Talk:Illuminati/Archive 3

Should the US one dollar bill's Eye of Providence be mentioned?

I have read about the Eye of Providence that can be spotted in a one dollar bill is possibly connected with the Illuminati. Regarding this, I think it should be mentioned here in the Illuminati article as a theory, unless it is refuted - in which case, it should be mentioned as a refuted belief just for the information.

As for any info that is trivial and either proven or not, I think it can be of good interest to be put in the article for general knowledge.

Tapuzi (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The image on the one dollar bill has nothing to do with the illuminati. It is the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States and we know exactly who created it and what it symbolizes. And no, it should not be put in the article, even as a "refuted belief just for information". There are so many "beliefs" about the illuminati that if we started to discuss them they would soon overwhelm the article. This article discusses the historical facts, not the speculation. Besides, there are already several ariticles that discuss the speculation... articles that are devoted to specific theories (for example, see: New World Order (conspiracy theory)). Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the Illuminati? How can you be so sure? And what does it symbolize? And how is the Illuminati belief/theory/whatever you wanna call it refuted? All we need is a reliable source that says it has to do with the Illuminati and it can go in the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We can be sure because we know who suggested placing the symbol in the Great Seal, and we have his words as to what the various symbols on the Great Seal are intended to mean. None of which have any connection to the Illuminati. The fact that many conspiracy theorists think the symbol might have something to do with the illumnati is a different matter... one that is discussed and is better discussed in other articles.

And since you asked: it symbolizes the hope that God will watch over the US. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jüri Lina

Jüri Lina is an Estonian writer, who has wrote several books about Illuminati and freemasonry. Here is his homepage: http://www.geocities.com/jyrilina/english/index.html DJ Sturm (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jüri Lina is an Estonian-born conspiracy theorist whose sensationalist books of what I'd call the 'paranoid genre' have not received any positive academic evaluation, for the simple reason that those books treating ubiquitous 'Illuminati-Judeo-Masonic plots' have nothing to do with real history, but merely reflect a delusional mind. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lina may be a paranoid nut job... but then so are the other authors that are mentioned (David Icke, Ryan Burke and Morgan Gricar)... I think the key here is notability. I am fairly up to speed on what the various conpiracy theorists say, and know who the major authors in the genre are... I have never heard of Lina before. The others listed are notable for their nutty theories, and their books on the illuminati have had a big impact on the conspriacy theory genre (Icke, for example, introduced an entirely new sub-genre with his "Reptilian alien" theory). So the question we need to ask is not how nutty Lina is, but how notable he/she is. If no one outside of Estonia has heard of Lina, we don't want to give undue weight to a small time author by adding him or her to our list... but if he/she has had an impact on the genre then we should. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lina's books are translated into English and Swedish and, as much as I have heard, those are read all over the world. These are noted in article New World Order (conspiracy theory). Also his documentary about Freemasons is famous: The Lightbringers DJ Sturm (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good... Can you substantiate your claim that the documentary is "famous"? Are there reviews of it (or something similar that would establish its notability)? Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also his documentary about Freemasons is famous: The Lightbringers - what does this fame consist in? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Estonian Wikipedia article et:Jüri Lina says, that he has got positive criticism from historians like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Henry Makow, Michael Tsarion and Elisabeth Heresch. It also quotes American magazine "The Barnes Review" (no. 5, 2004, p. 15): Jüri Lina is an internationally renowned writer. His chief speciality is political economy, with a specific concentration on the connection between finance and political regimes. He is the author of "Under the Sign of the Scorpion", which has attained almost cult status among his staunch supporters. He presently lives in Sweden. DJ Sturm (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Remember, we are not saying that his theories have any reliability... In fact, we are not even using him as a source. We are simply saying that he is notable enough to be listed as a writer who has "argued that Bavarian Illuminati survived, possibly to this day". I think the threshold has been met for this limited purpose. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't claimed his theories are completely true. DJ Sturm (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Farses

Grande Lodge Rockfeller (false)

OTO, Aleister Crowley (they are satanists, not illuminati) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.64.42 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if they were, does the line not say "In addition to the conspiracy theories, several modern groups have used the name Illuminati in founding their own rites. Some of these include..."? Your removal of this helps inform us of those who "used the name illuminati" how exactly?--Alf ^melmac 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They do not have register in countries, are pierced sites They think to be illuminati, are failed, They are not nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.64.42 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Not to mix satanists with illuminati, this is to confuse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.64.42 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, these groups have used the name in founding their own rites (either directly in their names or as the name of an initiatory degree). The article does not say that they are the illuminati... only that they use the name. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to put facts, not tests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.72.127 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave what is lacking in truth . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.72.127 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing cited material. You have not been addressing our point... It does not matter whether you think these bodies are the Illuminati or not... all that matters is that they use the name. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that you belong also those fakes.

You are not exempt. Faker defender fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.72.127 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are implying that I am a member of one of these organizations, no I am not. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) founded by Theodor Reuss, and later restructured by Aleister Crowley = SATANISTS, NOT ILLUMINATI!

Please see Ordo Templi Orientis#Structure... again, we are not saying that OTO is the Illuminai... we are saying that this body uses the name Illuminati (in this case as a degree). Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Grand Lodge Rockefeller founded by David Goldman = nor that there is an illusion invented.

Uses the NAME Illuminati for a degree. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Orden Illuminati founded by Gabriel López de Rojas = SATANISTS

Again, we are not saying that this group is the Illuminai... we are saying that they use the NAME Illuminati, which is obvious. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Illuminati Order (illuminati-order.com) = Atheists, not Illuminati.

Uses the NAME Illumniati.Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is bad and spoils you more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.72.127 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are not an native english speaker, so I have been patient... but I will report you to the admins if you remove this material again. Please stop disrupting the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a bad person, does not deserve wiki have you here.

Leave the text as restore. This correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.103.62 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Place in satanists in articles of satanists.

Atheists in atheists articles.

OTO in articles of sects.

Let peace the illuminati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.103.62 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.98.215 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Do you have anything to say why we should not inform of those who use the name Illuminati other than "NOT ILLUMINATI ARE SATANISTS"?--Alf ^melmac 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is done by atheists and satanists. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglandIslas (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that is potentially libelling all the contributors listed on this link.--Alf ^melmac 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Still foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.104.83 (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

really bad.. bad.. article! mixture with satan and illuminati. Bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvision55 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

melmarc you are insane.

atheists outside of wikipedia

brood of satanists, can not write.

make marketing for themselves, silly.

Groups that use improperly name illuminati. Opportunists, swindlers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvision55 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Frauds

"In addition to the conspiracy theories (joke), several groups - frauds - have used the name Illuminati in founding their own rites (joke). Some of these include the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO = satanists) founded by Theodor Reuss, and later restructured by Aleister Crowley (satanist, luciferianist), The Grand Lodge Rockefeller(where you located?) founded by David Goldman (false name, fraud), Orden Illuminati (? Illuminati or satanist?) founded by Gabriel López de Rojas (or satanist rojas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1970 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes yes... Your WP:POINT has been made (repeatedly), so please stop. I will say this one last time... WE DO NOT CARE whether these groups are real Illuminati or false Illuminati. WE DO NOT CARE if they are satanists. WE DO NOT CARE if they are frauds ... the article does not claim that they are the Illuminati... all the article says is that they use the name Illuminati. They could be a branch of the Boy Scouts of America and if they used the name Illuminati we would include them in the list. THE ONLY THING WE CARE ABOUT is that they use the name Illuminati. So get over it. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on boar's side... Also, Blueboar, you are aware you've been taking the flamebait of sockpuppets for some time now? --tinlv7 [Please copy a response here] 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)