Talk:William Guy Carr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are so many things wrong with this article, it is hard to know where to begin... First, Commander Carr died in 1959, so I have corrected statements such as "His investigations and studies have taken him... " to "His investigations and studies took him"... etc.
Beyond the tense issue, I noticed that the article was linked to the Freemasonry Page. Reading between the lines, I gather that Commander Carr might have been an Anti-Mason of some kind. However, as the article is written, there is no mention of this (indeed no mention of Freemasonry at all). Thus, there is no justification for the link. I have removed it for the time being. Either state the connection, or leave out the link (and I would think that the correct link would be to the Anti-freemasonry page.)
Then there is the question of explaining Carr's views. It is stated that Carr studied "the International Conspirasy" ... ok, from the context I would assume that this conspirasy has something to do with Bolshevism, but this is not explained. The same goes for "Evil Forces" later in the article... what are these Evil Forces Carr wanted to inform people about.
Finally, I would have to say that this article has the potential for serious POV violations. The only thing saving it at the moment is the fact that the article is so poorly written, it does not really make clear what that POV is against (Bolshevism? Freemasonry? annonomous Evil Forces?)
It either needs a major re-write or a deletion. Blueboar 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Anti-semitic
I have removed the "Anti-semitic people" category from Carr's entry. It's true that Carr did point to certain Jews as being involved in coordinating world events, but this did not make him categorically anti-Semitic.
[edit] The "Mazzini Letter"
I have removed the material on the Pike plot to start three world wars... it has been proven to be part of a hoax. No one has ever claimed to have seen the original of this letter. Its provenaunce seems to take on the aspects of an urban legend... along the lines of "I heard it from this guy who says that his cousin's wife's hairdresser knew someone who's university room-mate saw the letter."
All we do know is that the letter was frist published in 1925 by Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chili (hardly an independant, neutral source, as the Catholic Church has been Anti-masonic for centuries). Carr took his material from Cardinal Rodriquez, excerpting in "Pawns of the Game"... but, importantly, issued a retraction in his later book: "Satan, Prince of this World". In that book Carr wrote: "The Keeper of the Manuscripts (at the British Museum) recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems stange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said it was."
This entire letter is an anti-masonic urban legend. And in case you have trouble realizing this... Pike could not have said that the Second World War would have involved facists... he lived in the second half of the 1800s, and facism did not gain its name until the 1920s. There is no way he could have written this letter. Blueboar 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the veracity of the letter, the discussion of this letter is arguably Carr's most enduring legacy. Therefore, I think it merits inclusion in any encyclopedic entry about Carr.
There are several inaccuracies and questionable assertions in your discussion above. First, you state that the letter has been "proven to be part of a hoax." Can you prove that the letter was hoaxed? If Pike didn't write it, can you prove that no one wrote it? Who exactly perpetrated this hoax?
You also claim to "know" that the letter was first published by Rodriguez. Can you tell me the title of the book and the page where this letter is published by Rodriguez? It's true that Carr (or his son, who edited "Satan, Prince of This World" after Carr's death) claimed to learn about the letter from Rodriquez. However, I have not yet seen any discussion of this letter by Rodriguez anywhere.
Finally, Carr's footnote in "Satan, Prince of This World" is hardly a "retraction." Rather, Carr is expressing his doubt that Rodriguez was making it all up.
It is possible that the letter and the plan for three world wars is a complete fabrication. For example, the plan for three world wars may have been some kind of Cold War-era misinformation in which Carr was a witting or unwitting accomplice.
It is also true that Carr's overall credibility suffers in part because he repeated certain anti-Masonic tales that can be traced back to Leo Taxil's elaborate hoaxes.
Nonetheless, the alleged plan for three world wars is a critical item of information in any discussion of Carr. It merits examination, discussion and investigation by a wider audience, rather than preliminary censorship by persons representing and/or protecting freemasonry. ~JG
[edit] Argument for keeping this page
IMO the main content of this page, an alleged conspiracy to program 3 world wars, is notable -- if only because if it were true, it would be really huge.
It may not be necessary to repeat the entire argument, a short version with references might suffice
It's also possible that Carr himself is not notable and that it could be referenced under Pike
The reason this tale is so fascinating is that it seems to fit events, starting in the 1890's and the pieces falling into place around 1917, a few years before the 1925mention in a book.
The reason it is interesting now is we are now in the midst of the 3rd part or war of the prophecy taking place, the war between the west and Islam over Zionism. So even if it was made up in 1925, that is a prediction 80 years ahead -- pretty good!
Sounds notable to me.
Where is the deletion discussion page?
I agree with the previous writer as regards censorship which is alien to the concept of an encyclopedia. However, I think freemasonry is a red herring here, perhaps a false lead. There are factions within the masons, they are not monolithic. Specifically, most of the founding fathers who set up the American democracy were masons; in response, the British set up the Scottish Rite as a counterrevolutionary clique, or so I have been told.
Anyway, the secret society format is a perfect cover for state intelligence operations. If there is such a conspiracy then the obvious power pulling the strings would be the divide and conquer department of the good old British Empire, who, after all, set up the Palestine Mandate, a key piece of the Three World Wars puzzle. Albert Pike and Mazzini have been alleged to be British agents, Mazzini in charge of destabilizing continental rivals, Pike as part of the British instigation of the Civil War and support for the slave confederacy.
A great yarn and highly thought-provoking in light of current crises. JPLeonard 07:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you get your information, but much of it is completely wrong. For example, the British did not set up the Scottish Rite. Most of the degrees that formed the rite originated in France (well before the Revolution). These degrees were exported to the US shortly after the Revolution, where they were compiled by two seperate groups that today form the Scottish Rite in the US (a - Northern Jurisdiction and b - Southern Jurisdiction). The rite as it is in England derived from the US Northern Jurisdiction. So to say that the British set up Scottish Rite as a counter-revolutionary clique is simply incorrect. (see: Scottish Rite for more info.])
As to censorship.... my concerns for this article have nothing to do with censorship, they have to do with scholarship. This article is seriously lacking in sources. Furthermore, it repeats conjecture as if it were proven fact. If it is not to be deleted, it needs serious work. Blueboar 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why is this person notable?
I proded this as being non-notable, and someone removed the prod tag saying that this person is more than just a consipiracy nut... that he is notable for having an impact on other conspiracy theorists. Fine. If that is indeed what makes him notable, why is there only one short mention of this? This article is primarily a quote from one of his books and a brief refutation of about the source used to create the quote. If he had such a large impact on conspiracy theory, shouldn't that impact take center stage?
Also... work needs to be done on citations and references. Blueboar 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
