Proving the Illuminati is Real

Proving the Illuminati is Real May 30, 2015

This video offers a great treatment of how conspiracy theory thinking works, and has a superb punny ending. Enjoy!

"Right. No Israelite should backhand slap another Israelite because it dishonors them, no matter what ..."

Jesus and Nonviolent Resistance
"Apparently only poor Israelites, foreign slaves can be disrespected all you like."

Jesus and Nonviolent Resistance
"Isn’t the point in the Talmud that even the poor should not be disrespected, as ..."

Jesus and Nonviolent Resistance
"I wonder about the applicability of the Mishnah Bava Kamma passage to Jesus' example.It certainly ..."

Jesus and Nonviolent Resistance

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • The video was very funny and worth watching. I don’t know if the Illuminati is real, but I have the word of a President of the United States that the military/industrial complex is real, and that we should beware of it. If 9/11 was an inside job, that would be Suspect #1 in my book. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NJd5oG4t1fg

  • I would also add that in addition to knowing that there was already a military/industrial complex that would have huge motivation for perpetrating a 9/11 event, there was also The Project for the New American Century”, which had written a paper about the need for building up America’s military defenses, and that a new Pearl Harbor event might be necessary in order to win approval of the American public. Many members of the Project went on to become members of the Bush II administration, including Cheney and Rumsfeld.
    This does not prove that 9/11 was an inside job, but it does establish that people who thought a Pearl Harbor event might be necessary were in key places at the time of 9/11.
    I’m not sure how a historian can know this and not at least wonder if the official story of 9/11 is true. James, given that you are a historian, don’t you at least wonder about it?

    • The video Gakusei Don shared below illustrates how groups like 9/11 “truthers” take details and weave them together to form a plausible but problematic story.

      • Sure, it’s a very clever parody of 9/11 Truthers. But think about it. Either we have to accept a supernatural explanation – Luke was guided by the Force to destroy the Death Star – or what?. To someone who rejects supernatural explanations, the inside job should at least be worth wondering about. In the case of the Star Wars parody, we do not know that Darth Vader’s children shared his motives to rule the galaxy. We have to suppose that they did.

        Meanwhile, we do know that there were people in power in the Bush administration who thought a New Pearl Harbor event might be necessary in order to achieve their objectives of increased military spending and American presence in the Middle East and Central Asia. In other words, we don’t have to suppose their motives. We already know them. I would think that fact alone would make an inside job worth wondering about.

    • Andrew Dowling

      To go from speculating how an attack on the U.S. would generate support for a military buildup (not exactly an earth shattering revelation) to then concocting some enormous conspiracy in blowing up the towers is more than a bride too far; it’s a universe too far. Such a conspiracy would have WAY too many potential holes and cracks for it to even occur successfully, let alone be kept under wraps for 15+ years.

      In the movies everything is done via super computers, and potential snitches get taken in the middle of the night by the CIA Samurai. In the real world human beings aren’t nearly as well organized, are far more less efficient and make far more mistakes.

      • I agree that it is easy to see how an attack on the U.S. would generate support for a military buildup. What is often overlooked is that there were people in key positions in the Bush who believed that such a buildup was very important.

        Regarding the three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11, we have two questions: First, were they controlled demolitions? That is a technical question. I’ve looked at it from a layman’s perspective, and there seems to be good evidence that they were. But I’m only a layman and I could be mistaken. Second, if they were controlled demolitions, then who is the most likely mastermind(s)? Certainly Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Pentagon would be prime suspects. But before proceeding to the second question, one might want to investigate the first question. But as long as one starts out assuming that the answer to the first question must be no, I don’t see how one could ever investigate it with an open mind.

        • Nick G

          No, there is no evidence whatsoever that the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. See here. Having an open mind is a good principle, but not so open that all sorts of garbage falls into it. If you want to believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, go for “Bush LIHOP” (“Bush Let It Happen On Purpose”), which is at least not completely doolally – but there’s really no evidence of that either, and it’s implausible that none of the many people who would have had to know would not have blabbed by now. In any case, politicians (even thoroughly evil ones) rarely work like that: they take advantage of events. That’s what Bush and the neocons did, with the spineless complaisance of the Democrat leadership and the mass media. Millions of us protested against the lies they told and the wars they launched, but in vain – except that we probably stopped Obama launching an attack on Syria ten years later.

          Edited to add: as a Brit myself, I mustn’t omit to add British politicians, above all Blair, from the roster of the war criminal liars.

          • Hi Nick, in my lay opinion the Popular Mechanics piece has been thoroughly refuted by several people. If you wanted to study the refutations, a good place to start would be here. There are over 2,300 architects and engineers who doubt the official explanation of the collapse of the three buildings and demand a new, independent investigation, at ae911truth.org . I hear the objection that many people would have known about it and blabbed by now. I don’t find that objection cogent. It seems a small group of operatives could have pulled it off without letting too many people in on the secret.

            I favored LIHOP at first, until I watched some of the videos by the experts, such as this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg

            But again, I’m not an expert on these matters. But I found the evidence presented to be compelling. But I’m just a conspiracy kook, living out my fantasies. No need to take me seriously.

          • Nick G

            But I’m just a conspiracy kook, living out my fantasies. No need to take me seriously.

            I agree completely.

          • Where’s a thumbs up emoticon when I need it? 😉

          • Nick G

            A key point is that there would have been absolutely no need to have the buildings collapse in order to generate the political effect you propose as the motive. Three hijacked planes hitting the towers and the Pentagon would have been quite sufficient. So why on earth risk planting explosives, with the chance of discovery or betrayal of the plot? You really don’t need a lot of technical expertise to see that the conspiracy theories are a crock, just a bit of common sense.

          • I think it’s debatable whether the collapses of the buildings was necessary to generate two invasions, a massive military buildup, and an endless war on terrorism. If they hadn’t collapsed, would it still have been considered a “new Pearl Harbor”? I think they were necessary, but I admit I could be mistaken.

            But again, this avoids the technical question. Were the collapses the result of controlled demolitions or not? If they were, then even if the collapses weren’t needed, it would seem that somebody thought they were needed. Who would that somebody be?

          • Nick G

            Come on, having airliners smash into buildings of key cultural and military significance not enough of a ground for war? Look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There weren’t even any US casualties, and Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, giving President Johnson legal justification for the Vietnam War!

            If, as President, you’re going to indulge in a treasonous conspiracy to kill thousands of your own citizens, you’re going to keep it as simple as possible, and employ as few people as possible. It’s simply bonkers to propose that you’d set up two complicated plots, each necessarily involving a lot of people, and which have to be exactly coordinated. How would the plotters have known, for example, that debris would fall onto building 7 – as it did – giving cover for the supposed “controlled explosions”. It’s baloney. How would they have smuggled in the necessary quantities of explosives and ancillary equipment, all without anyone getting suspicious – when there had already been an attempt to set of a bomb in one of the buildings in 1993? And if they could do that, why bother with the hijackings? It’s hooey.

            As for “avoiding the technical question”, you admit yourself you don’t have relevant expertise, so what are you basing your conviction on? The fact that some supposed experts are in the truther camp? So what? No-one had ever flown an airliner full of fuel into a skyscraper before, so no-one can reasonably say that the result could not have been what we actually saw happen, and any “experts” who claim they can are deluding themselves. Don’t you realise that whatever the facts, there was bound to be a conspiracy theory claiming it was a false flag operation? Look at the conspiracy theories around Obama. In fact, of course, there’s more than one around 9/11. Quite apart from the “truther” hogwash you’re bamboozled by, there’s the Islamist claim that it was all done by the Israelis, and that there were no Jews in the building. Or maybe you believe that one too?

          • I wonder whether Bilbo thinks that Pearl Harbor itself was staged by the U. S. military to get us into WWII?

          • Nick G

            If he doesn’t, there are almost certainly people who do! There are certainly some who believe Roosevelt “let it happen”.

          • Gary

            Speaking of Roosevelt, there’s also Teddy, Secretary of the Navy, when the Navy’s investigation of the Maine sinking determined, in error, that the explosion was external to the hull. Event was an accident, but that didn’t prevent it from being used to start the Spanish American War. I think the internal Navy conspiracy by NCIS (really, more incompetence than conspiracy) that comes to mind recently was the USS Iowa. I saw the reports well afterwards. Accident, and incompetence, using Korean War vintage black powder, stored under humidity and elevated temperature outside specified ranges, and a automated ramrod that was not properly set. Result, explosion. But NCIS jumps the gun and blames a sailor for committing suicide in a gay love affair, which was absolutely false. NCIS had to finally admit they were wrong. So conspiracies are used by everyone to their own benefit. Few are true. But many people love them. Some to start wars. Some to make political points. The WMD spin was an obvious attempt to create a conspiracy of a mushroom cloud in the U.S. potentially caused by Iraq. No need to cause an explosion. Just spin the intelligence data in your favor. After all, if the intelligence data is Top Secret, no one can really challenge it. You have to trust your leaders. Just don’t elect untrustworthy officials. Oh oh, that might be impossible.

          • Many believe that last statement. I don’t know any who don’t believe that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

          • I don’t think anyone doubts that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. What has always been questioned is whether we knew about it ahead of time. I haven’t investigated the matter, so I don’t have a strong opinion about it. Let’s just say it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that we knew about it.

          • So many questions, Nick. I’ll answer the last one. No I don’t believe that the “Jews” or Israelis were in on it. As for the rest, I looked at the evidence as best I could as a layman, and it looks pretty convincing to me that controlled demolitions were the means for bringing down the towers. The really neat thing about this question is that an honest, independent, scientific investigation could resolve the issue, one way or the other. I hate debating matters of fact when we don’t have to, don’t you?

      • jjramsey

        There’s also the matter that Iraq, the intended target for the Project for the New American Century, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. This supposed conspiracy entails that the conspirators simultaneously be competent enough to frame the attacks on outside terrorists rather than the “actual” insiders, but incompetent enough to botch the frame-up so that the outside terrorists had nothing to do with the country that the conspirators wanted to attack.

        • Yes, this is Noam Chomsky’s main objection to 9/11 being an inside job. My reply is that Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Pentagon wanted a long term military buildup and needed an enemy that would last longer than Saddam Hussein. Global terrorism was the perfect replacement for global communism. Thus, the endless war on terror: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8524679/#.VWsvDXD3arU

  • Gakusei Don

    My favorite conspiracy theory is: Was the Death Star destruction an inside job? Compelling! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEPazLTGceI