T'ain't no such thing as 'illuminati' Part II

[John Dolva]

No, it's people unwilling to share resources who say so. For example, Mother Theresa when leaving the US after a visit was asked by a reporter what she thought of the USA, she said that in all the world she had never been to a country with so many hungry people. Remember here is a person who calls the slums of Calcutta home. What she was talking about was having enough. People in the western world often don't have enough of anything. There's plenty of everything to go around. What's missing is a system and a will to redistribute and share, there's no lack of space, air, food etc, there's plenty of that rotting in silos and being dumped, and land locked in huge nations with low populations, because of market forces and national boundaries. 'Over population' is just a furphy*, an excuse.

EDIT:: I realise this is a word probably not familiar to non aussies::A furphy is Australian slang for a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable story.The word is derived from water carts made by a company established by John Furphy: J. Furphy & Sons of Shepparton, Victoria. Many Furphy water carts were used to take water to Australian Army personnel during World War I. The carts, with "J. Furphy & Sons" written on their tanks, became popular as gathering places where soldiers could exchange gossip, rumours and fanciful tales.It is possible that the word was also influenced by John Furphy's equally prominent brother, the popular 19th century Australian author, Joseph Furphy (1843-1913). However, Joseph was generally published under the pseudonym "Tom Collins". Originally it was synonymous with "rumour" and "scuttlebutt", but the modern meaning (especially in Australian politics) is "an irrelevant or minor issue raised to specifically divert attention away from the real issue". The real issue here is the way the world is organised, not 'over population'

Edited October 20, 2006 by John Dolva

[Mark Stapleton]

Google has thousand of sources on ILLUMINATI, SKULL AND BONES, BUSHES,

MASONS, THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT, NEW WORLD ORDER.

excerpted and paraphrased from a typical one: ...

LOL – This is too effing funny for words! Jack thinks that something’s existence can be proven by the number of Google hits it gets; is he really that detached from reality? I suggest he google “loch ness monster”, Bigfoot, “frosty the showman”. “abominable snowman” and ‘WMD’s +iraq’ and see how many hits he gets. The fact that so many sites have similar information only proves that they copy each other note that they don’t cite any evidence other than other similar sites and obscure books that don’t cite any evidence either except for….

Can’t fault humble Jack for his logical fallacy though, his sidekick Fetzer with his Ivy League education, fancy degrees, books and self proclaimed status as (America’s? the World’s?) most accomplished academic [1] tried using the same argument. [2]

1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858 he wrote “I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of achievements exceeds my own!”

2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/1856 (membership required), he wrote “If you do a google search and enter "RF weapons", there are 397,000 items. If you enter "EM weapons", there are 21,000,000 items. And if you enter "HERF guns", there are 4,630 items--pretty good for a class of weapons that, according to some on the forum, do not exist!” The number of hits he reported was greatly exaggerated (“RF weapons” only returned 576 hits) and no one disputed the existence of or at least research on such weapons.

Len

Great stuff, Lee.

Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to suppoert their claims

You have your opinion and I have mine

"The illuminati knows this and has plans to reduce the populations of third world countries accordingly..."

Do you really believe this crap? You seemed reletively rational to me and not part of the Forum's lunatic fringe. When I joked about the Illuminati, Ron got pissed of

I'm not sure--which means I don't rule it out. When Lee posted this thread, I don't think he was canvassing for disciples--it was more in the way of food for thought. You seem fear that this thread may result in the sudden appearance of an illuminati cult. Very irrational. I'm gratified to think that you consider me relatively rational and not part of the Forum's lunatic fringe. Sadly, I can't reciprocate.

"p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur."

The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims.

If they ever remove the word 'strawman' from the vocabulary, you'll have trouble making posts. It peppers so many of your contributions. The standards of modern xxxxx academies must be slipping. They're certainly neglecting vocabulary. You did graduate didn't you? You're not a xxxxx college dropout, I hope.

So Len, you're an individual who requires 'evidence of something before you believe it exists'. Logical. However, do you sometimes suspect the existence of something prior to corroborating its existence? If so, do you keep you opinions in a holding pattern until the appearance of corroborative evidence or do you just debunk and deny all the way up until the evidence appears---necessitating a hasty retreat and about face?

It might be advisable to hold fire until more data comes in. Imagine your embarrassment should the 'illuminati' prove to be real. It would be like your hasty reversal on the issue of Meyer Lansky's relevance.

About thirty years ago a New World Order think tank produced a secret

report for the president regarding world population control.

It was called GLOBAL 2000.

It called for reductions in undesirable (non-white) populations through

eugenics methods like:

1. Famines in underdeveloped (black) countries

2. Man-made disese epidemics (AIDS) in black populations

3. Drugs in black populations

4. "Limited" small continuing wars targeting ethnic groups (moslems)

These eugenics goals coincide with belief of Bonesmen.

Google BUSH, EUGENICS, GLOBAL 2000, SKULL AND BONES,

AIDS, AFRICA, ETC.

Check current events for news of Famines, AIDS, Drugs, Arab wars.

All were goals to be achieved by the year 2000.

Jack

LOL Jack you're keeping me in stiches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites say somethig is true doesn't constitute evidence.

[Mark Stapleton]

No, it's people unwilling to share resources who say so. For example, Mother Theresa when leaving the US after a visit was asked by a reporter what she thought of the USA, she said that in all the world she had never been to a country with so many hungry people. Remember here is a person who calls the slums of Calcutta home. What she was talking about was having enough. People in the western world often don't have enough of anything. There's plenty of everything to go around. What's missing is a system and a will to redistribute and share, there's no lack of space, air, food etc, there's plenty of that rotting in silos and being dumped, and land locked in huge nations with low populations, because of market forces and national boundaries. 'Over population' is just a furphy*, an excuse.

I'll bet poor old Mother Theresa never imagined she would be dragged into a thread about the illuminati.

On the issue of redistribution of the world's resources, I agree with you. Such a system would accomodate a more equitable distribution of resources and living standards and place less strain on the planet's carrying capacity. You're preaching to the converted.

However, you should accept that the planet's resources like air, water and energy are finite--not infinite. Even a utopian system of resource distribution and delivery would have its limits in terms of capacity.

There's a growing chorus of scientists claiming that overpopulation--under our existing global society--is a major threat to the planet's ability to sustain human life. You say it's a furphy. I have to disagree with you.

EDIT:: I realise this is a word probably not familiar to non aussies::A furphy is Australian slang for a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable story.The word is derived from water carts made by a company established by John Furphy: J. Furphy & Sons of Shepparton, Victoria. Many Furphy water carts were used to take water to Australian Army personnel during World War I. The carts, with "J. Furphy & Sons" written on their tanks, became popular as gathering places where soldiers could exchange gossip, rumours and fanciful tales.It is possible that the word was also influenced by John Furphy's equally prominent brother, the popular 19th century Australian author, Joseph Furphy (1843-1913). However, Joseph was generally published under the pseudonym "Tom Collins". Originally it was synonymous with "rumour" and "scuttlebutt", but the modern meaning (especially in Australian politics) is "an irrelevant or minor issue raised to specifically divert attention away from the real issue". The real issue here is the way the world is organised, not 'over population'

[Lee Forman]

What disturbs me most about the half baked conspiracy theories I find polluting this forum is their simple minded and profoundly anti-historical nature.

Worse still the googling around for "evidence" to back up the paranoid mindset - any "evidence" will do regardless of its quality or provenance.

Sorry Andy - which part is anti-historical?

- lee

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Karl Marx said Communism would eventually replace Capitalism, he was wrong, if we continue down the road we are currently headed,nothing will replace Capitalism. The rich, and powerful have fostered their system, and morality on the rest of us, a system that is blind to the conequences of its actions,with greed as a justification in and of itself. The true tragedy here is that most ordinary folk have become, in their own way, as mired in selfishness as the ruling class. The revolution will not be televised....

[John Dolva]

We live in the same world yet so different. I see in the arguments for population control support for "it is a matter of will, not over population" IOW it's a societal, political problem.

Those societies that have a near zpg are characterised by high living standards in terms of healthcare, gender equality and opportunity. The rights of woman is central to this. These societies tend to become small families where the survival rate of the children into adulthood is high.

However, at the same time, countries like China and India have huge populations that while average standards are lower, food and space is found to be more or less sufficient. So, eugenics is not necessary to modify populattion growth, and huge populations are sustainable. Further, some foods require less acreage, Cattle for meat leads to amazon deforestation and less oxygen etc. A human does not need as much red meat as a westerner consumes. Un processed rice is very nutritious etc etc.

Cubas green revolution leads the way in energy rationalisation. We all know that solar, wind, water and tide can remove nuclear and fossil fuel. Will is missing.

As wealth is redistributed, as healthcare, education, and equality in rights and opportunity spread to the third world they will in time experience the same stability as the more progressive western nations do today. The will is missing, Fundamentally the problem is NOT 'over population', the problem is societal, political. By saying that the problems are because of too many people one plays into the hand of those who seek to buttress the current status quo. Then their agenda for population control in the final analysis becomes the final solution. They go 'scot free' and the suffering continues.

_________________

Its impossible to say that communism has failed. There has been no communism to fail in the first place. There have however been attempts to move towards it. In the feudal england for a short time there were attempts. The paris commune lived briefly and supplied lessons that ensured the victory of the soviets (worker cells) into a huge union of republics. In time the contradictions of capital will once more reach breaking point. Eugenics as a market force, war as an industry destroyer, excess population disposal, market restructuring is only necessary to support a small minority of the wealthy powerful. It's not for humanity.

[Len Colby]

me: Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to support their claims

Mark: You have your opinion and I have mine

As (former) Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts." If it is your 'opinion' that his sources documented their claims perhaps you can list them.

Mark: "The illuminati knows this and has plans to reduce the populations of third world countries accordingly..."

me: Do you really believe this crap? You seemed relatively rational to me and not part of the Forum's lunatic fringe. When I joked about the Illuminati, Ron got pissed of

Mark: I'm not sure--which means I don't rule it out. When Lee posted this thread, I don't think he was canvassing for disciples--it was more in the way of food for thought. You seem fear that this thread may result in the sudden appearance of an illuminati cult. Very irrational.

You reaching the conclusion you did was 'irrational', can you spell out where I indicated that I "fear that this thread may result in the sudden appearance of an illuminati cult"? I could say you seem to think something without any basis and it's "very irrational" too and it would be just as meaningless as your conclusion.

"I'm gratified to think that you consider me relatively rational and not part of the Forum's lunatic fringe."

I may have to reconsider, just a question though, if you consider me irrational and perhaps even a lunatic why would you care what I think of you.

"Sadly, I can't reciprocate."

Words can not express how crushed I am to 'hear' that.

Mark: "p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur."

me: The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims.

Mark: If they ever remove the word 'strawman' from the vocabulary, you'll have trouble making posts. It peppers so many of your contributions. The standards of modern xxxxx academies must be slipping. They're certainly neglecting vocabulary. You did graduate didn't you? You're not a xxxxx college dropout, I hope.

I went to see some friends of mine's band play in a small club. A band from out of town played before them and the singer complained a few times that the crowd wasn't responding to them, some one in the audience yelled out, "that's because you suck", which was true. I frequently use the word 'straw man' to respond to others especially you because you so often resort to such tactics.

"So Len, you're an individual who requires 'evidence of something before you believe it exists'. Logical. However, do you sometimes suspect the existence of something prior to corroborating its existence? If so, do you keep you opinions in a holding pattern until the appearance of corroborative evidence or do you just debunk and deny all the way up until the evidence appears---necessitating a hasty retreat and about face?"

If I suspected that something existed I would only say I 'though' so and if interested enough do some research I might ask others for their input on forums. I wouldn't say it existed and was doing 'x,y and z' unless I had some evidence. Yes I've made a few mistakes, unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong. How many hasty retreats have I had to make? Over a thousand posts and only a handful.

"It might be advisable to hold fire until more data comes in. Imagine your embarrassment should the 'illuminati' prove to be real."

I'll just have to run that 'risk'. I've said I don't think shape-shifting lizard people exist either. Maybe someday I'll be proven wrong. I don't expect either to happen anytime soon.

.

"It would be like your hasty reversal on the issue of Meyer Lansky's relevance."

You just love to hold that over me I made a mistake and admitted it get over it, are you sure that everything you have said on this forum is 100% accurate? What about the time you denied that Sid was a Holocaust revisionist even after he copped to it?

As an environmental scientist, I can attest to the fact that even IF the world population stabilized at the current 6.5 billion there are not enough resources to give everyone a standard of living of the average European...

Hmmmm so now you're an "environmental scientist"? Perhaps you'll be willing to spell out your qualifications all that your bio says is that "Peter Raphael Lemkin is a professional JFK researcher. This has included working with Tosh Plumlee and Jim Marrs on the case." I asked what exactly that meant but you never replied. Pardon me if I remain skeptical about your claim to scientific qualifications until you offer some evidence. Perhaps while you're at it you would fill us in on the studied you have carried out or at least read that back your assertion. Edited October 20, 2006 by Len Colby

[Lee Forman]

Hi Len,

I have a simple question for you - and it's sincere please. It is pertinent to the thread.

Let's take one for example: Franz Stangl, the former Commandant of Treblinka - just picking one at random.

I have read what the historians have used to justify these deliberate interventions on behalf of the Vatican - for example, that certain high ranking members of the Clergy had guns pointed against their heads at one point or another by the Soviets. That the threat of Communism was synonymous with Godlessness, and it was the lesser of the two evils. Also, that there was a large Catholic population among the Nazis. Nothing that the Nazis did compared to Stalin. Stuff like that. I could go on and on here, but I would like your take.

How is it possible that the Vatican would have directly involved itself in the escape of so many infamous Nazis following the collapse of the Third Reich?

- lee

[Lee Forman]

What disturbs me most about the half baked conspiracy theories I find polluting this forum is their simple minded and profoundly anti-historical nature.

Worse still the googling around for "evidence" to back up the paranoid mindset - any "evidence" will do regardless of its quality or provenance.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/...lines_B_CS.html

One of the most important characteristics of the war criminals who did come to the United States is that they did not arrive here as isolated individuals. As has been seen in the cases of the Croatian Ustachis, the Ukrainian OUN, and the Latvian Vanagis, to name only three, many of these immigrants were, in fact, part of experienced, highly organized groups with distinct political agendas that differed little from the Fascist programs they had promoted in their homelands. The anti-Communist paranoia of the McCarthy period gave these groups fertile soil in which to put down roots and to grow. In time they began to play a small but real role in the political life of this country.

I use Google as a means to provide some form of quick validation for information that I have learned through other sources. I have been unpleasantly surprised on most occasions by what I have found.

- lee

[Lee Forman]

LOL Jack you're keeping me in stiches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites say somethig is true doesn't constitute evidence.

I tend to agree with Mr Colby and offer up this little instructional page designed to help 15 year olds handle historical sources for those credulous fools who believe everything they read

Apologies by the way for the problems experienced on the forum today - no conspiracy just problems with the database

Hi Andy.

Not offense intended here - don't mean to keep throwing up on the table. This is historical fact, and from an accredited source.

- lee

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warre.../chapter-1.html

This Commission was created to ascertain the facts relating to the preceding summary of events and to consider the important questions which they raised. The Commission has addressed itself to this task and has reached certain conclusions based on all the available evidence. No limitations have been placed on the Commission's inquiry; it has conducted its own investigation, and all Government agencies have fully discharged their responsibility to cooperate with the Commission in its investigation. These conclusions represent the reasoned judgment of all members of the Commission and are presented after an investigation which has satisfied the Commission that it: has ascertained the truth concerning the assassination of President Kennedy to the extent that a prolonged and thorough search makes this possible.

The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository. This determination is based upon the following:

(a) Witnesses at the scene of the assassination saw a rifle being fired from the sixth floor window of the Depository Building, and some witnesses saw a rifle in the window immediately after the shots were fired.

( The nearly whole bullet found on Governor Connally's stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine were fired from the 6.5- millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.

© The three used cartridge cases found near the window on the sixth floor at the southeast corner of the building were fired from the same rifle which fired the above-described bullet and fragments, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

(d) The windshield in the Presidential limousine was struck by a bullet fragment on the inside surface of the glass, but was not penetrated.

(e) The nature of the bullet wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally and the location of the car at the time of the shots establish that the bullets were fired from above and behind the Presidential limousine, striking the President and the Governor as follows:

Page 19

President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right-rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound.

Governor Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest, exiting below his right nipple. This bullet then passed through his right wrist and entered his left thigh where it caused a superficial wound.

(f)There is no credible evidence that the shots were fired from the Triple Underpass, ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location.

The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.

Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. This conclusion is based upon the following:

(a)The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots were fired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald.

(b)Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963.

©Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which the shots were fired.

(d)Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found dose by the window from which the shots were fired.

(e)Based on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of the assassination, the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald's capabilities could have fired the shots from the rifle used in the assassination within the elapsed time of the shooting. The Commission has concluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a rifle which enabled him to commit the assassination.

(f)Oswald lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters.

(g)Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Retired, U.S. Army) on April 10, 1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life.

Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination. This conclusion upholds the finding that Oswald fired the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally and is supported by the following:

(a) Two eyewitnesses saw the Tippit shooting and seven eyewitnesses heard the shots and saw the gunman leave the scene with revolver in hand. These nine eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw.

( The cartridge cases found at the scene of the shooting were fired from the revolver in the possession of Oswald at the time of his arrest to the exclusion of all other weapons.

© The revolver in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest was purchased by and belonged to Oswald.

(d) Oswald's jacket was found along the path of flight taken by the gunman as he fled from the scene of the killing.

Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer.

The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald's interrogation and detention by the Dallas police:

(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald was not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled to give any information and that any statements made by him might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar Association, which he rejected at that time.

( Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the prisoner.

© The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen.

[Mark Stapleton]

Hi Len,

I have a simple question for you - and it's sincere please. It is pertinent to the thread.

Let's take one for example: Franz Stangl, the former Commandant of Treblinka - just picking one at random.

I have read what the historians have used to justify these deliberate interventions on behalf of the Vatican - for example, that certain high ranking members of the Clergy had guns pointed against their heads at one point or another by the Soviets. That the threat of Communism was synonymous with Godlessness, and it was the lesser of the two evils. Also, that there was a large Catholic population among the Nazis. Nothing that the Nazis did compared to Stalin. Stuff like that. I could go on and on here, but I would like your take.

How is it possible that the Vatican would have directly involved itself in the escape of so many infamous Nazis following the collapse of the Third Reich?

- lee

Len,

I think after what you have said about this thread---including calling it crap--you owe Lee an answer here.

p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid.

[Len Colby]

Hi Len,

I have a simple question for you - and it's sincere please. It is pertinent to the thread.

Let's take one for example: Franz Stangl, the former Commandant of Treblinka - just picking one at random.

I have read what the historians have used to justify these deliberate interventions on behalf of the Vatican - for example, that certain high ranking members of the Clergy had guns pointed against their heads at one point or another by the Soviets. That the threat of Communism was synonymous with Godlessness, and it was the lesser of the two evils. Also, that there was a large Catholic population among the Nazis. Nothing that the Nazis did compared to Stalin. Stuff like that. I could go on and on here, but I would like your take.

How is it possible that the Vatican would have directly involved itself in the escape of so many infamous Nazis following the collapse of the Third Reich?

- lee

I don’t really see how that serves as evidence of the existence of the Illuminati; I’m not a big fan of the Catholic Church esp. not during that period. All that it proves is that there were reactionary elements in the church that were sympathetic to the Nazis. Let not forget that the western Allies and the Soviets also protected ex-Nazis. The exact extent of Vatican involvement is a matter of dispute. The director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said in 1999 that: “We have mentioned the Rat Line, an escape route for Nazis with Vatican connections (not run by the Vatican, but by a Croatian priest attached to a seminary there), but, as is well known, many unanswered questions remain about the role of the Vatican” [ http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-papers/weitzman-remarks-june-1999.html - The IWG seems like an excellent resource for researching this issue]. This is especially significant because Wiesenthal who was still alive at the time was one of the first people to implicate the Vatican in helping Nazis escape. I don’t consider Wikipedia an authoritative source but its articles on the issue also indicate dispute over the question of Vatican involvement and cites sources, some of which are available online [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA ]. On the other hand John Loftus seemed to think that these operations were widespread and had the approval of the Pope [ http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/holocaust/aftermathintro.htm ]. But even if that worse case scenario was true all it would prove is that the church leadership (like that of the US government) was plagued by anti-Semitism and fanatical anti-Communism to the extent it did the Devil’s work instead of God’s (I’m an agnostic, I used the terms figuratively). This would fit with their lack of interference in an at times cooperation with the Holocaust but once again they were not the only ones and there was plenty of blame to go around. Neither are evidence of an Illuminati like conspiracy though.

Len

Len,

I think after what you have said about this thread---including calling it crap--you owe Lee an answer here.

What I dispute is the existence of a network of powerful groups/people conspiring to take over the world especially the existence of centuries old organizations trying to do that, the evidence just isn’t there and hasn’t been presented in this thread. Lee indicated he suggested this in jest but I don’t know if he was joking about the idea of such a conspiracy or just the name Illuminati. If he or you or anybody else is seriously proposing such theories I think the categorization of ‘crap’ is justified. One reason I object to 9/11 revisionism is because I think it turns off many people from looking at the real crimes of Bush and his ilk, you can cube that for theories like the Illuminati. Lumping such nonsense with serious issues like the Bush and Blair administrations lying about Iraq, war profiteering by Neo-Con cronies, the cover up of global warming etc etc is Rove’s wet dream.

“p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid.”

I used that phrase about 30 times (out of over 1000 posts) especially in response to your and David Healy’s posts and to a lesser extent Jack’s, Peter’s Sid’s and other people’s posts because the five of you have a tendency to ascribe to others arguments they never made. If you want to show that I’m abusing the phrase do a search for the instances when I used it and show it was inappropriate. To do this you will have to show that I or the person in question actually made the point or argument ascribed to me or them, good luck. Once you stop making straw man arguments I will stop accusing you of making them.

Len

[Lee Forman]

Hi Len,

I have a simple question for you - and it's sincere please. It is pertinent to the thread.

Let's take one for example: Franz Stangl, the former Commandant of Treblinka - just picking one at random.

I have read what the historians have used to justify these deliberate interventions on behalf of the Vatican - for example, that certain high ranking members of the Clergy had guns pointed against their heads at one point or another by the Soviets. That the threat of Communism was synonymous with Godlessness, and it was the lesser of the two evils. Also, that there was a large Catholic population among the Nazis. Nothing that the Nazis did compared to Stalin. Stuff like that. I could go on and on here, but I would like your take.

How is it possible that the Vatican would have directly involved itself in the escape of so many infamous Nazis following the collapse of the Third Reich?

- lee

I don’t really see how that serves as evidence of the existence of the Illuminati; I’m not a big fan of the Catholic Church esp. not during that period. All that it proves is that there were reactionary elements in the church that were sympathetic to the Nazis. Let not forget that the western Allies and the Soviets also protected ex-Nazis. The exact extent of Vatican involvement is a matter of dispute. The director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said in 1999 that: “We have mentioned the Rat Line, an escape route for Nazis with Vatican connections (not run by the Vatican, but by a Croatian priest attached to a seminary there), but, as is well known, many unanswered questions remain about the role of the Vatican” [ http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-papers/weitzman-remarks-june-1999.html - The IWG seems like an excellent resource for researching this issue]. This is especially significant because Wiesenthal who was still alive at the time was one of the first people to implicate the Vatican in helping Nazis escape. I don’t consider Wikipedia an authoritative source but its articles on the issue also indicate dispute over the question of Vatican involvement and cites sources, some of which are available online [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA ]. On the other hand John Loftus seemed to think that these operations were widespread and had the approval of the Pope [ http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/holocaust/aftermathintro.htm ]. But even if that worse case scenario was true all it would prove is that the church leadership (like that of the US government) was plagued by anti-Semitism and fanatical anti-Communism to the extent it did the Devil’s work instead of God’s (I’m an agnostic, I used the terms figuratively). This would fit with their lack of interference in an at times cooperation with the Holocaust but once again they were not the only ones and there was plenty of blame to go around. Neither are evidence of an Illuminati like conspiracy though.

Len

Len,

I think after what you have said about this thread---including calling it crap--you owe Lee an answer here.

What I dispute is the existence of a network of powerful groups/people conspiring to take over the world especially the existence of centuries old organizations trying to do that, the evidence just isn’t there and hasn’t been presented in this thread. Lee indicated he suggested this in jest but I don’t know if he was joking about the idea of such a conspiracy or just the name Illuminati. If he or you or anybody else is seriously proposing such theories I think the categorization of ‘crap’ is justified. One reason I object to 9/11 revisionism is because I think it turns off many people from looking at the real crimes of Bush and his ilk, you can cube that for theories like the Illuminati. Lumping such nonsense with serious issues like the Bush and Blair administrations lying about Iraq, war profiteering by Neo-Con cronies, the cover up of global warming etc etc is Rove’s wet dream.

“p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid.”

I used that phrase about 30 times (out of over 1000 posts) especially in response to your and David Healy’s posts and to a lesser extent Jack’s, Peter’s Sid’s and other people’s posts because the five of you have a tendency to ascribe to others arguments they never made. If you want to show that I’m abusing the phrase do a search for the instances when I used it and show it was inappropriate. To do this you will have to show that I or the person in question actually made the point or argument ascribed to me or them, good luck. Once you stop making straw man arguments I will stop accusing you of making them.

Len

Hi Len.

Thanks for that. I don't know if I am just getting started or just ending it. I have a lot of data - which I have not presented - which still puzzles me and frankly, I can't make into heads or tails.

Let's start up in a separate thread on the topic of the Vatican and the ratlines - it's taking me some time to plough through, and I need to also determine the source material available. At a minimum, it would appear that some of the more wanted Nazis, like Barbie, what I am calling the 'untouchables' - are the ones that made use of the ratlines. Curious.

- lee

[Lee Forman]

It's kind of hard to believe that the people who take this kind of crap seriously can actually be functioning human beings. Worse is that some of them like Lee Forman cite racist web sites as sources. He like Jack and John are in violation of the forum rule requiring members to link their bios at the bottom of their posts.

No longer in violation on one count anyway. I will most likely continue to be in fault on the 'racist' part for website sources. In 1963 the US had issues with racism, no way in getting away from that.

- lee

[Mark Stapleton]

Hi Len,

I have a simple question for you - and it's sincere please. It is pertinent to the thread.

Let's take one for example: Franz Stangl, the former Commandant of Treblinka - just picking one at random.

I have read what the historians have used to justify these deliberate interventions on behalf of the Vatican - for example, that certain high ranking members of the Clergy had guns pointed against their heads at one point or another by the Soviets. That the threat of Communism was synonymous with Godlessness, and it was the lesser of the two evils. Also, that there was a large Catholic population among the Nazis. Nothing that the Nazis did compared to Stalin. Stuff like that. I could go on and on here, but I would like your take.

How is it possible that the Vatican would have directly involved itself in the escape of so many infamous Nazis following the collapse of the Third Reich?

- lee

I don’t really see how that serves as evidence of the existence of the Illuminati; I’m not a big fan of the Catholic Church esp. not during that period. All that it proves is that there were reactionary elements in the church that were sympathetic to the Nazis. Let not forget that the western Allies and the Soviets also protected ex-Nazis. The exact extent of Vatican involvement is a matter of dispute. The director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said in 1999 that: “We have mentioned the Rat Line, an escape route for Nazis with Vatican connections (not run by the Vatican, but by a Croatian priest attached to a seminary there), but, as is well known, many unanswered questions remain about the role of the Vatican” [ http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-papers/weitzman-remarks-june-1999.html - The IWG seems like an excellent resource for researching this issue]. This is especially significant because Wiesenthal who was still alive at the time was one of the first people to implicate the Vatican in helping Nazis escape. I don’t consider Wikipedia an authoritative source but its articles on the issue also indicate dispute over the question of Vatican involvement and cites sources, some of which are available online [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA ]. On the other hand John Loftus seemed to think that these operations were widespread and had the approval of the Pope [ http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/holocaust/aftermathintro.htm ]. But even if that worse case scenario was true all it would prove is that the church leadership (like that of the US government) was plagued by anti-Semitism and fanatical anti-Communism to the extent it did the Devil’s work instead of God’s (I’m an agnostic, I used the terms figuratively). This would fit with their lack of interference in an at times cooperation with the Holocaust but once again they were not the only ones and there was plenty of blame to go around. Neither are evidence of an Illuminati like conspiracy though.

Len

Len,

I think after what you have said about this thread---including calling it crap--you owe Lee an answer here.

What I dispute is the existence of a network of powerful groups/people conspiring to take over the world especially the existence of centuries old organizations trying to do that, the evidence just isn’t there and hasn’t been presented in this thread. Lee indicated he suggested this in jest but I don’t know if he was joking about the idea of such a conspiracy or just the name Illuminati. If he or you or anybody else is seriously proposing such theories I think the categorization of ‘crap’ is justified. One reason I object to 9/11 revisionism is because I think it turns off many people from looking at the real crimes of Bush and his ilk, you can cube that for theories like the Illuminati. Lumping such nonsense with serious issues like the Bush and Blair administrations lying about Iraq, war profiteering by Neo-Con cronies, the cover up of global warming etc etc is Rove’s wet dream.

I don't think Lee or anyone else stated that powerful groups or networks are trying to 'take over the world'. That's an overdramatisation by you. However, the existence of powerful groups or networks seeking to influence Governments worldwide could be denied by only the most naive among us, IMO. When the Bilderbergs meet, they would hardly be discussing the latest sporting results, IMO. The fact that this all takes place beyond the reach of public scrutiny only adds to the suspicion. Some may call it a conspiracy, others might simply say that this is how the system works, but 'powerful group or networks' do influence Governments and media to act in their interests.

You are entitled to dismiss it all as crap and say so. I'm entitled to disagree with your observation and I do. There was a time when any suggestion of a conspiracy involving JFK's death was regarded as crap. However, it's now become obvious that a 'powerful group or network' conspired to murder him and succeeded in bluffing the public into believing a story which is patently ridiculous. The mainstream media participated in constructing an 'official history' which they knew was false. Despite the fact that most unbiased observers now realise this, the media continues this charade. This is due to the infloence of 'powerful groups or networks', don't you think?

I know little about the real story of 9/11 other than what I've read here on the Forum. However, judging by that I would guess that you are in for a tough battle trying to dissuade researchers from delving into it. You state, somewhat arrogantly, that you would prefer researchers to concentrate on the issues which you feel are important, but what you feel is important may not be the same as what others feel is important. Can't you see that branding those researchers as purveyors of '9/11 revisionism' only serves to place you in the camp of those who strive to jealously preserve 'official history'.

“p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid.”

I used that phrase about 30 times (out of over 1000 posts) especially in response to your and David Healy’s posts and to a lesser extent Jack’s, Peter’s Sid’s and other people’s posts because the five of you have a tendency to ascribe to others arguments they never made. If you want to show that I’m abusing the phrase do a search for the instances when I used it and show it was inappropriate. To do this you will have to show that I or the person in question actually made the point or argument ascribed to me or them, good luck. Once you stop making straw man arguments I will stop accusing you of making them.

You've actually gone back and counted? Len, you've got to get out more and watch some of those crappy bands. As for the rest of the paragraph, I'm amazed that someone could be so anally retentive---but in your case, I'm not surprised.

Len