who some have accused of being 'part of the conspiracy.')..."

Hi Harry, I am on the fence with the whole bloodline thing, but probably leaning toward it being a myth. However, I'd need to hear more opinions on it as it's not something I've researched much.

On the one hand, I find the whole theory put forward in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail to be believable on paper and certain groups within the global elite like royal families seem to also subscribe to the bloodline theories.

However, my issue with focusing on bloodlines and family trees is that unknown bastard children would have been very common: occurring every few generations of any so-called bloodline. There was no DNA testing back then obviously and remember any child that resulted from adultery as well as adopted children, would have regularly been covered up in families due to issues in older societies such as shame and "keeping up appearances" etc. I seem to recall a Greek or Roman quote by some author from that era which goes something like this "Women have always loved their children more than their husbands for the simple reason that women can be sure their children are theirs!"

I would guess there would be one such non-relative in every century of any family tree and therefore ancestors you think you descend from, you often may not be related at all - obviously the odds of not being related to people in your family tree increases exponentially the further you go back in history.

So maybe I'm stupid and missing something here, but as far as I can tell this makes the whole bloodline theory meaningless. But I'm happy to be corrected!


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Hi James,
Yeah, you have a point (and love the unnamed Greek/Roman quote) but I don't see that that view conflicts with the idea of ruling families over generations, because the whole idea about such bloodlines is that they bred 'close to home'- and therefore carefully. Of course, there'll be bastard children along the way, but what does that matter? The 'powerful families' would just leave them out in the cold, whilst they continued to keep close knit. Sure, that means some claims of 'bastard descendants' aren't easily verifiable, but that doesn't in turn mean we should ignore the close knit breeding that does seem to have gone on (in my own opinion). Researching the Merovignians and Stewarts alone seems to have an abundance of evidence, but I can see how people aren't convinced, and it's not like I know anything for sure- it's just where my own research/thoughts have taken me.
Good to get your opinion on the subject.
Anyone else?


message 34: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Hi Harry,
You're confusing me here.
From what I've read on the subject, the whole idea of bloodline conspiracy theories is that there is something very important in the blood/DNA - hence the name. For example, certain well-known conspiracy authors write about Jesus and his bloodline down thru the ages with his supposed descendants and that would obviously only include those directly related to Jesus by blood. Others who believe in Illuminati/Babylonian bloodline theories talk about important family trees connecting US Presidents and British Royals and how they are all related in the DNA and that their DNA is very special...So likewise, this US-British elite bloodline theory relates entirely to the idea of them being one extended family and of the same bloodline (literally).

Therefore, when I mentioned bastard children or offspring of affairs, I didn't mean such children would be left out in the cold by the ruling elite families as you wrote above. I meant the child's actual identity would be kept a total secret (in some cases only the mother would know, other times just the parents and other times nobody would know for sure who the father was). The elite families would not know and just assume each child is carrying on their all-important and much hyped 'bloodline'.

As an analogy, in the British Royal family we currently have Prince William (first in line to the throne) who recently married Kate Middleton. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say their newborn baby George (first in line to the throne) is actually the product of a secret affair Kate had with some non-royal commoner, then that means George will not have any Royal blood whatsoever if you think about it. George and his offspring would not be related to the Queen, Prince Charles or any of the Windsors...

So when people talk about bloodlines and trace family trees back through the centuries and give great importance to specific family DNA and in some cases reptilian bloodlines (as David Icke does), I just cannot see how this is remotely believable when you consider how many non-relatives there would be in each family tree that would all completely destroy/divert the bloodline upon birth (as per the baby George analogy).

Again, to come back to Mr. Icke's theories re bloodlines, he has written at length about the importance in elite families of maintaining the "pure" DNA of these ancient bloodlines (which he says extend directly back to Jesus' time and ancient Babylon). For example he mentions how Diana Spencer (Princess of Wales) was selected for her family's ultra-pure and powerful DNA that the Royals wanted infused into their bloodline (as according to Icke the Spencer family are the true British Royals who are related by blood to King Arthur).
However, if Diana's father or grandfather were not actually her father or grandfather, but some ordinary individual (due to a secret affair), then Diana's blood would be anything but pure when it comes to this whole bloodline theory.


message 35: by Cosmic (last edited Sep 25, 2014 08:43AM) (new) - added it

Cosmic Arcata | 44 comments Harry wrote: "Researching the Merovignians and Stewarts alone seems to have an abundance of evidence, but I can see how people aren't convinced, and it's not like I know anything for sure- it's just where my own research/thoughts have taken me.
Good to get your opinion on the subject.
Anyone else? ..."


When you have a patter such as a code in a message the pattern needs to work everywhere. One place I would have expected the pattern not to fit is in the Presidents of the United States. But except for one they are all related.

http://wakeup-world.com/2011/07/04/ar...

I also think bloodlines rule in Hitler's case. What do you think? Well they have protected him...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013...

I love the last paragraph in this article.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/argenti...

Someone put him in power and made good on their word.



http://english.alarabiya.net/articles...


How they take care of their bastards:
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles...

Interesting to see how this "child rearing" is like a shock to a child and creates the splitting off...and MK ultra unique imprinting. And how this is done to people through war...so whole societies can be manipulated in a Petra dish of the elites making ....and perhaps by design this was the goal of those nihilist Kraft Und Stoff.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Thanks for the 'wakeupworld' link Cosmic. As much as I lean towards generations of bloodlines playing a key part in the conspiracy, it's one of those topics that's so difficult to write about succinctly, because one needs to read a lot of books and spend a lot of time on the subject- so I'm glad you know of informative internet soundbites that sum up such things! Yes, the presidents all coming from the same line is fascinating. Many don't know David Cameron (our U.K Prime Minister) is a cousin of the queen. These things happen too much for it to be random, in my opinion.

Not sure what I think about Hitler living in Argentina, but wasn't aware of the FBI documents listed in the article- but I'm afraid I found that article to be pretty dubious, seeing as there are no quotes from the documents themselves and only images of unreadable smudged pages. But I'll look into that more with interest and may be stood corrected. We know that Nazis escaped to South America, so it's not hard to believe that Hitler may have gone. But I believe Hitler was just following orders in his position as Leader, so wouldn't it be simpler for 'the conspiracy' (his 'bosses') to prefer him dead?


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Re; James' comment.

James, I stand corrected in that I can see I confused the subject and didn't entirely grasp what you meant. Thank you for putting together the above as it reads as a very good introduction for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.

I realise that I've supported Mr. Icke so much in the whole within these discussions, that it would be easy to think that I agree 100% with him, but I don't. So- yes, you are absolutely correct when you bring up the notion that keeping a bloodline pure is practically impossible and to keep track of who was and wasn't a pure bloodline, equally difficult.
For anyone in England, particularly, it's a long standing joke and almost common consensus that Prince Harry isn't Charles's kid. So this illustrates your point.

For me, I don't necessarily believe that the bloodlines are about purity- which, yes, most conspiracy theorists say it is about, for whatever reason. What I stand by is the fact that these same families have always ruled in one way or another (royals, presidents, secret societies). Just look at the article Cosmic posted above about all the presidents being related.

But if the pure bloodline theorists are correct, as they well could be, I don't see that they couldn't have special methods and controls for knowing who was and wasn't pure. I mean the whole concept verges on the ridiculous anyway, so it can't really be dispelled by normal logic. People have been saying for centuries that the Merovignians are aliens of one kind or another. I don't know the truth of course. But if they were aliens or reptilians or whatever and have managed to pull the wool of the world over our eyes, then I suggest it's probably quite easy for them to maintain their purity. There would just also be those in the families a la Prince Harry- but families stick together, regardless of how you define the family. The Godfather's 'son' Tom Hagen springs to mind.


message 38: by James, Group Founder (last edited Sep 25, 2014 09:35AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Harry wrote: "Re; James' comment.

James, I stand corrected in that I can see I confused the subject and didn't entirely grasp what you meant. Thank you for putting together the above as it reads as a very good ..."


I think we were basically agreeing on everything all along, Harry, it's just as you say very difficult to write about such things as language (which is always changing/evolving) gets in the way of clarity.
For example, we are probably venturing into similar territory as other discussions in this group on subjects like Illuminati and Project Monarch which as you know both originally meant specific things (Illuminati was an actual historical organization in Bavaria and Monarch was listed as a CIA offshoot of MK-Ultra) but are fast evolving into loose umbrella terms of broader subjects - at least by conspiracy theorists' definitions.

Likewise with bloodlines, I suspect our crossing wires in this thread is just due to slightly different definitions in our minds.

Therefore, if going back to the original definition of bloodline (like I recall was mentioned in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Gardener's books etc), then I cannot see how anyone can be sure they are related by blood to any historical figure or elite family due to all the incidents of bastard children mentioned earlier.

But if going with some broad definition of bloodlines that doesn't actually relate to physical blood and DNA, then yes naturally elite families like to keep close-knit as you say.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments It's a case of "We're not the People's Judean Front, we're the People's Front of Judea!" (For any Monty Python fans out there.)

There are so many strands, definitions and umbrella terms for this and other conspiracies, as you say. Yes, it's the old problem of language and perception creating misunderstanding. But I realise I did that myself- and should have been more clear, and I can't disagree with anything you say, James.
It's damn good to have a group run by such chaps as you and Lance, who aren't claiming they know any great truth, but who have researched a lot and want a group that really is about open discussion.


message 40: by Lance, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lance Morcan | 2166 comments Cheers Harry!
You're right, we don't claim to know any great truths or have any definitive answers about anything.
But maybe, just maybe, if all the members of this group throw around ideas and brainstorm, the group will be able to figure out some important things and possibly even come up with some useful solutions to the world's current predicaments.
Or do those goals sound too lofty?


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Not at all too lofty, Lance. Heck, we might even stand a chance... we're a conspiracy discussion group for READERS after all! (As opposed to GossipTube Forums).


message 42: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments The girl's theory (link provided by Cosmic) that all the presidents are from some intentionally screened bloodline does not stand up to reason. I don't really care if the royals are related by blood (which they obviously are). Are they good leaders? The British government no longer gives so much veto power to the King anymore. The quality of leaderships is important. The well being of the people is a top priority, if not rule by the people as in a democracy. Even if (in the highly unlikely event that) the royals do have reptilian blood, I could care less. What are they doing that is beneficial or destructive to others? The Illuminati were not a secret group of bloodline protective royals. They were a secret society of seditious criminal types, and likely Satanists given that there was a Satanic group calling themselves the Illuminati in the 15th century according to Nesta Webster.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Nope, I don't get you on this one Mikhayla. Forget the 'intentionally screened bloodline' as I made myself clear above that this isn't about the rumours of 'pure bloodlines' for me (although I am open to that possibility). What it is about is the fact that the same families have been in control of our royalty, pro-active secret societies, presidents, prime ministers etc. all around the world for centuries.

Why does it matter? Even if not for any greater conspiracy reason, it matters for the same reason that all of our leaders come from private school backgrounds. The rich have the advantage of better education, people with money to support them, and 'boys' club' mentalities giving a helping hand into getting them into politics, leadership, media, banks etc.

And are they good leaders, as you ask? No. They never are. The good ones get bumped off. (O.K, I'm generalising/tongue in cheek.)

And if they do have reptilian blood, you couldn't care less? Really?!! WTF? You'd put 'what are they doing for the people' (which is usually eff all) above that utterly remarkable discovery!

For me, it's much more important to note that the same families have been in power- just look at the Bushs, Rothschilds, Rockerfellers for recent examples- than it is to speculate on the 'alien bloodline' theory, even though I personally find it an interesting and not completely unbelieveable claim.

And the queen has a lot more power than people realise, as I think James posted elsewhere. And I, like half of the U.K, do not want a monarchy.


message 44: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments A monarchy is clearly rule by bloodline, and not the best form of government. Rule by monarchy is a hang over from history. America chose to opt out of rule by bloodline as the rational for the revolutionary war. Overthrowing a monarchy is not a bad rational for a revolution. Clearly the royals are rule by bloodline. Parliament has been a small step in the direction of reducing the power of a monarchy. Step up the evolutionary timeline. I'm good with that. But I wouldn't call the royalty a conspiracy, so much as a historic habit.

The notion that American Presidencies are rule by bloodline is absurd. A peanut farmer got my vote. I rather liked President Carter. My statement of having a careless attitude toward reptilian bloodlines among the royalty lies in my disgust in a human tendency to dehumanize by race. I'm glad to see a black president. Of course the notion of reptilian blood crosses even the boundary assumption of being mammalian. I would not trust a snake, but then I trust even less those who would have us believe that our leaders are literally snakes.

I would agree that money creates a huge advantage when it comes to obtaining leadership positions. Again, I really liked President Carter.


message 45: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments Mikhayla, if that peanut farmer you voted for was or is (I seem to recall Carter is still alive) related by blood to all other US Presidents, then unfortunately that would be ruling by bloodline and no different than monarchy.

Now obviously it still needs to be proven conclusively that all US presidents are related to each other and to the British royals.


message 46: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments I suppose I'm just not convinced that American Presidents are a secret bloodline monarchy. Convince me first that the peanut farmer, is related by blood to our current black president, and the Bushes.


message 47: by Mikhayla (new) - added it

Mikhayla Gracey | 270 comments Harry,
I don't see that David Icke has much in common with the Dalai Lama, and I have met nasty Buddhists. I vote for the Dalai Lama to be the ruler of Tibet. My deep respect for him is improved by this conviction that an interfaith community is important to a better world. Although he is obviously Buddhist, he would not be inclined to eliminate other religious traditions just because he is Buddhist. His conviction to Buddhism is in part his duty to maintain the culture of his people which is under attack by the Chinese. While the Dalai Lama has my heart felt vote as the rightful leader of Tibet, I don't know that he would be an appropriate choice for president of the U.S. I would love to see him recognized as a consultant in decisions made by world leaders. I like the idea of an enlightened leader, defined in part by humility.


message 48: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 8434 comments It's not my job to convince you Mikhayla as I clearly wrote above that "if the theory is true" re bloodlines of Presidents, then it that would mean US "democracy" is more like a monarchy.
But I am not saying I believe that Bloodline theory regarding all US presidents being related to each other and the British royals. I would need to research it further first - however it wouldn't surprise me if true as these leaders all seem pre-selected in some way - hence their policy-making rarely if ever reflecting the will of the people.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments To summarise, and generalise: 1% of the population have 99% of the wealth and that 1% of the population rule the world on their own terms- doing what is beneficial for them and not for the people. That has, more or less, always been the state of our history.

That's bad enough- but what if we then discover that many of that 1% are close-knit related as well? And always have been. I would suggest that IF the general theory is correct, it allows us to quite easily see who THEM and US actually are (seeing as we're increasingly living in an Orwellian world, where the enemy keeps changing identity and name). IF it's true that few families have always had the money and been in charge, then perhaps we can be united and stop blaming each other and fighting amongst ourselves. We would know where to aim the peaceful revolution at. If the sort of information that's highlighted in this discussion group was known by the average person as fact as much as anything they see on the six o'clock news, maybe even our defence and police would come to the people's side.

Mikhayla, as you say: "A monarchy is clearly rule by bloodline, and not the best form of government."

You also say, "The notion that American Presidencies are rule by bloodline is absurd." May I ask- why? There's just as much evidence, if not more, as there is to the existence of the present day Illuminati, for instance, which I know you believe in.


Harry Whitewolf | 1743 comments Mikhyala, you said, "I vote for the Dalai Lama to be the ruler of Tibet. My deep respect for him is improved by this conviction that an interfaith community is important to a better world. Although he is obviously Buddhist, he would not be inclined to eliminate other religious traditions just because he is Buddhist."

Absolutely! And although I was being tongue in cheek about him being Ruler of the World (I personally believe in John Lennon's sentiments of no leaders, no racial divisions, no borders etc.) your comments are exactly why I chose him. Regardless of whether one believes in Buddhism as a philosophy or religion, if we all behaved like Buddhists, the world certainly would be a better place.

Sure, David Icke and the Dalai Lama have a lot not in common, but they also have plenty that is. (I can't believe I'm now seriously comparing the Dalai Lama with Daavid bloody Icke! But...) Buddhists believe in good and evil spirits, that themselves are only a manifestation of mind (to put simply) and that we are all living in an illusion. I'd say Icke's world view, alongside most New Age/spiritual type believers would be exactly the same. And most importantly, Love and changing ourselves within is the most important thing.

Funny how we'll mock Icke for his reptilian thing (which is nothing more than another word for 'evil spirits') when most wouldn't dare openly mock a Christian for their belief in the Devil, or a Buddhist for their belief in an evil spirit that had shapeshifted, or mock a Muslim for his belief in Jinn...


« previous 1 3
back to top