Historical Mysteries(2 Books in 1) E-Book

Bernadine Christner

• Herausgeber: Youcanprint
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

Illuminati! Are They Really What the Stories Present Them To Be, or Are They Something Entirely Different? Keep Reading and Find Out! As far as secret societies that supposedly have complete control over the world are concerned, the Illuminati should be at the top of any conspiracy theorist's list… Who exactly are the Illuminati? What are they supposed to represent? Why the shroud of mystery? Is it possible that they are hatching some nefarious plans for the world or that they simply want to make the world a better place – if they even exist at all? The Order of the Illuminati and other secret societies have frequently been the subject of heated debates about their role in human history, particularly during the Renaissance. However, as the number of people who believe that the Illuminati secretly controls the world or that the whole thing is a hoax is increasing, more and more facts about the Illuminati have been twisted into falsehoods and myths, making it difficult to discern what is true and what is false. As a result, obtaining a truth regarding the Illuminati Order may be difficult, considering that their history is often rewritten and even changed by those in power. Furthermore, like any other secret organization, the Illuminati Order is meant to be kept hidden. Still, some things are not meant to stay hidden forever… If you are looking for the truth and accurate answers about Illuminati, you are in the right place! This book seeks to construct a more accurate image of the Illuminati Order based on verifiable evidence, much of which is written and accounted for by certain Secret Societies initiates, as it contains valuable information on the Illuminati, including the history, aims, beliefs, and several well-known conspiracy theories related to the group. Here is what this Illuminati guide for conspiracy lovers can offer you: The Illuminati's early beginnings and their religious background The Order's three grades – what is the meaning behind? The Illuminati and modern conspiracy theories – influence on the popular culture Symbolism, rituals, and occultism in the Illuminati Order The link between Illuminati and Freemasons explained The Illuminati's political agenda, strategies, and plans for the world – what is real and what is made up? And much more! If you are looking for answers that will shed light and reveal the truth about the "people who control the world from shadows," this book is perfect for you. Embark on a unique journey and discover the real face of the Illuminati. So, what are you waiting for?

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

THE ESCOVEDO MURDER

MYSTERY OF THE KIRKS

THE CONSPIRACY OF GOWRIE

THE MYSTERY OF CAMPDEN

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1THE ILLUMINATI'S EARLY BEGINNINGS

The Following Years:

CHAPTER 2THE ILLUMINATI'S RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

CHAPTER 3THE ORDER'S THREE GRADES

Bavarian beginner

Minerval

Minerval Illuminated

Freemasonry and the Illuminati

The French Revolution and the Illuminati

Protest Against the Illuminati

The Illuminati's Spread Across America

Today's Illuminati

CHAPTER 4THE ILLUMINATI AND MODERN CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Resurrection:

CHAPTER 5THE ILLUMINATI'S PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The Purpose of the Illuminati

Goals of the Illuminati

CHAPTER 6THE SUPPOSED INFLUENCE OF THE ILLUMINATION POPULAR CULTURE

Shortlist of films on the Illuminati and similar ideals:

The Illuminati's Influence on Music:

CHAPTER 7BELIEFS OF THE ILLUMINATI

The Freedom and Belief Tenet

God's and Satan's tenets

(Untitled)

Money and Abundance Tenet

Value and Trade Principle

CHAPTER 8SYMBOLISM, RITUALS, AND OCCULTISM IN THE ILLUMINATI

Here is a handful of the most well-known:

What is the significance of these symbols?

The Rituals of the Illuminati:

CHAPTER 9SYMBOLS OF THE ILLUMINATI

Pyramid of Giza

The Observer

The Sunlight

The Infinite/Circle

CHAPTER 10THE ILLUMINATI'S POLITICAL AGENDA

CHAPTER 11THE ILLUMINATI'S STRATEGY

CHAPTER 12ENLIGHTENMENT THROUGH THE ILLUMINATI

CHAPTER 13THE ILLUMINATI AND FREEMASONRY LINK

The Primary Distinction Between the Orders:

CHAPTER 14THE ILLUMINATI CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT ARE POPULAR

CHAPTER 15THE ILLUMINATI TREE'S BRANCHES

CHAPTER 16THE THEORY OF THE ILLUMINATI

Brief Synopsis

(Untitled)

Famous Illuminati Conspiracies and (Alleged) Illuminati Conspiracies

Puppeteers in the Media

Mysterious Assassinations and Deaths of Famous People: Conspiracy Theories

Lincoln, Abraham

Kennedy, John F.

Oswald, Lee Harvey

(Untitled)

Martin Luther King, Jr.,

John F. Kennedy, Jr.,

The Beatles' John Lennon

Malcolm X was a revolutionary.

Jim Morrison is a rock musician.

Bruce Lee is a martial artist.

Grace Kelly is a well-known actress.

Kurt Cobain was a rock and roll icon.

Diana, Princess of Wales

Michael Jackson is a well-known musician.

Celebrities Who Are Alleged Illuminati Members

Jay-Z is a well-known rapper.

(Untitled)

(Untitled)

Beyoncé's

Lindsay Lohan

Lady Gaga

Rihanna's

Madonna

Kanye West

Justin Bieber

Emma Watson

Angelina Jolie

Paris Hilton

Chris Brown

Dr. Dre

Sean Combs

CONCLUSION

HISTORICAL MYSTERIES(2 Books in 1)

The Truth Behind the World's Most Perplexing Events and Conspiracies Revealed – Mind-Blowing Stories of Four History's Mysteries and Conspiracy Theories!

BERNADINE CHRISTNER

THE ESCOVEDO MURDER

'M

any a man may trace his downfall to a murder, of which, perhaps, he thought little enough at the time,' writes De Quincey. This comment refers especially to Philip II. of Spain, his secretary, Antonio Perez, Perez's steward, his page, and several professional ruffians. From the King to his scullion, everyone was involved in the assassination of Juan de Escovedo, the secretary of Philip's famed natural brother, Don John of Austria. All of them, to varying degrees, had deep reasons to regret an action that seemed to be a routine political occurrence at the time.

The mystery in the case of Escovedo is neither the method in which he disappeared nor the identities of his killers. These facts are widely known; the identities of those responsible, from the King to the bravo, are known. However, obscurity obscures the motivations for the action. Why was Escovedo executed? Did the King slay him for merely political motives, which were insufficient in the first place but were inflated by the suspicious royal fancy? Or were Philip II's secretary and Spain's monarch competitors for the love of a high-ranking one-eyed widow? And did the secretary, Perez, persuade Philip to order Escovedo's killing because Escovedo threatened to divulge their wicked plot to the King? With varying degrees of agreement, Sir William Stirling-Maxwell and Monsieur Mignet accepted this interpretation. Mr. Froude, on the other hand, believed Philip acted for political motives and with the full consent of his ill-informed conscience. According to Mr. Froude, there was no woman as a motivation in the case. A third possibility is that Philip wanted to kill Escovedo for political reasons, without regard for the sensitive affection. Still, Philip was hesitant and indecisive, while Perez, who feared Escovedo's involvement with his love affair, spurred his royal master on to the crime he was avoiding. We may never know the whole truth, but we may study a condition of morality and manners in Madrid that makes the blundering tragedies of Holyrood in Queen Mary's time seem like child's play. When put against Philip II's instruments, Bothwell's 'lambs' are lively and compassionate.

Escovedo, the slain man, and Antonio Perez, Shakespeare's "first killer," had both been schooled in the service of Ruy Gomez, Philip's famed minister. Gomez had a wife, Aa de Mendoza, who, having been born in 1546, was thirty-two, not thirty-eight (as M. Mignet claims) when Escovedo was assassinated in 1578. However, 1546 might be a typo for 1540. She was blind in one eye in 1578, but both of her eyes were undoubtedly bright in 1567 when she seems to have been Philip's mistress or was widely assumed to be. Eleven years later, at the time of the murder, there is no reason to believe Philip was still susceptible to her charms. Her husband, Prince d'Eboli, had died in 1573 (or, as Mr. Froude says, in 1567); the Princess was now a widow, and if she chose to distinguish her husband's old secretary, at this date the King's secretary, Antonio Perez, there seems no reason to suppose that Philip would have been bothered by the matter. M. Mignet's view of the sufficient cause of Escovedo's murder is that he still loved Aa with an unroyal fidelity, that she loved Perez, and that she and Perez feared Escovedo would betray them to the King. Mignet, on the other hand, believes, and correctly so, that Philip had made up his mind, as far as he ever did, to assassinate Escovedo long before that diplomatist became an uncomfortable spy on the alleged lovers.

To get things up to the tragic level of Euripides' Phdra, Perez was believed to be the natural son of his late boss, Gomez, the spouse of his supposed lover. Perez was most likely nothing of the such; he was the bastard of a man of his name. His supposed mistress, Gomez's widow, may have even disseminated the other tale to establish that her ties with Perez, albeit personal, were innocent. They are a lovely group of folks!

Escovedo and Perez have been buddies since they were children. While Perez moved from Gomez's service to Philip's, Escovedo was appointed secretary to the nobly daring Don John of Austria in 1572. The Court thought he was supposed to be a spy on Don John, but he succumbed to the charms of that brave heart and gladly accepted, if not inspired, the most audacious designs of the winner of Lepanto, the Sword of Christendom. This was highly uncomfortable for the leaden-footed Philip, who never took time by the forelock, but instead brooded on projects and passed up opportunities. Don John, on the other hand, was all for pressing the game. When he was dispatched to tempt and conciliate in the Low Countries and remove the Spanish army of occupation, he planned to transfer the Spanish men out of the Netherlands via water. He would descend on England once they were on the blue sea, rescue the prisoner Mary Stuart, marry her (he was fearless! ), reestablish the Catholic faith, and assume the English crown. A solid plan, authorized by the Pope, but one that did not fit Philip's mind. He set his leaden foot on the concept and several other brave undertakings designed in the finest Alexandre Dumas tradition. Now, to whom Don John was devotedly attached, Escovedo was the essence of all these chivalrous schemes, and Philip saw him as a very dangerous person as a result.

When Don John first visited the Low Countries, Escovedo was in Madrid (1576). He persisted in pressing Philip to adopt Don John's ardent suggestions, despite Antonio Perez's requests to be careful. Perez was Escovedo's buddy on this day, 1576. But Escovedo was not to be counseled; instead, he sent an agitated letter to the King, criticizing his stitchless policy ( descosido ), dilatory, shambling, and idealess operations. According to Sir William Stirling-Don Maxwell's John of Austria, "the term employed by Escovedo was descosido, unstitched." However, Mr. Froude claims that Philip subsequently repeated the phrase regarding another letter from Escovedo, which he also referred to as a "bloody letter" (January 1578). Mr. Froude is unlikely to be correct here since Philip's letter containing that filthy term was written in July 1577.

In any event, Philip was persuaded to ignore the error in 1576 by Perez's pleading, and Escovedo, whose presence Don John sought, was sent to him in December 1576. Don John and Escovedo began writing to their friend Perez on this day, and Perez enticed them by showing their letters to the King. Just as Charles I. commissioned the Duke of Hamilton to spy on the Covenanted nobility, pretending to sympathize with them and speaking in their holy manner, Philip gave Perez instructions to capture Don John and Escovedo. 'I want no theology but my own to defend myself,' Perez remarked, and Philip responded, 'My theology takes the same view of the problem as yours.'

According to M. Mignet's hypothesis, at this time, 1577, Perez, although a gambler and a profligate who accepted gifts from all hands, must have intended nothing worse than serving Philip as he liked to be served to keep him fully informed of Don John's ambitions. According to M. Mignet, Escovedo was not yet an impediment to Perez's and the King's mistress, Princess Eboli's amours. On the other hand, Sir William Stirling-Maxwell believes that Perez's goal was to destroy Don John; Sir William admits that he does not know why. On the other hand, Perez had no such goal until Don John confided in him initiatives that were subversive or hazardous to the Government of his lord, the King.

Did Don John, or Escovedo, entrust Perez with plans that were not only chivalrous and impractical but also traitorous? Don John, on the other hand, did nothing of the like. Escovedo abandoned him and traveled to Spain without being summoned, arriving in July 1577. Don John beat the Dutch Protestants at the battle of Gemblours on January 31, 1578, while he was away. He then addressed a letter to Escovedo and Perez in Madrid, full of chivalrous devotion. He would make Philip the true lord of the Low Countries, and he urged Escovedo and Perez to instill resolve in the King. That was unthinkable because Philip could never have wanted to assassinate Escovedo just because he had pleaded for assistance for Don John. Yet, as soon as Escovedo announced his return to Spain in July 1577, Philip remarked in a letter to Perez, 'we must dispatch him before he kills us.' There seems to be no question that the letter in which this sentence appears is real, even though we only have a copy of it. The sentence, however, appropriately translated? 'priest á despacherle antes que nos mate' (Escovedo) translates as 'we must be swift and dispatch him before he kills us.' Mr. Froude, who is far kinder to Philip than to Mary Stuart, recommends translating the line "we must dispatch Escovedo promptly" (i.e., send him on his way) as "before he scares us to death." Mr. Froude so disputes that Philip intended to assassinate Escovedo in 1577. If the King uttered the words twice, it is bad for Mr. Froude's argument and Philip's reputation. In March 1578, he wrote to Perez about Escovedo, telling him to 'act fast before nos mate—before he murders us.' At least, that's what Perez said, but is his date correct? Perez did act this time, and Escovedo was slaughtered! If Perez is correct, Philip meant what he stated in 1577 when he declared, 'Despatch him before he murders us.'

Why did Philip fear Escovedo so much? We only have Perez's public words in his description of the incident. Perez adds a unique allegation against Escovedo after explaining the basic reasons for Philip's fear of Don John and the notions that a very skeptical monarch would have entertained, given his brother's adventurous nature. According to Perez, he pledged that after conquering England, he and Don John would invade Spain. Escovedo requested the captaincy of a castle perched on a cliff overlooking Santander's harbor; he was the town's alcalde. He and Don John intended to utilize this citadel against their ruler so that Aramis and Fouquet intended to exploit Belle Isle in Dumas' book. In truth, Escovedo had requested the leadership of Mogro, the castle controlling Santander, in the spring of 1577, and Perez notified Philip that the site should be improved for the safety of the harbor, but not given to Escovedo. Don John's allegiance could never have imagined the use of the location as a stronghold to be held in the event of an assault on his King. But, if Perez held no resentment against Escovedo in 1577 as being harmful to his purported amour with the Princess Eboli, then Philip's deadly plot must have sprung from the deep suspiciousness of his temperament, not from Perez's promptings.

Escovedo arrived in Spain in July 1577. He was not slain until March 31, 1578, despite many attempts on his life a few weeks before. M. Mignet contends that Philip held his hand until the early spring of 1578 because Perez calmed his fears; that Escovedo then threatened to reveal Perez's love affair to his royal rival; and that Perez, in his private interest, now changed his tune and, instead of appeasing Philip, urged him to commit the crime. But Philip was so sluggish that he couldn't even perform a murder with reasonable haste. Even in his view, Escovedo was not dangerous while he was apart from Don John. But as the weeks passed, Don John maintained demanding Escovedo's return by letter. For that reason, maybe, Philip pushed his bravery to the (literally)'sticking' point, and Escovedo became stuck.' On the other hand, Major Martin Hume claims that conditions had changed, and Philip had no reason to kill.

M. Mignet and Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, Don John's biographer, have quite different perspectives. They claim that in 1578, Princess Eboli was Philip's lover; she duped him with Perez, that Escovedo threatened to reveal everything, and that Perez then murdered Philip. Would Escovedo have consistently accepted Perez's dinner invites if this had been the case? If Escovedo were threatening Perez, the men would have been on the worst of terms, yet Escovedo continued to dine with Perez. Again, Perez's approach would have been to send Escovedo where he wanted to go, to Flanders, far away from Don John. It is likely, but not proven, that the Princess and Philip were lovers around 1567. However, it isn't very certain, and not proven, that Philip was still dedicated to the woman in 1578. The Mendozas, some of the Princess's relatives, now intended to assassinate Perez as a disgrace to their heritage. Later, during Perez's trial, substantial evidence proved that he loved the Princess or was suspected of doing so, but it is not established that this was an issue that Philip was concerned about. Thus, it is not impossible that Escovedo despised Perez and the Princess's relationship, but nothing suggests that he might have put himself at risk by disclosing them to the King. Furthermore, if he had spoken his thoughts to Perez about the affair, the two would not have continued on terms of the most amicable contact, as they seemed to have done. A Perez squire recalled a scenario in which Escovedo threatened to condemn the Princess, but how did the squire become a witness to the episode in which the Princess challenged Escovedo with great coarseness?

In any case, when Philip contacted the Marquis of Los Velez about the appropriateness of executing Escovedo rather than returning him to Don John, the Marquis was persuaded by ordinary political suspicions.

It was a matter of conscience at the time as to whether a king might have a subject slain if the royal motivations, though substantial, could not be exposed safely in a court of law. On these grounds, Queen Mary had the authority to detain Darnley for good political reasons that could not be made public; for international reasons. On the other hand, Mary did not consult her confessor, who felt she was innocent of her husband's murder. Philip's confessor informed him that the King had complete authority to dispatch Escovedo, and Philip delivered his instructions to Perez. According to Perez, he reiterated his comments from 1577 in 1578: 'Make haste before he murders us.'

In this matter of conscience, the authority of a king to inflict murder on a subject for political purposes, Protestant thinking seems to have been forgiving. When the Ruthvens were assassinated on August 5, 1600, at Perth, in the most enigmatic of all mysteries, the Rev. Robert Bruce, a staunch Presbyterian, refused to accept that James VI. had not plotted their death. 'But your Majesty could have hidden motives,' Bruce remarked to the King, who, of course, maintained his innocence. This seems to indicate that Mr. Bruce, like Philip's confessor, believed that a monarch had the authority to kill a subject for hidden State purposes. The concept was fiercely condemned by the Inquisition when a Spanish preacher held it, yet Knox approved King Henry's (Darnley's) murder of Riccio. On this issue, I sympathize with the Inquisition.

Perez, who had been tasked with organizing the crime, delegated the task to

Martinez serves as his steward. Martinez asked a rough-looking page, Enriquez, whether he knew "someone in my nation" (Murcia) "who would thrust a knife into a person." 'I shall talk about it to a muleteer of my acquaintance,' Enriquez replied, 'which I did, and the muleteer undertook the job.' However, when Enriquez learned that a man of significance was about to be knifed, he warned Perez that a muleteer was not noble enough and that the job must be given to individuals of greater respect.'

Enriquez confessed in 1585 for a legitimate reason: Perez had grossly mishandled the firm. All kinds of individuals were engaged, and after the murder, they fled and started to die in an alarmingly regular fashion. Naturally, Enriquez assumed Perez was behaving similarly to Mures of Auchendrane, who sent a slew of witnesses and collaborators in their assassination of Kennedy. Because they constantly required a new accomplice to murder the previous accomplice, then another to slaughter the slayer, and so on, the Mures would have depopulated Scotland if left uncontrolled. Enriquez predicted that his time to die would come soon, so he confessed, which Diego Martinez confirmed. As a result, the truth was revealed, and murderers should take note.

Perez was resolved to poison Escovedo while the muleteer hung fire. But he had no idea how to go about doing it. Science was still in its infancy for her. To poison a guy in Scotland, you had to depend on a vulgar witch or send a guy to France, at a considerable price, to get the poison, and the messenger was discovered and tortured. The Spanish Court was not more scientific.