by Dreams End » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:31 pm
I don't have a lot of trouble with most of what you are saying. Here's the only bit that troubles me about the "Illuminati". It's not a matter of what they call themselves, it's a matter of taking a preconceived idea, borrowing from some quite nasty myths, putting it on top of something real and then cherry picking info to fit the preconception.<br><br>A lot of people use "illuminati" simply to mean secret forces within society calling the shots...but it has an actual meaning because the Illuminati existed. Someone using the term Illuminati is claiming they still exist, unbroken (and that the original Weishaupt group, in term, is Knight's Templar, etc) and, when not delving into anti-Semitic theories recycled onto new turf, you basically get valueless info. <br><br>For example, I grabbed the Dan Brown book when it came out...knowing a bit more than the average person about the things he included in his book and really open to books like "holy blood, holy grail" (since pretty succesfully debunked, though Picknett and Price find layers beneath the hoax). My problem with the book was that it was, from a research point of view (hey, he was the one to put "based on reality" in the book) it was crap.<br><br>so Illuminati often, though not always, is usually associated with similar research "shortcuts" at best, or, at worst, made up crap. <br><br>That actually doesn't disprove that the Illuminati continued (though the record of their dissolution is pretty clear...movements do go underground) though there is nothing in the actual records to indicate that the illuminati were trying to create mind controlled slaves. Their stated objectives were anti-royalist and pro-"republican" (as in democratic, not as in elephant) as well as a general idea of enlightenment thought.<br><br>Could there be more underneath? Sure. Think Hellfire clubs. Think about how Crowley came out of Masonry (which is also what the Illuminati came from) and how much modern occultism borrows from masonic imagery, ritual and symbolism.<br><br>And then there are many who simply appropriate a lineage to sound more "respectable." There was not a single masonic splinter group, I'd wager, that did not claim to be directly descenced from the Templars. They can't ALL be right. And I've seen freemason histories in the bookstore that make claims of origin as far back as Moses! <br><br>So we have these layers. We have the factual truth, i.e. this happened then...then this other guy took over, then they started a new group over there. We have the self-reported lore of various groups, which, a la Umberto Eco, sort of step into a history of their own creation, or should I say co-optation. And then we have the layer of myth from those on the outside looking in, which contains:<br><br>a. some vestiges of the truth (not saying I can judge)<br>b. some old blood libel, anti-Semitic (but not exclusively so) stories of rabbis sacrificing babies to use their blood in Matzoh...a comment on Jeff's current post says just that, in fact. This stuff just doesn't die. <br>c. Rightwing conspiracy which is either organic or deliberately created in an attempt to smear anything remotely "leftist" as satanic (i.e. communists = Illuminati....)<br>d. Organic myth in the nonjudgmental sense of the term..i.e. stories which have some unknowable amount of factual content which morph and adapt to new social realities...<br><br>Now, this isn't just scholarly debate..I realize that victims are victims, regardless of any of the above. All I have is my ability to read, research and ask questions...and because of all the garbage, it's not easy.<br><br>Do yourself a favor and try to find a book called "Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath." Not because it supports some version of what we are talking about but because the author, Carlo Ginzburg, tries to tease out the layers of historical information within all the witch trial history.<br><br>People like Margaret Murray simply took the "confession" (under torture, mind) as face value which described an actual longlived pagan religion. <br><br>ginburg (like most scholars) says "hold on...that doesn't make sense...they were tortured and much of their confessions fit what the Inquisitors wanted to hear. They'd come to a town and would already have made a big stink about the sorts of things they thought were happening. It was easy to know what they wanted to hear.<br><br>But what about the stuff the Inquisitors DIDN'T want to hear and yet kept popping up? That shows some historical information may be hidden there.<br><br>In addition, the book is important because it shows how the elites (in this case, royalty) also intentionally spread such disinformation. There are three letters, for example, showing things like a plot between a moorish king and either Jews, lepers or simply poor people to poison wells throughout an area. All three letters are different scenarios allegedly by different people...yet all three are in the same handwriting.<br><br>So it's not the "anti-Semite" part I'm wanting people to focus on...because before Jews, it was lepers and simply the poor and I think witches got tacked on later. It's the complex ways these stories get started and how they CONTAIN truth without be entirely true.<br><br>But Ginzburg did find evidence for a longlived shamanic religion in all his research. We should be able to do much more because this is happening now and we have access to so much more information. But everyone should learn some of this history I've mentioned, and the history of the blood libel, etc. A lot of it will be disturbingly familiar....and Illuminati is often (not always) a signpost for me that there may be a good dose of myth in the story. <p></p><i></i>