Do secret societies rule the world? Its an interesting question. I hazard to guess that many would scoff at this question and quickly dismiss it as a topic not worth discussing. Many would claim that the entire concept of the Illuminati or other such groups has been thoroughly debunked and that the theory has too many illogical fallacies to warrant any thoughtful discussion.
The subject of this particular post, however, is to delve deeper into the theory, and to hopefully find common ground between the theorists that preach it and the pragmatists that dismiss it. My wish is to give some credence to an ideal that I think can be undeservedly dismissed, and to provide some perspective from both sides of the argument. I dont claim to have a set idea of how the world works, I wish simply to shed some light on what I think are some of the more credible parts of the theory and at the very least make people more intellectually sympathetic towards people that may believe in such a theory.
So first things first, lets go over what I see as the most commonly agreed upon, basic tenants of this theory: A group of rich and powerful men (media executives, bankers, politicians, etc.) pull strings from the shadows in smoky conference rooms and make a wide range of greatly important and impactful decisions, including but not limited to, the tipping of elections, the waging of wars, the inflation of the dollar, the assassination of presidents, the executions of public figures etc. etc., all in the name of an ultimate purpose or under the command of one leader. Politicians, World leaders, and powerful CEOs from all over the world are bought out and act as pawns for this group, enabling them to achieve great feats of power and allowing them to push their agenda with relative ease.
As a side not: Let me point out that the sheer acceptance of this idea, that we have been lied to about the credibility of our system and the people that run it, as a fact, undoubtedly leaves the door open for many to develop their own wondrous and far-fetched conclusions to its then functions, origins, motives, and purpose. There really is no limit to the extremity. Many will go as far as to place them as devil worshippers or reptilian shape shifters sent here by our creators to monitor our evolutionary development. These are not suppositions in which I wont dare try to defend in this post.
I think a good place to start with resolving this theory is contrasting it with the very real influence of special interests in US politics and recognizing just how impactful they are on public policy. In a study by Princeton University published in September of 2014, it was reported that the United States of America is classified as an Oligarchy, as opposed to a functioning Republic or Democracy. That is to say that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence
This revelation, of course, shouldnt be a shock to those who understand the political landscape of America. Many place special interests groups rise of power and influence to the early 1900s when banks were becoming centralized and corporations were rapidly growing, merging, and forming monopolies. Woodrow Wilson, President on the United States (1913-1921), took notice of this movement in his book The New Freedom. He states:
When using these claims as evidence to support the supposition that secret societies rule the world, its important to note that Wilson also said the following:
So while Wilson recognizes the power of special interests on American politics, and the incredible influence that small groups of men have on public policy, he doesnt see it as a deliberate and malevolent conspiracy, rather an unforeseen, and perhaps natural, consequence of the growth of the free market system.
So case closed? Not quite. If we can all accept and acknowledge that small groups of rich men predominantly set the agenda for most major world affairs, then we have reached a good common ground in which we can discuss the theory further. If for any reason the above quotes failed to convince you of this fact, then I would like to cite other quotes from notable figures throughout history:
Winston Churchill wrote an article in 1920 about the Jewish people and spoke of, what he saw, as their powerful grip on effecting world events:
(I encourage readers that may have any type of knee-jerk reaction to this article, and deduce it to having any type of anti-Semitic undertones, to read the text in full.)
Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the late 1800s said simply:
Edward Bernays, often referred to as the father of Public Relations, talked of such a concentration of power in the inner-workings of corporate marketing, albeit with a more apologetic and accepting approach:
In April of 1961, John F. Kennedy gave a speech to the press and spoke of the threat of communism on the free world:
These quotes, in my view, provide some valuable insight into the inner-workings of power-structures throughout history. While there is no reason to believe that these quotes can be attributed to anything other than the respective groups in which theyre describing (Communism, special interests, American media etc.), it most definitely paints an interesting picture of how the world works. It describes to me the inevitability of corruption in any type of organized establishment and depicts the landscape in which major world decisions and public policies are set, as a corrupt system that permits powerful groups to push their agendas with no moral or ethical guidelines, and unchecked against the will of the general populace.
So for the question of Do Secret Societies Rule the World?, I dont think it would be too illogical to conclude, that yes they do. Historically, the true power of the world seems to have always resided in the hands of a small group of men, unelected, unseen, and therefore impervious to scrutiny by the masses.
Acknowledging this fact however still leaves the door open to the most important and most divisive aspect of the debate, and that is: Is there one centralized power? Sure we can look at institutions throughout the world and conclude that corruption is prevalent, but there is no strong evidence to suggest these isolated and fragmented aspects of the worlds power structure are in any way working with each other or are all under the influence of a single leader or group. But in my opinion, the possibility of such a thing isnt entirely far-fetched. Consider the Mafia-run cities in the mid 1900s and how the underground power struggle created the possibility of one family or faction rising to absolute power through the use of force, money, and general strong-arming, I dont find it too hard to believe that throughout the course of civilized history, one group of men, representing a specific ideology, could have possibly achieve the same.
Admittedly, this is where my thoughts get muddied. I cant possibly claim to know how the world works. I dont believe that one single group controls every impactful decision the world has ever made, if that were the case we would all be flying one flag, citizens of one nation. But I dont find it too irrational to suppose that there may be 3 or 4 major groups in the world today that are vying for ultimate control (Capitalism vs. Communism, Western vs. Eastern etc.) and perhaps it may be the case that only one group has absolute control over the country we live in.
This is some big picture stuff, I know, and its a lot to wrap your head around, but all I am trying to point out that such a thing is possible.
The most common line of thinking to combat this claim, that the world is run only by a few small men and that every politician, elected official, CEO, etc. is ultimately under their control, is this: How could they possibly keep such a large secret? In an age full of information, leaks etc., how could such a powerful organization ever hope to operate without being detected? To answer this I would like to return to Woodrow Wilsons texts in The New Freedom:
When you get a job, you gain security. The better the pay, the more secure lifestyle you and your loved ones obtain. This is not to be understated. When working for a large institution, be it a corporation or a government body, you dutifully perform the tasks in which you are asked. When word comes down from upstairs, you are expected to follow it without question. Sure you can raise a fit and fight back in futile attempts, but continuing to do so may leave your employers at cause to reexamine your future at the institution. So therefore most people abide, not concerning themselves with doing anything but completing the tasks they were asked to perform.
So lets take a News Organization like Fox News or MSNBC for instance. A conspiracy theorist might claim that everything they report and broadcast is under the control of one group, such as the Illuminati, in an attempt to shape public perception and to direct attention to solely where they want the public's attention to be directed. A pragmatic might counter with, So everybody that works in the news industry is able to somehow keep a large secret from the rest of public? Yeah right, tin foil hat, etc. etc. But I think thats missing the point. I dont think that an entire workforce would have to be privy to the intentions of the higher-ups for them to be able to successfully execute their agenda. So say for instance a well-intentioned journalist writes a report about a major event and it is to be published the next day. The report gets submitted to the boss, the boss submits it his boss, etc. etc. until the report is eventually published with more divisive, biased language then what the Journalist originally intended, or perhaps the original report may even be scrapped entirely in favor of a more suitable report. The journalist could be outraged, but what is he to do? Write an article to the public exposing the bias? Risk losing his job, his professional reputation, all for a small blip of public exposure that will ultimately do nothing? There are plenty of people that may, but I think that there are far more who are willing to appease their bosses and focus solely on the well-being of their families, rather than trying to being a hero.
The same logic applies for organized religion. Many believe that it is causes incredible harm to the masses and intellectually stunts important ideological or philosophical debates. Many may also believe that this is intentional and a ploy by the church leaders to gain money and influence, but what I think would be rather illogical is to conclude is that every Priest, Bishop, Minister etc. is then therefore in on it.
Politicians comply with special interests, journalists comply with editors, the working men comply with their bosses etc. etc. The groundwork is most definitely there for a group to remain in the shadows, with its true intentions known by few, and to be able to pull the strings that effect huge parts of our society.
Another question often posed by pragmatics in regards to this theory is: If they have such great control, how is it that they would leave so many loose ends so as not to be discovered? To answer that question, I dont think they need to. They cant control all the information in the world but what they are very effective at is controlling perception and opinion. I can provide well researched documentation all day to help support my claims of such a theory being true but many of you have already dismissed me as a loon given the subject matter Im defending. Anybody who speaks out on the system is ridiculed; were just conditioned to think that. If youre not a Republican or a Democrat youre a weird ideologist, that may have some good points, but doesnt live in the real world. In my opinion, the facts add up overwhelmingly in favor of many conspiracy theories but for me to claim that in any type of public discussion would be considered reputational suicide.
John Lennon said:
Many like to explain conspiracy theorists outlandish beliefs by saying something to the effect of: Some people just cant accept that bad things happen in the world so they comfort themselves by making themselves believe that there is a single evil force causing all this to happen. A simple counter to that is: Some people just cant accept that the powers at hand have no interest in our well being so they comfort themselves by making themselves believe that bad things are isolated events that just happen.
Anyways. Thanks for Reading.
The subject of this particular post, however, is to delve deeper into the theory, and to hopefully find common ground between the theorists that preach it and the pragmatists that dismiss it. My wish is to give some credence to an ideal that I think can be undeservedly dismissed, and to provide some perspective from both sides of the argument. I dont claim to have a set idea of how the world works, I wish simply to shed some light on what I think are some of the more credible parts of the theory and at the very least make people more intellectually sympathetic towards people that may believe in such a theory.
So first things first, lets go over what I see as the most commonly agreed upon, basic tenants of this theory: A group of rich and powerful men (media executives, bankers, politicians, etc.) pull strings from the shadows in smoky conference rooms and make a wide range of greatly important and impactful decisions, including but not limited to, the tipping of elections, the waging of wars, the inflation of the dollar, the assassination of presidents, the executions of public figures etc. etc., all in the name of an ultimate purpose or under the command of one leader. Politicians, World leaders, and powerful CEOs from all over the world are bought out and act as pawns for this group, enabling them to achieve great feats of power and allowing them to push their agenda with relative ease.
As a side not: Let me point out that the sheer acceptance of this idea, that we have been lied to about the credibility of our system and the people that run it, as a fact, undoubtedly leaves the door open for many to develop their own wondrous and far-fetched conclusions to its then functions, origins, motives, and purpose. There really is no limit to the extremity. Many will go as far as to place them as devil worshippers or reptilian shape shifters sent here by our creators to monitor our evolutionary development. These are not suppositions in which I wont dare try to defend in this post.
I think a good place to start with resolving this theory is contrasting it with the very real influence of special interests in US politics and recognizing just how impactful they are on public policy. In a study by Princeton University published in September of 2014, it was reported that the United States of America is classified as an Oligarchy, as opposed to a functioning Republic or Democracy. That is to say that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence
This revelation, of course, shouldnt be a shock to those who understand the political landscape of America. Many place special interests groups rise of power and influence to the early 1900s when banks were becoming centralized and corporations were rapidly growing, merging, and forming monopolies. Woodrow Wilson, President on the United States (1913-1921), took notice of this movement in his book The New Freedom. He states:
When using these claims as evidence to support the supposition that secret societies rule the world, its important to note that Wilson also said the following:
So while Wilson recognizes the power of special interests on American politics, and the incredible influence that small groups of men have on public policy, he doesnt see it as a deliberate and malevolent conspiracy, rather an unforeseen, and perhaps natural, consequence of the growth of the free market system.
So case closed? Not quite. If we can all accept and acknowledge that small groups of rich men predominantly set the agenda for most major world affairs, then we have reached a good common ground in which we can discuss the theory further. If for any reason the above quotes failed to convince you of this fact, then I would like to cite other quotes from notable figures throughout history:
Winston Churchill wrote an article in 1920 about the Jewish people and spoke of, what he saw, as their powerful grip on effecting world events:
(I encourage readers that may have any type of knee-jerk reaction to this article, and deduce it to having any type of anti-Semitic undertones, to read the text in full.)
Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the late 1800s said simply:
Edward Bernays, often referred to as the father of Public Relations, talked of such a concentration of power in the inner-workings of corporate marketing, albeit with a more apologetic and accepting approach:
In April of 1961, John F. Kennedy gave a speech to the press and spoke of the threat of communism on the free world:
These quotes, in my view, provide some valuable insight into the inner-workings of power-structures throughout history. While there is no reason to believe that these quotes can be attributed to anything other than the respective groups in which theyre describing (Communism, special interests, American media etc.), it most definitely paints an interesting picture of how the world works. It describes to me the inevitability of corruption in any type of organized establishment and depicts the landscape in which major world decisions and public policies are set, as a corrupt system that permits powerful groups to push their agendas with no moral or ethical guidelines, and unchecked against the will of the general populace.
So for the question of Do Secret Societies Rule the World?, I dont think it would be too illogical to conclude, that yes they do. Historically, the true power of the world seems to have always resided in the hands of a small group of men, unelected, unseen, and therefore impervious to scrutiny by the masses.
Acknowledging this fact however still leaves the door open to the most important and most divisive aspect of the debate, and that is: Is there one centralized power? Sure we can look at institutions throughout the world and conclude that corruption is prevalent, but there is no strong evidence to suggest these isolated and fragmented aspects of the worlds power structure are in any way working with each other or are all under the influence of a single leader or group. But in my opinion, the possibility of such a thing isnt entirely far-fetched. Consider the Mafia-run cities in the mid 1900s and how the underground power struggle created the possibility of one family or faction rising to absolute power through the use of force, money, and general strong-arming, I dont find it too hard to believe that throughout the course of civilized history, one group of men, representing a specific ideology, could have possibly achieve the same.
Admittedly, this is where my thoughts get muddied. I cant possibly claim to know how the world works. I dont believe that one single group controls every impactful decision the world has ever made, if that were the case we would all be flying one flag, citizens of one nation. But I dont find it too irrational to suppose that there may be 3 or 4 major groups in the world today that are vying for ultimate control (Capitalism vs. Communism, Western vs. Eastern etc.) and perhaps it may be the case that only one group has absolute control over the country we live in.
This is some big picture stuff, I know, and its a lot to wrap your head around, but all I am trying to point out that such a thing is possible.
The most common line of thinking to combat this claim, that the world is run only by a few small men and that every politician, elected official, CEO, etc. is ultimately under their control, is this: How could they possibly keep such a large secret? In an age full of information, leaks etc., how could such a powerful organization ever hope to operate without being detected? To answer this I would like to return to Woodrow Wilsons texts in The New Freedom:
When you get a job, you gain security. The better the pay, the more secure lifestyle you and your loved ones obtain. This is not to be understated. When working for a large institution, be it a corporation or a government body, you dutifully perform the tasks in which you are asked. When word comes down from upstairs, you are expected to follow it without question. Sure you can raise a fit and fight back in futile attempts, but continuing to do so may leave your employers at cause to reexamine your future at the institution. So therefore most people abide, not concerning themselves with doing anything but completing the tasks they were asked to perform.
So lets take a News Organization like Fox News or MSNBC for instance. A conspiracy theorist might claim that everything they report and broadcast is under the control of one group, such as the Illuminati, in an attempt to shape public perception and to direct attention to solely where they want the public's attention to be directed. A pragmatic might counter with, So everybody that works in the news industry is able to somehow keep a large secret from the rest of public? Yeah right, tin foil hat, etc. etc. But I think thats missing the point. I dont think that an entire workforce would have to be privy to the intentions of the higher-ups for them to be able to successfully execute their agenda. So say for instance a well-intentioned journalist writes a report about a major event and it is to be published the next day. The report gets submitted to the boss, the boss submits it his boss, etc. etc. until the report is eventually published with more divisive, biased language then what the Journalist originally intended, or perhaps the original report may even be scrapped entirely in favor of a more suitable report. The journalist could be outraged, but what is he to do? Write an article to the public exposing the bias? Risk losing his job, his professional reputation, all for a small blip of public exposure that will ultimately do nothing? There are plenty of people that may, but I think that there are far more who are willing to appease their bosses and focus solely on the well-being of their families, rather than trying to being a hero.
The same logic applies for organized religion. Many believe that it is causes incredible harm to the masses and intellectually stunts important ideological or philosophical debates. Many may also believe that this is intentional and a ploy by the church leaders to gain money and influence, but what I think would be rather illogical is to conclude is that every Priest, Bishop, Minister etc. is then therefore in on it.
Politicians comply with special interests, journalists comply with editors, the working men comply with their bosses etc. etc. The groundwork is most definitely there for a group to remain in the shadows, with its true intentions known by few, and to be able to pull the strings that effect huge parts of our society.
Another question often posed by pragmatics in regards to this theory is: If they have such great control, how is it that they would leave so many loose ends so as not to be discovered? To answer that question, I dont think they need to. They cant control all the information in the world but what they are very effective at is controlling perception and opinion. I can provide well researched documentation all day to help support my claims of such a theory being true but many of you have already dismissed me as a loon given the subject matter Im defending. Anybody who speaks out on the system is ridiculed; were just conditioned to think that. If youre not a Republican or a Democrat youre a weird ideologist, that may have some good points, but doesnt live in the real world. In my opinion, the facts add up overwhelmingly in favor of many conspiracy theories but for me to claim that in any type of public discussion would be considered reputational suicide.
John Lennon said:
Many like to explain conspiracy theorists outlandish beliefs by saying something to the effect of: Some people just cant accept that bad things happen in the world so they comfort themselves by making themselves believe that there is a single evil force causing all this to happen. A simple counter to that is: Some people just cant accept that the powers at hand have no interest in our well being so they comfort themselves by making themselves believe that bad things are isolated events that just happen.
Anyways. Thanks for Reading.
