Albert Pike and the Three World Wars

[6000SUX]

I hear that it wasn't Satan, but the Cardiff giant who revealed the information to Pike, whispering it in his ear as he slept.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: RichardE

It is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed in writing to me that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr's book, Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:

"The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925".

It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled.

So apprently, the letter surfaced between the first and second world wars. Before Israel existed or Islam was a problem.

The letter could have been written though too, though its accuracy on WW1 seems a little weak.
World War 2 could have been predicted by that point, and Israel was already being called for by a great many.
And maybe someone actually had the foresight to see putting Jews in the Middle East would cause conflicts.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ntdz
I find it extremely hard to believe that he used the word Nazi...was the Nazi party even around in 1871?

It wasn't, it started in the 1920's afaik. The term Nazi comes from "National Socialist" and was spawned after the party os NSDAP.
Although the nazi-party was anything but socialist. It was to project a better image to the working man.

Exactly... So one of the following is possible:

1. He's the most gifted and detailed psychic ever...
2. He's part of the illuminati and was just dictating the grand master plan for world domination which included the illuminati's involvement in the copulation of two specific people that resulted in the conception of Adolf Hitler and thus the formation of the Nazi party, the preconcieved notion of a jewish nation called Isreal...
3. It's bullshit...

Occam's Razor anyone?

Thank you. Good to see someone else employing Occam's Razor.

I wonder, what is the basis FOR Occam's Razor though? What evidence and reasoning is used to back up the claim that the "simplest answer tends to be the right one?"

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I wonder, what is the basis FOR Occam's Razor though? What evidence and reasoning is used to back up the claim that the "simplest answer tends to be the right one?"

Nobody has undertaken to do an exhaustive study of the Occam's Razor common-sense rule across all problem-solving domains... of COURSE. I can tell you from personal experience writing and trouble-shooting software that it does work. In complicated human situations it is often wrong, but in science and math it is often correct. One may begin to believe in it instantly by disbelieving strongly in its converse: that the more convoluted of two alternate explanations tends to be the right one.

It's not exactly the way you think, either; it means rather that "simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable" (from dictionary.com). If you have two theories to check, you should prefer the simpler because it is often easier to check, not just that it is more likely to be true.

Basically, you shouldn't choose to believe in anything without a good reason. This includes the addition of unsubstantiated complications to any explanation of anything. This, of course, wipes out most conspiracy theories, which tend to flourish best when people don't try to think too hard.

 

[Polish3d]

Good explanation, thanks. I like the reasoning from the dictionary version, sensible

 

[JEDIYoda]

Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." Taken to its logical conclusion this philosophy becomes positivism; the belief that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable and something that doesn't exist at all. Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules. Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics. It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on Brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism. The moral of this story is that Occam's razor should not be wielded blindly. As Einstein put it in his Autobiographical notes
"This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices."

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements...

"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

... or in the only form which takes its own advice...
"Keep things simple!"

Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended. Should we not test those predictions instead? Obviously we should eventually, but suppose we are at an early stage and are not yet ready to do the experiments. We are just looking for guidance in developing a theory.

This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." Aristotle went too far in believing that experiment and observation were unnecessary. The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.".

Simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do. Successful theorists often speak of symmetry and beauty as well as simplicity. in 1939 Paul Dirac wrote,


"The research worker, in his effort to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form should strive mainly for mathematical beauty. It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the latter must take precedence"

The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute. Dirac was very successful with his method. He constructed the relativistic field equation for the electron and used it to predict the positron. But he was not suggesting that physics should be based on mathematical beauty alone. He fully appreciated the need for experimental verification.

The final word falls to Einstein, himself a master of the quotable one liner. He warned,

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." Taken to its logical conclusion this philosophy becomes positivism; the belief that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable and something that doesn't exist at all. Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules. Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics. It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on Brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism. The moral of this story is that Occam's razor should not be wielded blindly. As Einstein put it in his Autobiographical notes
"This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices."

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements...

"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

... or in the only form which takes its own advice...
"Keep things simple!"

Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended. Should we not test those predictions instead? Obviously we should eventually, but suppose we are at an early stage and are not yet ready to do the experiments. We are just looking for guidance in developing a theory.

This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." Aristotle went too far in believing that experiment and observation were unnecessary. The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.".

Simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do. Successful theorists often speak of symmetry and beauty as well as simplicity. in 1939 Paul Dirac wrote,


"The research worker, in his effort to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form should strive mainly for mathematical beauty. It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the latter must take precedence"

The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute. Dirac was very successful with his method. He constructed the relativistic field equation for the electron and used it to predict the positron. But he was not suggesting that physics should be based on mathematical beauty alone. He fully appreciated the need for experimental verification.

The final word falls to Einstein, himself a master of the quotable one liner. He warned,

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

What can one say, but "Well-written content!".

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Alber Pike wrote this letter on August 15th, 1871

The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the 'agentur' (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the 'agentur' of the 'Illuminati' between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion.

We shall unleash the Nihilists and the Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute Atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

I have just been reading through history archives, following links here and there and came across this. Any history buffs able to shed any light on how this guy would be able to predict these things so well?

Sure. If you were a historian in the late 1800s-early 1900s, or knew anything about Franco-German relations since 1250 AD, or even 1870, the inevitability of and reasons for WWI were obvious. If you were aware of the ridiculous terms of Versailles, or read a history book between 1918 and 1933, you were aware that WWII was also inevitable, and the reasons were again readily apparent.

That being said, the quoted source is also wrong about a few things.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RichardE
Alber Pike wrote this letter on August 15th, 1871

The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the 'agentur' (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the 'agentur' of the 'Illuminati' between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion.

We shall unleash the Nihilists and the Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute Atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

I have just been reading through history archives, following links here and there and came across this. Any history buffs able to shed any light on how this guy would be able to predict these things so well?

Sure. If you were a historian in the late 1800s-early 1900s, or knew anything about Franco-German relations since 1250 AD, or even 1870, the inevitability of and reasons for WWI were obvious. If you were aware of the ridiculous terms of Versailles, or read a history book between 1918 and 1933, you were aware that WWII was also inevitable, and the reasons were again readily apparent.

Bullcrap. Neither war was inevitable in the 1800s, but especially WWII. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Skanderberg]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The historical timeline doesn't fit, the terminology and such.

As with many "predictions", it isn't too hard to see the polar opposites attacking each other.

Furthermore, Communism was (and still is) not that influential. One may point out China, but china isn't even half of the worlds population and not all of them are even athiest.

Vague predictions, conflicts between obviously opposed forces, and fuzzy timelines always make good "predictors".

I disagree with the labeling of China as "communist".

Communism has it roots in the movement started by the writing of Karl Marx and was brought to bear by Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

The collective nature of Chinese culture goes much further back. Asian cultures are by nature collective due to the communal nature of rice cultivation that was practiced by many ancient people in Asia. The Chinese cannot be tought to be an individuilst society any more than Americans can be taught to be collectivist.

The only real similarity that I see between modern China and the Communist states of Easter Europe (and Cuba) are their corrupt nature. Humans are by their nature a greedy species. We all want to have more than the next guy and be able to provide more for our children than was provided for us. This is the reason why the model of Communism ultimately fails. Communist Russia and modern China were both ruled by a corrupt central government that cared more for their own self-preservation than for the god of their people. Many Capitalist countries have corrupt governments as well.

What makes China (a Communist country) so different from Japan (a Capitalist country)? Both are collectivist. Both have a corrupt central governmnet. China is building military strength while Japan clings to their pacifist national policy thanks to the protection of their big brother. In truth I see more similarities than I see diferences.

I prepared to be blasted, so blast away...but read carefully first and investegate for yourself.