Recently a video called “The Illuminati Is Good” was brought to my attention by a friend. The contention held by this three part youtube video is that, contrary to what most believe in patriot movements, the Illuminati are good and it is the sheeple who are evil. The creator of the video reasons that we are too negligent and careless in looking after our own responsibilities and interests and that, as a consequence, the Illuminati have assumed that task and so gained natural dominion over us.
For clarity’s sake let me first make clear what maker of the video means with the buzzword and blanket term Illuminati:
Definition: The Illuminati are the financial elite of the world who are in control of all major financial institutions including all major banks, particularly and most importantly, the so-called central banks.
The price for our laziness, complacency and most importantly, our supposed reluctance to work for our survival (or to “hunt when hungry” as it is referred to in “The Illuminati is Good”) is perpetual bondage to our slave-masters: the bankers. Therefore we owe it to our own, mind you, unnatural shortcomings that we have been enslaved by the Illuminati. Or so the video likes us to believe.
The purpose of this blog entry is to demonstrate that, although the gentleman who made this thought-provoking presentation raised some interesting points, it is, in my opinion, nonetheless flawed in its premises and as such incorrect in its conclusion. I will try to build a counter-argument to the assertion that, although it may not be justified to always accuse the Illuminati for all the wrongdoings in the world, the inverse assertion is also unwarranted, namely that the greedy sheeple are responsible for all the woes of the world. I hope to make clear that the truth rather is to be found somewhere in the middle.
First, here is the video:
In the first video, Nemesis (the maker of the video), makes the following statement:
“The Illuminati are GOOD, therefore the Sheeple are EVIL.”
The thing that puzzles me is the inherent mutual exclusivity of this statement, i.e. the maker implies that both cannot be good or evil. It is assumed that if one of them is evil, then the other must be good. With only the most casual reflection on the miserable state the world is in today, I find myself in ready agreement with the unlikelihood of the former (both being good). Contrastingly however, I do hope to be able to demonstrate the likelihood of the latter (both being evil).
Early on in the video, Nemesis states:
The bankers learned that the masses had a DELUSIONAL GREED. They learned that this DELUSIONAL GREED was that the people wanted MONEY without doing ANYTHING FOR IT IN RETURN. They found this behavior to be at odds with the laws of nature. However they were startled to discover that DELUSIONAL GREED drove the masses to their banks in search of EASY RICHES. […] Up until that time there was no such thing as a loan – so if you wanted something you had to LABOR for it. THIS IS THE LAW OF NATURE – IT CANNOT BE BROKEN. Enter the ancient borrower with only one thing on his mind – getting a FREE LUNCH.
Solely on the basis that there are people out there who want to make an easy fortune without breaking a sweat, then yeah I would have to agree with Nemesis. On the other hand, in present times, as far as I know, a prospecting loaner has to demonstrate to a lender that he is also a capable loaner, in the sense that he, at least, must be able to repay his loan.
Indeed, from WiseGeek we read:
Most loan applications are handled by banks or other professional lending institutions. They may use any number of criteria to determine if a potential borrower is eligible for a loan. Past credit history is almost always considered, along with current income and assets. The purpose of the loan may also be a factor–a proven investment opportunity may have more appeal than an unproven idea for a new restaurant. One important consideration is the income to debt ratio of the borrower. Can the borrower afford to pay the loan back with interest? Professional lenders essentially ‘sell’ money, so borrowers must realize how much a loan actually ‘costs’ in terms of real dollars and cents. Source: WiseGeek:What is a loan? (boldfaced emphasis mine)
From Wikipedia we recollect the difference between the secured loan and the unsecured loan. It would seem to me that a widespread availability of unsecured loans is a major causative factor in enslaving loaners and those type of loans, in my opinion, should therefore best be abolished altogether. Paradoxically, the prevalence of unsecured loans show a certain greed on the part of the lenders/bankers too, a selfish trait that Nemesis tries to exclusively pin on the hordes of sheeple blinded by greed and dumbstruck by naivete.
On the other hand, secured loans seem like a viable and reliable possibility for a loaner to be able to temporarily postpone payment. In case the loaner defaults on his/her loan, a collateral may then serve to complete repayment of the loan and thus facilitate a more or less peaceful closure of the loaner-lender relationship. In other words, any resentful states of perpetual bondage of the loaner to the lender can, in principle, be avoided. I do not see anything fundamentally wrong with this picture but I am open to enlightening suggestions to make me reach a higher level of understanding.
Nemesis goes on to state:
From ancient times until today, paper money enters the system in ONLY ONE WAY: The GREEDY sheeple BORROW IT. Like the banks do today, when you ask for a free lunch, it is materialized out of thin air. But it’s not really a lunch, it’s just an illusion of a free lunch. An illusion of riches and wealth all for doing NOTHING to get it. But I have to make this crystal clear. NOBODY FORCED THE SHEEPLE TO GET LOANS. If nobody in ancient times went to the gold smith looking to get INSTANT RICHES, there would be no paper money, no loans, no Illuminati, no paper money scheme.
(boldfaced emphasis mine)
Although it is true that one can hardly speak of prospecting loaners being coerced to go to a bank and loan money, today’s aggressive marketing atmosphere is such that people do experience a rather persistent barrage of enticements and encouragements to go ahead and get a loan. A modest grasp of bank loan advertisements serves to illustrate this contention:
Also quite strongly represented is the never relenting stream of aggressive credit card advertisements, spurring potential clients to get one yesterday rather than today:
In other words, although the bankers may not force people into debt, they nonetheless try to lure them into debt. Although the former would indeed be more regrettable than the latter, I believe that the latter is not entirely free from blame either, ethically speaking. In fact, as I already indicated, luring ads are a telltale sign of avarice on the part of the bankers. It’s ironic because condemnation of supposed greedy sheeple probably drove Nemesis to make his video and now it turns out that bankers can easily act just as greedily.
Nemesis goes on to state:
The basis of EVERY boom/bust cycle and therefore inflation, has been a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF SHEEPLE-GREED. Stocks in the 20’s – the sheeple lined up to get rich by using margin loans. This is basically purchasing stocks using BORROWED money. Stocks in the 80’s – again the sheeple BORROWED money to buy stocks. The “.com” bubble of the 90’s, yet again the sheeple BORROWED money to ‘invest’ in tech companies. The housing bubble of 02-06 – yet AGAIN the sheeple BORROWED money to buy houses (mortgages). In each of these historical instances the masses of sheeple did one thing: BORROW TO GET RICH. This is illogical, foolish, delusional, greed-stricken, pathological, and EVIL.
Although I agree with Nemesis that the principle of borrowing money to get rich is selfish, myopic, illogical and all the rest of it, let’s ask ourselves if bankers are really that much better. To begin with, as the pictures of the ads above show, there is such a thing as a greedy and money lusting banker. So that’s one argument in favor of putting greedy sheeple and greedy bankers in the same despicable category.
And then you have the phenomenon of the central banker. One of the functions of a central bank is to loan out money, created by the bank out of thin air mind you, to the government it is affiliated with. In addition to that loan, the government is expected to pay a certain amount of interest on top of loan repayment. This interest is collected by the government through taxation of its people. So basically here you have a bank that creates money out of thin air, loans it out, and expects to not only be paid back in full but to also get a fair bonus on top of it all, or, in case of usury, a disproportionally large bonus even. If mere citizens would do such a thing it would be considered counterfeiting currency and is a federal felony in the US, but oh no, if a central bank prints or issues out money it is considered righteous and lawful.
Be that as it may, the interest bonus the FED claims, which actually is real citizen labor expressed in monetary form, goes directly to the central banker while he really has not done any labor itself to deserve it. In fact, while doing absolutely nothing the central banks as a rule will obtain a chunk of, in principle, each and every financial transaction going on in the US because it will always add as income to the receiving party and therefore is subjected to the Income Tax as enforced by the IRS.
Therefore, as it turns out, the necessarily parasitic banker gets ‘fatter’ catching ‘birds’ all the time without doing any ‘hunting’ at all. So who’s really getting a free lunch? The sheeple, or the central banker? Consistent with the laws of nature, the borrowing sheeple really cannot do such a thing as it is legally bound by debt to its debtor/lender and will thus have to pay one way or another. On the other hand, the central banker does have the possibility to get free lunches, and gets them all the time, and gets away with it too.
So who’s really evil now? The selfish and myopic sheeple or the sly loan shark, the unscrupulous banker or the untouchable central banker? I think they all should be classified as ‘evil’. At least, neither one of them is purely ‘good’ by any sensible definition of the word. Moreover, the myopic sheeple are only part of the financial problems of today. It is as if the situation is such that the vocal sheeple are pointing the finger to the Illuminati, while in turn the Illuminati are pointing the finger back at the sheeple. To some extent both of them are right but similarly to some extent both are wrong also in that both refuse to assert responsibility for their systemically selfish and immature actions.
As as aside, it dawned on that this notion of the unconscientious banker helping to get what greedy sheeple want and, as such, aid in, or even precipitate, their destruction reminds me of the phenomonenon of, what the late psychotherapist CS Hyatt called, the Toxick Magician, a person who aids another person in getting what that person wants in order to speed up or facilitate self-destruction. But this will be the subject-matter for a follow-up blog.
So to recap, it would seem to me that Nemesis has fallen for some serious Illuminati propaganda rather than the even uglier truth. I thank him though since he made me think and inspired me to produce this blog.
Addendum:
A few days ago, in the hope of starting a fruitful correspondence, I sent a link of this blog to DJHives, the person who on behalf of Nemesis is responsible for “The Illuminati Is Good” video.
Here’s a verbatim account of the exchange:
Hello djhives,
I’d like to bring to your attention a recent article I wrote in response to Nemesis’ “The Illuminati Is Good” video:
https://1phil4everyill.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/counter-argument-to-the-illuminati-is-good-video/
Please feel free to respond,
Kind regards,
Phil
The subsequent response I received was:
a miserable fail….
You fail at your VERY FIRST point…..
“as far as I know a prospecting loaner has to demonstrate to a lender that he is also a capable loaner, in the sense that he, at least, must be able to repay his loan.”
that’s not the point it has nothing to do with REPAYMENT which would be LATER IN TIME
it has to do with the greedy sheep walking in BROKE and coming out with INSTANT MONEY…
the premise is not a humble sheep looking for some money.. but rather his mind is greedy!
what does a sheep do when he gets a loan whats going through his mind: its “i know Ill get a loan for 100K, then buy a rental property, then MAKE A PROFIT on the rent money. ALL BY DOING NOTHING…this is the GREED AND DELUSION of the masses its called BORROWING TO GET RICH… the sheep also call this “investing” it doesnt have to be housing, it can be stocks, comic books or tulips ….
you FAIL in your counter argument because you don’t grasp the basic concept of the argument NEMESIS made.
I then replied:
I think I do understand Nemesis, it’s just that I don’t agree in full with him. On the other hand, however, I do not disagree in full with him either.
Regarding the example you brought up. I do not think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with this type of loan provided the loaner is able to meet the requirements and terms of the loan set forth by the lender and signed into effect by the loaner. And regarding getting rich by doing nothing (a principle I regret as much as you do, don’t get me wrong), I do not think that that is entirely true regarding the example you brought up. For example, the loaner, in all likelihood, must be tied up with all kinds of activity in order to get the rental property off the ground. There’s maintenance and/or preparations, services, advertisements, all kinds of paperwork including bookkeeping, to be resolved tenant complaints, etc…. In other words, there’s enough work to be done to refute the ‘doing nothing part’ claim…
But now that I have your attention, I’d like to bring up the concept of the central banker. You know the kind of banker that prints and/or issues money out of thin air, issues it to the treasury in return for bonds, and demands rather than expects to be paid a good chunky interest fee (usury) on every monetary transaction going on the US; done through the Income Tax and all too ferociously enforced by the IRS. The central banker gets fat by doing what exactly? Printing money out of thin air and then leeching the US economy simply by sinking its fangs into the necks of countless hardworking and law abiding Americans, including yourself probably. Tell me how this act of parasitism is not greedy?
Quite coincidentally an most interesting and relevant article was passed on to me today. An excerpt that, in my opinion, does a pretty good job in summing up the financial mess the US is in today:
”
[…]imagine two households. One household balances its budget, spends only what it brings home in income and has no debt. The other household spends twice as much as it earns. It owes $50,000 on credit cards and borrows money from loan sharks to meet the minimum payments on its credit cards.Which household is “radical?”
Now consider this: The second household sneaks into the first household and steals money to pay its own debts. On top of that, it has a counterfeit cash printing machine in the basement, and it’s cranking out thousands of dollars a week just to attempt to pay off its credit cards. It’s immune to the law because it buys off the local police for criminal immunity.
Which household is headed towards financial disaster? Which household has a real future, and which one doesn’t?
That second house, of course, is the United States government. My reporting on the U.S. financial situation is downright tame compared to what’s really going on behind the scenes. I can’t get radical enough to accurately describe the degree of deception and outright theft that’s taking place in Washington right now.
History will show that not only were my warnings accurate, they were understated by a wide margin. Reporting the truth is a delicate thing. People can only stomach so much truth at any one time. Few people can handle the whole truth, which is why I usually refrain from reporting it. There are things stated in this article that only hint at much bigger stories that will someday be told by others.
Only the most open-minded, skeptical thinkers can even mentally consider the real truth of what’s happening in our world today. Most people have been brainwashed into living in a fictional world, and they are unable to even consider truths that threaten their grip on reality.
As a result, the public has to be led by the hand from one realization to the next, little by little, until they attain the ability to see the world as it really is rather than the illusion that has been constructed for them by the very people running this financial scam.
Excerpt from this article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/024427.html
”
Respectfully,Phil
To which he replied:
you just don’t get it do you…
There is no “work” a borrower does when he borrows.. in your example: “There’s maintenance and/or preparations, services, advertisements, all kinds of paperwork including bookkeeping, to be resolved tenant complaints, etc…. In other words, there’s enough work to be done to refute the ‘doing nothing part’ claim…”
thats BS. The person BORROWS money to get the property then uses that borrowed money to BUY his help, in this case a property manager that does all the above mentioned for him…
look we cant go forward with this conversation because you lack the capacity to grasp this simple concept. Every borrower…. EVERY borrower aims at ONE THING: borrow money (free money) in hopes of USING that free money to get MORE FREE MONEY — this is text book GREED as well as being delusional… thus the borrower ALWAYS gets fucked.
#2: you said “I’d like to bring up the concept of the central banker. You know the kind of banker that prints and/or issues money out of thin air, issues it to the treasury in return for bonds, and demands rather than expects to be paid a good chunky interest fee (usury) on every monetary transaction going on the US; done through the Income Tax and all too ferociously enforced by the IRS. The central banker gets fat by doing what exactly? Printing money out of thin air and then leeching the US economy simply by sinking its fangs into the necks of countless hardworking and law abiding Americans, including yourself probably. Tell me how this act of parasitism is not greedy?
“Are you a FOOL? because you are acting like one. How is money created? you seem to THINK that the government just prints it and dumps it on the public. What VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR are you IGNORING???
The masses of sheep DEMAND TO BORROW MONEY THUS BRINGING IT INTO EXISTENCE!!!!!!!!!
The government cant pront all the money it wants, but it cant FORCE it on the people!! GET IT??!!! The government never sends anyone cash in the mail. They simply say to the people that they are GIVING OUT CASH AT THE BANKS…. then she sheep.. in a greedy stupor… WILLFULLY walk into the bank to get their hand on AS MUCH FREE EASY MONEY AS POSSIBLE!!
that’s how money is born… thats what Jones, Ike, Maxwell, and Zeitgeist DON’T tell you!
Look Ill be nice with you — you simply dont have the intellect to understand what I or NEMESIS is saying…
do yourself a favor and THINK for a change.. dont babble the same old sorry ‘blame the banks’ BS that you watched on youtube… think for yourself…
PS — BLOCKED AND BANNED!!
Well, I don’t know about you DJHives but I do have a rather different idea about being nice. At least, I do not go around saying “I’ll be nice with you” one sentence and then proceed to ban and block the next sentence. I guess I’m just not schizophrenic enough to do so.
Anyway, let’s get down to the nitty gritty again. DJHives says:
Every borrower…. EVERY borrower aims at ONE THING: borrow money (free money) in hopes of USING that free money to get MORE FREE MONEY — this is text book GREED as well as being delusional… thus the borrower ALWAYS gets fucked.
I wonder though if the banker is so much different. A banker generally stores and issues money from other people. Picture a bank. Now, that bank borrows out money at a relatively high interest rate and it issues money at a relatively low interest for money deposited. From the interest difference the bank increases its capital. In other words, the banker get “fatter” as time progresses. Does he do any actual work to see his belly grow? Does he do the actual “hunting” in order to get the “bird”? Please point it out to me because frankly I don’t see it. In fact, the banker, as manager of other people’s money, gets richer precisely through the same mechanism Nemesis is trying to condemn and pin exclusively on greedy sheeple.
Therefore the banker, especially the money counterfeiting central banker, seems to have an identical mindset as the lazy greedy sheeple looking for an easy buck. I maintain that there is no fundamental difference between the two, both prove to act parasitic and are blinded by greed.
Recommended Watch (just came out a few days ago):
A Phil-for-an-ill Blog 