|
Post by galahad143 on Jun 8, 2009 9:18:30 GMT -5
Illustrados of the 1800's have always been associated with the revolutionaries of the Philippines, but upon searching "illustrado" in the internet, there is nothing that offers its description or origin. As we all know, most of the revolutionaries were also Masons, so, the question then arises, since the Illuminati means the "enlightened ones", and were associated with the Masons and the Illustrados have also been described as the "enlightened ones" and were associated with the revolution who in turn were associated with the Masons, were they then part of the Illuminati in the Philippines? If someone knows, please help shed some light to this question before it becomes another conspiracy theory of the New World Order of the Illuminati. Thank you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Jun 9, 2009 7:15:43 GMT -5
Some members of the forum would have an opinion or two as possible answers to your question. It's just a matter of them coming back and seeing your post. So stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by scarab on Jun 10, 2009 0:52:15 GMT -5
:-/Greetings Galahad143 and VeeVee, I guess you've watching Tom Hanks movies lately. Just kidding. I cannot answer your questions directly, but I can offer you some info and more questions if you don't mind. The Illuminati has the same meaning as Illustrados. The "group" is composed of "advanced members" of a fraternal initiatic orders like the Freemasons, but it is not limited to them only. In other words there are other groups with the same "degree" in their membership. If I may quote Robert Langdon, "they are dedicated to the advancement of Science". But from historical viewpoint, not only science but the whole of humanity. Therefore they try to "enlighten" the world with their knowledge and combat ignorance and superstition. Like the Royal Society. If you have read Rizal's 2 novels, you will find a lot of things there that will tell the connection you're trying to find. Have you ever wondered what did Rizal do in europe besides studying for his medical degree? But the only way to be really sure, and that is to be one of them.... Best regards, Scarab
|
|
|
Post by galahad143 on Jun 11, 2009 3:04:47 GMT -5
Thanks for your insight Scarab. I hope there are more readers that know more about this question. Perhaps actual members of the Freemasons. Please enlighten us.
|
|
|
Post by SUMAQUEL on Jun 20, 2009 3:18:45 GMT -5
Galahad143
I want you to watch this in Youtube(The Illuminati and the New World Order)
In the middle of the film you will see that the simble used by the group of enlighthen one(Illuminati)in sounthern Germany that was created in 1700 were similar to the simble of Katipunan's Triagle with three stars and a sun.
So similar that it make me believed that they(the Katipunan of Bonifacio)were on the same group. Imagine same ritual--Skull and Bone--same calling---Illustrado/Illuminati and same in objective.
Its up to you now if you believe on it or not, but I recommend to you to watch it
|
|
|
Post by insurrectomad on Jun 21, 2009 1:17:34 GMT -5
The Masonic Order symbols were universal & systematic so as to be recognized by all the brotherhood everywhere for all time. Remember when Sean Connery masonic charm is seen by the Indian priests just as they are about to cut his throat, in the film ? (Soldiers of Fortune, is it?) by Rudyard Kipling. His help The Eye centered in the triangle, which matched the one carved on the priests Alter. As true 'Masons' the Katipunan founders, would not corrupt or alter an ancient sacred ritual I think. Germany during this period was in turmoil after the 40 Years War in 1630's that set the states of Germany against one another and dividing Catholics from Prods (North against South). Many schisms in the Church of England during this time produced hundreds of religious factions and cults, as it did in many parts of Europe. There was no binding tradition of worship as had been astab. by the Catholic churches of Rome And Constantinople. All the various churches Quakers, Baptists, Presbritarians etc were created during 17th & 18th cent. At the same time Secular movements like the Levelers in England, Socialists, and Communist in Europe begun to emerge.
|
|
|
Post by galahad143 on Jun 21, 2009 1:44:19 GMT -5
Sumaquel, indeed there are similarities: Illuminati - Illustrado Triangle - Triangle (on the Filipino flag) Stars - Stars (3 stars to represent the provinces, but why use stars to represent?) Sun - Sun (we all know that the sun rays represent the 8 provinces that were among the first to revolt agaisnt Spain, but what did the sun itself represent?) Masonic conections in both groups ( leaders of the revolution were members of freemasons including Jose Rizal) Both were secret societies (The Katipunan we were told were a secret society) Both were deemed enemies of the church (the Spanish friars warned against the masons as anti-church and un-Christian) But here is the question: In popular culture, information found in the internet would lead us to beleive that the US government have been or is part of the illuminati conspiracy. Why then if both were part of the illuminati or were one and the same did they go to war with each other? US Illuminati vs. Filipino Illustrado doesn't make sense. There must be a freemason among the many readers of this post that could tell us the freemason's point of view without us jumping into conclusion.
|
|
macky
History Student
Posts: 63
|
Post by macky on Jun 23, 2009 10:40:23 GMT -5
Galahad 143
Actually we were told that way, but behind the simble is the true meaning, a masonic meaning.(KKK was it really a Katipunan simble or a masonic symble? The 8 rays of the sun was it really a simble of the 8 province of luzon?)We were thought differently, only the mason's knows the true account of our history.
Yes Galahad we have the same opinion on that matter. If they were both Illuminati why fight each other? But you know what? it's the same question as to why they had to kill Bonifacio in Cavity?
|
|
|
Post by dimasalang on Jun 24, 2009 3:16:09 GMT -5
It is no big secret the fathers of the revolution and the Illustrados were freemasons. The symbols are everywhere. There really is no great mystery. Many Filipinos are openly masons. Just look at the back of their car and you will see the symbol. The Philippine Flag explained on a freemason website. freemasonry.bcy.ca/symbolism/philippine_flag.htmlLlaneras flag is obvious also. It is a black field with the skull and cross bones. The Mousoleo de los Veteranos de la Revolucion in Manilas North Cemetery was also built by freemasons...other then storing revolutionary leaders and heroes, it contains many freemason symbols. Manuel Quezon III mentions the Mausoleum and its structure in an article on a North Cemetery visit. www.quezon.ph/2005/10/29/paranormal-and-historical/ It is also a historical landmark. It is a must visit if you are in to Philippine History.
|
|
|
Post by galahad143 on Jun 26, 2009 3:52:21 GMT -5
Dimasalang: Wow! What an eye opener for me atleast! I have always been told by my parents and grandparents growing up that the freemasons were a cult that were up to no good when in reality, the Philippines owe the freemasons a lot! How come there has never been an official acknowledgement of the great contributions of the masons to the birth of the Philippines? The Filipinos could have actually made a movie better than all the other conspiracy theory movies lately because it is all there! On the flag, the history and the people themselves. Thank you for the information.
|
|
|
Post by galahad143 on Jun 26, 2009 3:57:12 GMT -5
Macky, Yes, you still brought up a another valid question. If Aguinaldo and Bonifacio were both masons (which they were) why did Aguinaldo order the execution of this blood brother? And the question also comes to mind why did the US go to war with the Philippines if both were truly masonic brothers? I think the conspiracy theory that the USA is controlled by masons is just that, a theory...whereas the Philippines, its a different story.
|
|
macky
History Student
Posts: 63
|
Post by macky on Jun 26, 2009 8:28:06 GMT -5
Wow!!
I guess kevin was right after all(Not until I read the masonic article about the Philippine Flag)there was no secret on the participation of the freemason on our revolution.
This confirm my previous thought, that the first Philippine Republic was actually the first Illuminati Republic in Asia. I just dont really understand why America decided to eliminate this Infant Illuminati Republic(Malolos Republic).
Imagine, same in nature(a republic)same in principle(Democratic)and above all they belong on the same Masonic Root. So its a big Question, Why do they had to kill this first Filipino Inspired Masonic Republic?
|
|
|
Post by insurrectomad on Jun 26, 2009 23:35:39 GMT -5
In answer to your question Macky, ---Greed takes precedence before faith or kinship, if history tells us anything! Bonifacio was the elected Suprimo, but was still killed by fellow members, comrades, & countryman! As H.G. Wells put it 'All animals (men) are equal, --but some are more equal than others'!
|
|
macky
History Student
Posts: 63
|
Post by macky on Jun 27, 2009 7:29:29 GMT -5
Yeah your right david I agree with you on that..
|
|
macky
History Student
Posts: 63
|
Post by macky on Jun 27, 2009 7:42:09 GMT -5
Why the U.S. destroyed the Malolos republic (Photo source: University of Michigan Digital Library)
Every Filipino who went through high school would have learned that there once existed an earlier Filipino republican government, the first Filipino republic and the first in Asia, the so-called Malolos republic, with Emilio Aguinaldo as its president. But that awareness is oftentimes superficial and wanting in in-depth knowledge. Not many Filipinos know that the so-called Malolos republic was a functioning government. Congress enacted laws and elected officials administered the functionaries of government in the towns and provinces. It collected taxes, customs duties and war assessment; floated bonded indebtedness, and even issued a paper currency. It maintained an army and navy and provided services in education, commerce, science, health, justice and foreign service. It operated for more than a year from its proclamation in July 3, 1898 up to its destruction by the Americans in November 12, 1899, when the last capital at Bayambang, Pangasinan was overran by American forces.
Yes, the Philippine-American war destroyed the Malolos republic. But a question may be asked - why was it not allowed to exist by the Americans? If war is only an expression of political objectives, then Washington officials, with their commitment to human rights and libertarian heritage, could have easily halted the war to let the Filipinos go on their own. Instead, U.S. president William McKinley forcibly annexed the Philippines, destroyed the Filipino republic and imposed American sovereignty over the unwilling inhabitants of the islands. Why?
U.S. military officers - Dewey, Anderson, Lawton and several other who had a first hand acquaintance with Filipinos provided the U.S. State Department with favorable impressions on the Filipinos and their capability for self government. Even U.S. president McKinley was reported to have indicated no immediate interest in the acquisition of the Philippines and instead placed the future of the Philippines in the hands of the peace negotiators, when he said:
"’..I do not want any ambiguity to be allowed to remain on this point. The negotiators of both countries are the ones who shall resolve upon the permanent advantages (notice that he said ‘advantages’ and not ‘rights’) which we shall ask in the archipelago, and decide upon the intervention (control), disposition and government of the Philippine Islands.’ He further said: ‘The Madrid Government can rest assured that up to now nothing is decided a priori in my own mind, against Spain, nor do I consider anything decided by it against the United States.’” (Treaty, 122)
But during the Peace Treaty negotiations in Paris the United States commissioners surprisingly demanded from Spain the cession of the Philippines to the United States.
The motive behind the annexation of the Philippines by the United States had always been attributed by Filipino nationalist historians to American imperialism. They claim that American big business saw the Philippines as a "prized possession for its unexploited natural resources, its strategic location for commerce in the east and for its harbors well suited for coaling stations and repair of ships."
But Senator Richard F. Pettigrew of the United States, a prolific critic of McKinley, gave an inkling of the more plausible motive. He said England influenced the decision of the United States to keep the Philippines as a colony because a new republic in the orient might encourage the English colonies to establish their own. Here is the revealing statement of Senator Pettigrew:
“At first we did not intend to keep the Philippines. About the early part of June, I898, the English papers began to publish articles urging the Americans to keep the Philippines. England became alarmed at the prospect of a republic being set up in the Orient. It would be like starting a prairie fire among her Malay subjects in Borneo, Singapore, Hongkong, and her other East India possessions. Hence President McKinley did not wish to start another Paul Kruger to set a bad example to the subjects of the Empress of India. The ‘London Spectator’, on the Philippines, hoped the United States would keep them, saying: 'The weary Titan needs an ally, and the only ally whose aspirations, ideas, and language are like his own is the great American people." (Pettigrew, 607) [The name Paul Kruger is associated with the First Boer War. After the British annexed South Africa in 1877, Kruger led a war of resistance against the British who were defeated in the decisive battle at Majuba in 1881 and an independent republic was established. - author]
The prospect of antagonizing the British on one hand and offending the democratic idealism of the American people on the other perhaps explains the evolving nature of McKinley's policy towards the Philippines. This policy was initially announced as a hands-off policy and eventually evolved into a policy of annexation.
The change in policy can be gleaned from the succession of events following the declaration of war with Spain in April 25, 1898. At this time, U.S. President McKinley had no clear-cut position about American intentions in the Philippines. While the United States granted the Cubans their independence after liberation from Spain and the same policy being expected by the Filipinos for themselves, nothing of the sort came about. The fact is, the Filipinos willingly sided with the Americans because they considered the Cuban experience as a manifestation of the good intentions of the Americans. But a period of non-decision prevailed on the Philippine question, which McKinley himself admitted he agonized on it.
After the defeat of Spanish fleet at Manila Bay, a Peace Protocol between Spain and the United States was signed in August 12, 1898. Even at this time, the intention to annex the Philippines was absent. The protocol merely gave the United States the right to hold the city, the bay and harbor for coaling purposes. There was no mention about cession of the archipelago, nor a takeover of island of Luzon or another Philippine island.
Believing that the Americans would let them enjoy an independent government under an American protectorate, the Filipinos cooperated with the Americans in most cordial manner. Aguinaldo secured the initial cache of arms from Commodore Dewey. Two U.S. cruisers, the Raleigh and the Concord, effected the surrender of the Spanish garrison in Subic Bay and the 1,200 Spanish prisoners were turned over by Dewey to Aguinaldo. Dewey also sent his cruisers to seek out the German cruiser Irene which challenged the identity of a Filipino steamer, the Filipinas, on the basis that the Filipino flag it was flying did not represent a country recognized as a belligerent. Dewey defended the act of flying of the Filipino flag by the Filipino vessels saying he tolerated it. This friendly American attitude towards the Filipinos continued until about the arrival of the first expedition of American troops in mid 1898.
However, from August to the later part of 1898, the United States policy on the Philippines swayed towards annexation. The new policy revealed itself during the Treaty of Paris negotiations. The United States demanded cession of the whole Philippine archipelago. This demand had gone beyond what was originally specified in the Peace Protocol, which merely allowed the United States to hold the city, the bay and harbor. And as events later confirmed, the might of the U.S. military was called upon to effect the complete subjugation of the Filipinos notwithstanding their heroic resistance.
Among the papers annexed to the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain were 51 pages of documents comprising the section labeled Protectorates, Colonies, and Non-Sovereign States (see Treaty), which were detailed description of how the British administered their possessions.
Did the United States follow the advice to hold the Philippines as a colony because England fear the loss of her own colonies in the East whose inhabitants might follow the course of the Filipinos - throw off the colonial yoke and establish a republic?
Philippine Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon thought so when he said:
"I should not be surprised if Britain, France and Holland would be pleased to see the American flag continue to fly over these islands in perpetuity. But to those nations I will say a word in all friendship. It is this: What their subject peoples ultimately do will not be determined by anything which happens in the Philippines." (Bell, 5)
Surely, more light on this issue should be forthcoming. Posted by Macapili at 6:45 AM 0 comments Labels: Republic
|
|
macky
History Student
Posts: 63
|
Post by macky on Jun 27, 2009 8:07:47 GMT -5
Sunday, December 28, 2008 How the 1898 Treaty of Paris was railroaded
(Photo source: University of Michigan Digital Library)
Is it not rather unusual that the United States had to pay $20 million to Spain in order to effect the annexation of the Philippine Islands. If the spoils of war are the prerogative of the victor, as the saying goes, why pay? This article attempts to examine the motivations that led to the consummation of the Treaty of Paris in December 10, 1898.
The Treaty of Paris was preceded by a Peace Protocol that ended the Spanish-American war. The protocol was signed in August 12, 1898 at Washington DC by Secretary William R. Day of the U.S. State Department and French Ambassador Jules Cambon, who acted as plenipotentiary of Spain.
Article I of the Peace Protocol provided for the relinquishment by Spain of all rights and sovereignty over Cuba which paved the way for the establishment of an independent Cuba. Article II provided for the cession of Puerto Rico and several other islands in the West Indies and in the Ladrones by Spain to the United States, and these territories became possessions of the United States.
However, the status of the Philippines was not clearly defined in the Peace Protocol. A vague provision gave the United States the right to occupy the bay, harbor and city of Manila, as follows:
"Third. On similar grounds, the United States is entitled to occupy and will hold the city, bay and harbor of Mania, pending the conclusion of the a Treaty of Peace, which shall determine the control, disposition and government of the Philippines."
The control, disposition and government of the Philippines was finally determined and contained in what is now referred to as the Treaty of Paris. Article III of the treaty provides as follows:
"Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, comprehending the islands lying within the following line: ...
"The United States will pay Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty."
In the course of the negotiations between the American and Spanish commissioners it became clear that the United States wanted to take over from Spain control of the Philippines. The Spanish Commissioners rejected the American position on the basis that the Peace Protocol of Washington merely provided for temporary possession and occupancy of the city, bay and harbor of Manila and did not admit the possibility that the United States would in any way claim any sovereignty over the Philippine Island.
The parties were deadlocked and unable to agree. Spain proposed to take the issue to arbitration. The prospect of subjecting the treaty to unnecessary delay was not acceptable to the American Peace Commissioners. Therefore, to this Spanish proposition, the American side made a counter offer to pay $20 million to Spain, which the Spanish Commissioners viewed as a “take it, or leave it” offer, accompanied by a threat to renew the hostilities, as can be gleaned from the following reply issued by the Spanish Commission:
“…The Spanish Commissioners are now asked to accept the American proposition in its entirety and without further discussion, or to reject it, in which later case, as the American Commission understands, the peace negotiation will end and the Peace Protocol of Washington will, consequently, be broken.” (Treaty, 213)
The American gambit worked and Spain yielded, expressing its total surrender to the United States position in the following terms:
"The government of Her Majesty, moved by lofty reasons of patriotism and humanity, will not assume the responsibility of again bringing upon Spain all the horrors of war. In order to avoid them it resigns itself to the painful strait of submitting to the law of victory, however harsh it may be, and as Spain lacks material means to defend the rights she believes are hers, having recorded them, she accepts the only terms the United States offers her for the concluding of the Treaty of Peace." (Treaty, 213)
Thus, the Treaty of Paris was signed and the United States took possession of the Philippines Islands under questionable circumstances.
The Questions
(1) The American commissioners heard several testimonies from the American generals assigned in the Philippines, from experts on natural resources, from the famous English author, John Foreman, but not from a Filipino. Felipe Agoncillo, the official Filipino representative handpicked by President Emilio Aguinaldo, was refused recognition and barred from presenting the case for the Filipinos.
"The testimony of no Filipino, nor representative of that people, appears to have been taken by American commissioners at Paris, who had summoned before them witnesses from all over the globe to testify about the islands and the people there. The treaty was signed, and then came the demand upon the Filipinos for immediate and absolute allegiance to the United States." (Thomas, 61)
However, the credentials of the representative of the Catholic Hierarchy, Bishop Placido Chapelle, were recognized and he was given the opportunity to work out a special provision in the treaty, i.e., Article VIII, which provided for the protection of the property and rights of the Catholic Church in the Philippines.
Why were the Filipinos ignored and barred from the conference?
(2) The United States annexed Puerto Rico and the Philippines, but freed Cuba. Why the difference in treatment?
It must be borne in mind that the United States prided itself as the land of the free, the bastion of democracy, and enshrined the proposition that all men are created equal. Accordingly, in dealing with the issue of acquisition of foreign territories, the administration of U.S. president William McKinley had to reckon with the constitutional restraint and libertarian tradition of the American people, lest the United States is branded a neo-colonialist or accused of being unfaithful to its democratic heritage. Be that as it may, it is now possible to speculate why the Peace Protocol was framed in such a way that Spain ceded Puerto Rico and freed Cuba, but was indecisive as far as the Philippine Islands was concerned.
The Cuban people were in a state of rebellion against Spain and, therefore, had clearly expressed their desire to be free and independent. To hold Cuba as a colony against the wishes of the Cuban people would be viewed as an act of imperialism. Hence, Article I of the Peace Protocol provided for relinquishment of Spanish sovereignty over Cuba which led to its independence from foreign rule.
In the case of Puerto Rico, the people were not in the state of rebellion against Spain and did not express their desire to be free and independent. Leaving the territory in the hands of Spain or without a functional government would be irresponsible. Hence, the annexation of Puerto Rico as provided in Article II of the Peace Protocol was justifiable because temporarily holding the territory until the Puerto Ricans finally decide what they want for themselves would be viewed as humanitarian.
A different case presents itself for the Philippine Islands. The Filipinos have already thrown off the Spanish yoke and established a government of their own with full knowledge of the representatives of the U.S. government and, presumably, McKinley and Washington officials. Not only did the Filipinos express their desire to be free and independent, but they were, in fact, already administering the country and the remnants of Spanish authority were hopelessly holed up in the besieged capital of Manila.
If the United States were true to her libertarian and democratic traditions the direction for the Philippines was no other than an independent republic. However, at this time, the idea of a colony was already being considered by the American commissioners. Attached to the treaty documents forwarded by President McKinley to the U.S. Congress were item no. 14, "Protectorates, colonies and non-sovereign states", and item no. 15,"The Federated Malay States: A sketch of growth and political organization by Francis B. Forbes. Apparently, an independent Filipino republic would be anathema to the English and inconsistent with the interest of big American business interests who saw a golden opportunity for commercial expansion in the east, which was already being entertained at the time.
A way out of the predicament was to write Article III of the Peace Protocol that would hold the status of Philippines in abeyance until it was successfully resolved at the Treaty of Paris in favor of annexation. In the meantime, the administration of President William McKinley would have already perfected the clever ploy – convince the American people that the Filipinos were savages and unfit for self government and the United States was coming to educate and prepare them, which meant securing a license to keep the Philippines as a colony. Posted by Macapili at 9:16 PM 0 comments
|
|
|
Post by dimasalang on Jun 27, 2009 11:33:24 GMT -5
In answer to your question Macky, --- Greed takes precedence before faith or kinship, if history tells us anything! Bonifacio was the elected Suprimo, but was still killed by fellow members, comrades, & countryman! As H.G. Wells put it 'All animals (men) are equal, --but some are more equal than others'! Exactly. GREED! In a nut shell, the era was still the "age of expansion". Not just the US, but other European countries were controlling and fighting for territory all over the globe(particularly Asia and Africa). The US wanted a doorway to Asia. It is important to understand the start of the "Industrial Revolution" going on in America(ie New York), and how this was enriching the country. While Europe was also going through their own industrial revolution, America looked to "industrializing" Asia(to be the supplier and builder), this was the great plan of the government and they looked to reap the profits. The Philippines territory was the "front door" to Asia.
|
|
|
Post by galahad143 on Jun 28, 2009 4:06:47 GMT -5
I heard a version wherein the superpowers of the world feard a power vacuum once Spain left the Philippines. I was told that there were shps off the major Philippine ports from Japan, Germany, United Kingdom and a few more poised for invasion. The Germans wanted to expand its territories which was expanding out to the Marrianas Islands in the Pacific and would probably had taken Guam and the Philippines too. I was told that this became the fear of the Americans thinking that if given indepoendence, the young Filipino government could not defend itself from another invasion by Japan, Germany or the othe colonists in the area at that time. Its still not an excuse to invade the Philippines, but it may have persuaded some government officials or US congress to decide what they did or perhaps sealed the fate of the Philippines.
I had another question, when Cuba was given independence and Puerto Rico adn the Philippines not. Why didn't Puerto Riso fight like the Philippines? They started thier revolt in the 1860s against Spain, why did they just allow themselves to be annexed without a fight? Did they get a better deal from the US than the Filipinos?
|
|
|
Post by scarab on Jun 29, 2009 1:03:46 GMT -5
This is what I really like about this group, history uncovered to it's very soul. If only this type of learning about our history could be taught starting from grade school, I believe if would really make a difference. The real value of our history have been lost to most of the people. This is a sad reality. Bravo guys, please continue "illuminating" us.
|
|
|
Post by RayAdillO on Jun 29, 2009 7:34:32 GMT -5
Well, what did strike me about that mausoleum are the 4 Roman fasces (bundle of rods carried by Roman Lictors as the insignia of the people's unity and the authority of the state) each topped by celtic arrowcrosses (another pagan symbol for a "sunwheel" or "swastika") which by eastern tradition meant good luck, festooned with "victory" laurels. I believe the mausoleum was constructed before the rise of Italian Fasicsm in 1922 or the German Nazis in 1933? To be honest, If I were a katipunero ghost I'd be raving mad at the way it has been emptied of its patriotic dead. The place should have been well preserved, or at least moved stone by stone to a much less crowded and serene place. The mausoleum itself is somewhat emblematic of what has happened to the Philippine Republic in general, which is nothing short of disgraceful.
|
|