Atheists Assemble! The Illuminati Are Under Assault!

[Brainster]

A poster over at DU wonders why of all the conspiracy theories JREF seldom tackles the Bavarian Illuminati:

It seems to me that atheists should consider anti-Illluminism to be very, very scary. Why aren't more of them scared? Why isn't there more concern about anti-Illuminism in the JREF forum? (Here's the list of "Illuminati" threads on JREF - they don't seem to be very frequent, and hardly any serious debunking goes into them.) Why aren't there a whole bunch of websites out there targeting and refuting anti-Illuminist claims in detail? In my opinion, there should be.

First they came for the Illuminati, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Illuminati....

She (it's 9-11 Truther Diane from the Activist NYC blog) acknowledges that we mostly just laugh off talk of the Illuminati. She claims that anti-illuminism permeates the antiwar movement (who knew?):

And, at almost any anti-war rally, you will likely run into people talking about "the Illuminati." For the most part, the leaders don't talk about "the Illuminati" (probably because most anti-war rallies, at least here in New York, are organized by Communists). However, a great many rank-and-file rally attendees do believe in "the Illuminati."

Diane should stop going to antiwar rallies with Luke Rudkowski and Matt Lepacek; I cannot imagine that there is a significant element of the non-Truther antiwar movement that is concerned with the Illuminati.

She notes that we mostly toss off mention of the Illuminati as not having existed for centuries and not that important when they did exist, but seems to feel we don't do enough to combat anti-Illuminism. I guess her theory is that when some fundie preacher rails against the Illuminati, he really means "Atheists". That's funny, I've never noticed fundie preachers having any problems referring to godless Atheists.

I don't know what more she expects us to do. It's hard to prove a negative--that the Illuminati don't exist. JREF forum member Boloboffin holds up the side of sanity in that thread. Later on Diane claims that the right wing is going to take over the antiwar movement, which would be quite a feat.

 

[Hokulele]

...

I guess her theory is that when some fundie preacher rails against the Illuminati, he really means "Atheists".

...

I would absolutely love to know what she thinks fundie preachers really mean when they rail against death metal.

 

[DarkMagician]

I would absolutely love to know what she thinks fundie preachers really mean when they rail against death metal.

I'm guessing polyester loveseats.

 

[AZCat]

I wondered how long that thread would remain unnoticed by the JREF. I don't really understand Diane's obsession with the cavalier attitude of atheists about anti-Illuminati rhetoric, the alleged links in the minds of the poor between the Illuminati and atheists, and any possible dire consequences for the atheists if they should continue to ignore such a threat.

 

[arthwollipot]

What are you all talking about? Of course the Illuminati exist. Here's proof: 23.

The number 23 is the ultimate fnord. If you look for it, you'll see it everywhere. This is evidence of the pervasiveness of the Illuminati. The recent Jim Carrey movie almost outed us them, but it was such a bomb that no-one noticed. Why do you think it bombed? Of course.

Keep an eye out for that number. Why 23? Because 2+3=5, of course.

 

[Cuddles]

It seems to me that atheists should consider anti-Illluminism to be very, very scary. Why aren't more of them scared? Why isn't there more concern about anti-Illuminism in the JREF forum? (Here's the list of "Illuminati" threads on JREF - they don't seem to be very frequent, and hardly any serious debunking goes into them.) Why aren't there a whole bunch of websites out there targeting and refuting anti-Illuminist claims in detail? In my opinion, there should be.

I don't get it. Surely anti-Illuminism is people arguing against the illuminati? Which seems to imply that she thinks we should go around debunking people who claim the illuminati don't exist. Which doesn't make any sense since we agree with them. Unless anti-illuminism is supposed to mean people who think the illuminati do exist but don't want them to. In which case we don't argue with them much because making fun of such obviously insane people is generally considered poor form.

 

[Fiona]

As I read that post, the point made is this:

There is a conspiracy theory suggesting we are all run by the illuminati
Those who believe that conspiracy think this is a bad thing
That conspiracy is said to be primarily under the control of atheists
A widening of belief in this conspiracy will have bad consequences for atheists, as their evil influence is believed and opposition to it mounts
Therefore atheists should put a lot of effort into debunking it

So the poster is putting forward the second of the alternative ideas you suggested, Cudddles, but believes that the threat is more important than you do. The author recognises that the usual response is to laugh at such people, as you also say. He or she thinks this is inadequate because the belief is gaining significant ground.

The post goes on to suggest that the reason we do not realise this is because we are disproportionately academic or highly paid or whatever: and therefore do not realise the hold these ideas are gaining amongst more disadvantaged groups. S/he reckons we will pay for this complacency and draws a parallel with wealthy jews in pre-hitler Germany.

What is curious is that a major plank of the argument put forward is that this movement is in fact under the control of the religious right. It may be so but it looks a wee bit like a conspiracy theory to me. To be fair to the author s/he specifically calls for active debunking of large scale conspiracy theories: I am not clear if the parallel premise that we should not do the same with small ones is tactical, or if it is because s/he believes in at least some small conspiracies.

I have no idea if the observation that belief in the Illuminati is gaining ground is true, since the thesis relates specifically to the USA. But on the face of it this is not a ridiculous argument. Groups like the jews in Germany were so targetted; and it does seem to have been effective and to have grown under the noses of those groups, who did not recognise the danger till too late. ( I am not trying to Godwin this discussion, btw, it is the example used in the post cited). Such things can happen and I have noticed how very different the attitude to atheists seems to be in some parts of the USA, compared to here, from what I have read on this very board.

So should we dismiss this without further consideration? I am inclined to think not

 

[Drudgewire]

What are you all talking about? Of course the Illuminati exist. Here's proof: 23.

To any Detroit Pistons or NY Knicks fan, that's all the proof you'll ever need.

 

[Horatius]

So should we dismiss this without further consideration? I am inclined to think not

It's certainly a departure from the usual around here.


I'm inclined not to worry too much about it though. Although I suppose I am one of the intellectual atheists she mentions.

The key point why I'm not worried about anti-illuminatism becoming some sort of pogrom against atheists is hinted at in her article:

Of course, anti-Illuminism doesn't target just atheists. It also targets "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays, among others. Some variants target Jews as well. However, the historical Bavarian Illuminati were mostly atheists. Thus, atheists should be regarded as the central target of anti-Illuminism, at least implicitly if not explicitly.

As has been pointed out, the "historical Bavarian Illuminati" simply are not what most of the CT crowd mean when they discuss "The Illuminati". It has become a new, catch-all phrase that refers to whatever group of boogy men the particular CT is railing against. I'd bet good money that most of the people she could quote as being "anti-Illuminati" simply don't have a clue who the historical Bavarian Illuminati actually were or what they wanted to accomplish.

This is highlighted in her first follow up article, referring to some threads here on JREF.

The most recent thread, There are 6,000 people in the Illuminati begins with a post saying:

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I'm pretty convinced that the vast majority people in the world are made to dance to the tune of a tiny group of rich and powerful people. It doesn't really matter what this small group is called. The Illuminati is as good a name as any other. In a book called Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, David Rothkopf asserts that the world is effectively ruled by 6,000 people. I'm quite happy to equate Rothkopf's 6,000 with the Illuminati.

I thought this worth quoting, because I've encountered similar arguments elsewhere. My response to such arguments:

"Illuminati" isn't "as good a name as any other" for the ruling class. You wouldn't call the ruling class "the Elders of Zion," would you? For similar reasons, they should not be called "the Illuminati." If you call them "the Illuminati," you are implicitly, even if unintentionally, endorsing a religious right wing meme about the world being controlled by evil atheists, "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, etc.

She's trying to enforce a historically accurate usage of the term Illuminati that simply does not have any other support in the modern CT world. The term has entered their lexicon with a fluid definition that serves the purpose of whoever uses it. If she were to succeed in convincing others to use the term as she indicates, I suspect she'd also end up seeing a great decrease in the discussions of the Illuminati that she refers to, as people start using some other term for the catch-all boogy men they're really talking about, as opposed to "atheists".

So that's why I'm not too worried.

 

[Fiona]

That seems reasonable unless she is correct in thinking that those who are coming to believe in this conspiracy are being encouraged to think those in charge are atheists.This need not depend on the historical group unless a vague historical reference is enough to further the aims of a religious right intent on smearing atheists. It is perhaps not likely, but how many would investigate properly if s/he was correct?

 

[Horatius]

That seems reasonable unless she is correct in thinking that those who are coming to believe in this conspiracy are being encouraged to think those in charge are atheists.This need not depend on the historical group unless a vague historical reference is enough to further the aims of a religious right intent on smearing atheists. It is perhaps not likely, but how many would investigate properly if s/he was correct?

But who is it who is doing the encouraging? She hasn't really established that. Most of the people I see railing against the Illuminati seem to identify them with some sort of pagan or satanic beliefs, not atheism. Before we get all up in arms about attacks on atheists, I'd want to see some of those attacks. So far, they don't seem to exist anywhere other than her imagination.

That's not to say atheists haven't been attacked, it's just that those attacks don't seem to be related to any sort of organized (or even disorganized) "anti-Illuminati" movement. There are plenty of reasons to object to religious influences on society without having to make up new reasons about their covert attempts to stir up anti-atheist feelings. Their overt actions are reason enough.

 

[Fiona]

I do not know, Horatius. The situation in very odd in the USA to my european eyes and so I cannot judge who is attacking whom. In some parts of the US it seems to be quite scary to be an atheist and in others it is not a big deal. So I learned from responses to my questions on this board, anyway. Do the religious right not conflate atheists with Satanists sometimes? I sort of had the impression that some of them think that atheists don't really exist, and therefore must be lying about their stated position. This seems to be predicated on the idea that a "religous urge" is built in, presumably by their god

 

[Horatius]

There is an awful lot of intolerance of atheists in the US, and to a lesser extent in Canada. My point is, it's a bit like Bush bashing - there are enough perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose Bush et al., you don't need to make up new, fake stuff to bash him over. Similarly, there are enough real reasons to oppose the religious right, for their completely above-board, overt actions, that a call to arms to fight the alleged "anti-Illuminati" movement is unnecessary.

And note, it would be unnecessary even if it turns out she's correct.


Consider the line of argument she offers in a later post:

That's a vast straw-man oversimplification of what I've said in this thread. Consider the following points one at a time, please:

1) The religious right wing has made at least some attempts (largely though not completly unsuccessful) to reach out to Blacks and other minorities. Agreed? If not, why not?

2) There is enough homophobia and other assorted bigotry in various minority communities that greater religious right wing successes there are far from completely impossible. Agreed? If not, why not?

3) When attempting to appeal to poor people and minorities, religious right wingers are more likely to succeed if they use a populist, anti-elitist approach. Agreed? If not, why not?

4) Anti-illuminism is both (a) populist and anti-elitist, thus fitting point 3 above, and (b) already in fairly wide circulation within the evangelical Christian subculture, or at least the more extreme sectors thereof (e.g. among the folks who give credence to people like Pat Robertson and/or Tim LaHaye). Agreed? If not, why not?

5) Hence, anti-Illuminism could play a significant role in a religious right wing resurgence. If you don't agree, why not? (Note that I'm not claiming that anti-Illuminism would be the sole factor in a religious right wing resurgence, but it could indeed be a significant factor.)

6) A religious right wing resurgence could lead to, among other consequences, a right wing Supreme Court for many decades hence. Agreed? If not, why not?

I would largely agree with her up to about point 3, and on point 6. And those four points are enough to motivate me to oppose the religious right - which I do, and which most other atheists I know do. Everything from points 4 and 5 seems to be nothing more than her own speculation about how the anti-Illuminati movement, if it exists, might have an influence - an influence which, if it does exist, we would be countering simply because we're already acting to try and oppose their actions relating to points 1-3 and 6.

Trying to tie opposition to the religious right to her own CT fantasies just seems to me to be more of the usual twoofer methods - hitching their waggons to a more mainstream movement, in hopes of making it look like they have more influence than they actually do, just like with the anti-war movement.

 

[arthwollipot]

Antidisilluminatiarianism?

 

[Horatius]

Antidisilluminatiarianism?

Or something even less comprehensible!

 

[Tiktaalik]

Antidisilluminatiarianism?

Wow. I came up with exactly that same word as I was reading through this thread & was going to post it until I saw you did.

We must be experiencing unconscious mind control from some hidden super-ruling force...

 

[boloboffin]

I'd been meaning to post this over here, Brainster. Thanks.

It's quite the wackiest thing I've read in a long while. Maybe it was Diane's misguided way of trying to build common cause, but it sure felt like scolding all us mean old atheists for being so concerned about 9/11 CT and not being concerned at all about the CT that makes us the bad guy. Holy Prince Ludwig, Batman!

 

[AZCat]

I'd been meaning to post this over here, Brainster. Thanks.

It's quite the wackiest thing I've read in a long while. Maybe it was Diane's misguided way of trying to build common cause, but it sure felt like scolding all us mean old atheists for being so concerned about 9/11 CT and not being concerned at all about the CT that makes us the bad guy. Holy Prince Ludwig, Batman!

It may be wacky, but at least it's a change from reading yet another thread where petgoat criticizes a report he hasn't read.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wow. I came up with exactly that same word as I was reading through this thread & was going to post it until I saw you did.

We must be experiencing unconscious mind control from some hidden super-ruling force...

There are no coincidences. I'll give you an example. Think of a number.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here is a very good read on the Bavarian Illuminati. After reading it you might better understand why Diane thinks the JREF should be interested in defending Weishaupt's Illuminati.

The author is writing a book about the topic, which i think could be quite important, because, frankly, nearly everything you find about it in english is utter crap, while the amount of research done by german historians is huge.

Even on this board i've read stuff like "they were like the OTO today", which couldn't be further from the truth.