THE HUMPTY DUMPTY CONSPIRACY
Released 10 November 1999
by Robert Morning Sky
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
All the king’s horses, and all the king’s men,
couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.
‘Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations’, p. 790, J. Bartlett, Little, Brown & Co, 1992 edition
As innocuous as this child’s poem might seem, it is time that this often-told story be analyzed and the truth behind its words be brought to light. After numerous years of long and difficult hours of research, after countless encounters with individuals who have thrown red herrings before us - and in some cases deliberately attempted to derail our investigation with false leads and mis-information - we are ready to announce, with a high degree of confidence, our findings. We must advise you, they are highly disturbing.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Humpty Dumpty�was pushed.
The evidence which we will submit is simple yet concise. After many years of searching, as hard as we have tried, we have found that no reliable witnesses can be located. Some self-proclaimed witnesses have indeed come forth to provide their stories. But in each case a careful analysis of their testimony yielded an inconsistency or inconsistencies that prevented us from granting these witnesses total credibility. We have been unable to uncover any video-tapes or audio tapes, and we are convinced that no photographic evidence of the event itself exists anywhere. And, even though we have successfully secured numerous drawings from various artists, unfortunately we have found that each and every rendition was not drawn from the artist’s personal recollection of the event but rather from descriptions provided by others who claimed to have been on site. We have tried to find sources, but, point of fact, there simply is no existing audio or visual record of the event. There are no dependable sketches, there are no living witnesses today, nor has any reliable written description of the event surfaced. We have only the story that has been given to us by the authorities themselves and which has been blindly accepted by the general populace. We will, in this brief paper, provide an analysis of the Humpty Dumpty event and show that the very words of the story itself betray the clear presence and devious attempts by an unseen government bent on manipulating the minds of its children for the purpose of control. We shall propose that the story of Humpty Dumpty is evidence of the ‘Conspiracy’ itself and is very likely the result of the on-going efforts of the Illuminati to control the globe!
Is the story of Humpty Dumpty ‘Conspiracy’ propaganda?
We believe this study will show that this is clearly the case. For now, we wish only to point out that the government has sanctioned and promoted the telling and re-telling of this ‘children’s’ story for generation upon generation. This story can be found in books used in every grade school classroom and kindergarten. It is in every school’s library and even in the public library of every small town and major city. Virtually every home with children has a copy of this story somewhere. Undoubtedly the government is supportive of the contents of the story, and, in fact, we suggest that the government WANTS this story told. Why? We maintain the position that the government wants the message of Humpty Dumpty imbedded in the mind of each and every child in our country today. And what is the message of ‘Humpty Dumpty’? As you read this paper you will find out that the ’secret’ of Humpty Dumpty is both chilling and disturbing. It may, in fact, give you cause to remove this story - and others like it - from your bookshelves.
For your consideration�
THE HUMPTY DUMPTY CONSPIRACY
We begin our expose by looking at the figure of Humpty Dumpty himself. According to the government sanctioned story, Humpty Dumpty is an egg - a real egg. But was he? Was he really an egg? Nowhere in the story itself is Humpty ever identified as an egg. Yet all along, ever since we were all small children, we have accepted the official ‘party line’ that Humpty Dumpty must have been an egg. No one has ever questioned or challenged the story - that is, until now. We submit here and now that Humpty Dumpty could not have been a real egg. As evidence for our position, we point to Line Three of the government’s story. In this line, we are told that: ‘all the king’s horses and all the king’s men’ were brought together to do but one thing - to ‘put Humpty Dumpty together again’. This is, of course, absolutely unbelievable. It is inconceivable that an entire army would be mobilized for the singular purpose of putting an egg back together again. Add to this implausible scenario the fact that the ‘king’s horses’ were also pressed into service, and we are faced with a situation that not even a grade school child would accept as factual. Our point is quite simple: the breaking of a real egg could never justify the mobilization of a kingdom’s entire armed forces! Humpty Dumpty could NOT have been a real egg! Yet the government insists that he was an egg! This claim is only plausible under one circumstance: that is if Humpty Dumpty was a ’symbolic’ egg - not real - symbolic! The question which we then face is: If Humpty Dumpty was actually a ’symbolic’ egg, then what was he a symbol of?
The answer is not difficult to uncover. According to the accepted standards of symbology, an egg ‘contains the germ of everything that will be created in the future’; it is ‘a symbol of growing life’, and it is ‘one of the first religious symbols.’* ‘Humpty Dumpty’, as a symbolic ‘egg’, is therefore a symbol of all that mankind will ever create in the future. He is the symbol of human life that is growing and evolving, reaching passionately for its destiny in the stars. He is the hope for the future and the personification of Everyman’s potential.
*’Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols, The’, p. 131, N. Julien, Carroll & Graf, 1996
*’Dictionary of Symbols’, p. 337, J.B. Brown, Penguin, 1994
*’Dictionary of Symbols, A’, p. 94, J. Cirlot, Barnes & Noble, 1971
Having now established that Humpty is a symbolic egg, a symbol of the potential of Everyman, we can begin to examine the government’s story line by line. In the first line, we are told that ‘Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall’. We must now wonder: what in heaven’s name was Humpty doing sitting on a wall? Clearly the wall is not an obstacle, Humpty has scaled it, perhaps with some difficulty (we do not know for sure), but he has scaled it nonetheless. There is absolutely no indication that he was admiring the view, attempting to get to a nest on an adjacent tree, or even trying to place a penny on its ledge. We are given no explanation at all as to the motivation for Humpty’s climbing the wall. So why then did he do it? In order to answer this question, we must once again turn to symbolism for insight. According to accepted interpretations, the wall represents ‘rising above the common level’.* It also represents that which protects a city or an institution.** By climbing the wall, Humpty has elevated himself above the level of the average man and woman, and he has positioned himself above that which protects the ‘kingdom’ itself. While this may have been an innocent act, Humpty has essentially elevated himself above the people and above the law of the kingdom! And even though it would be hoped that every ruler and king would want his citizens to achieve their fullest potential, it is obvious that some rulers and monarchs might take Humpty’s ‘elevated’ position on the wall as a direct threat to his rule. What we must now wonder is whether or not the king in this story took Humpty’s act of ’sitting on the wall’ as an innocent activity or as an act of nothing less than treason?
*’Dictionary of Symbols, A’, p. 362, J. Cirlot, Barnes & Noble, 1971
**’Dictionary of Symbols’, p. 1076, J.B. Brown, Penguin, 1994
An important clue to answering this question lies hidden in the name that has been assigned to our hero by the government itself: Humpty Dumpty. The first name, ‘Humpty’, is based on the word ‘hump’, a word which is defined in Webster’s Third International Dictionary as ‘a rounded protuberance’.* Interestingly, the word ‘hump’ can be traced back to the Greek word ‘kymbe’ which means ‘a drinking cup’, ‘a bowl’, or ‘a boat’. Its earliest root, however, is the Sanskrit ‘kumbha’ which means ‘a pot’. The name ‘Humpty’ therefore suggests ‘a container’, once again bringing us back to the image of Humpty as the ‘container of all that will be created by man in the future’. ‘Humpty’ the name, reaffirms that our hero is a symbolic ‘egg’, and a symbol of Everyman’s potential.
*’Webster’s Third New International Dictionary’, p. 1102, Merriam-Webster, 1993
But what of his surname ‘Dumpty’? What can we make of this most unusual name? ‘Dumpty’ is rooted in the word ‘dump’, a word which Webster’s suggests has four different meanings: (1) a state of sadness or melancholy (’down in the dumps’); (2) something ill-shaped or shapeless (as in a dumpling); (3) to get rid of unceremoniously (to dump trash); or (4) an accumulation of refuse (a ‘trash dump’).* Clearly, Humpty had a well defined shape (an egg) and he was not ‘a trash dump’, thus definitions 2 and 4 cannot apply. Was Humpty in a depressed state? Was he deep in the throes of ‘melancholia’? Nothing in the story suggests that this was so. In fact, a deeply depressed Humpty would probably not have the desire nor the mental alertness necessary to climb a wall. Definition 1 (’down in the dumps’) seems relatively weak. But what about the third definition - ‘to get rid of unceremoniously’? When the name Dumpty (’getting rid of’), is combined with Humpty (’Everyman’s potential’), we can begin to grasp the subliminal message that was intended by the government in this children’s story: Humpty (’Everyman’s potential’) Dumpty (’getting rid of’). What is also clear in this message is that the government, by willfully sanctioning and promoting this tale, is telling us not to rise above the level of the average man or woman, neither should we place ourselves in a position that elevates us above the welfare of the state�even if it is in pursuit of our potential! In short, ‘Humpty’ will be ‘Dumpty’!
*’Webster’s Third New International Dictionary’, p. 701, Merriam-Webster, 1993
In this well-known story, Humpty’s presence on the wall, whether intentional or not, is an act of defiance against the king and the kingdom! (Remember, we do not know for sure what Humpty was doing on the wall, we only know that he has taken a position on top of the wall.) And this very simple act could, of course, result in other individuals climbing on top of other walls thus offering further defiance to the laws and rule of the kingdom. And this is dangerous�if it is left unpunished. Is the Reader surprised then to find out that in Line 2, our hero has suffered an ‘accident’? Certainly this may be no more than a coincidence, but we suggest that the rest of the story reveals that this was no innocent ‘accident’.
In Line 2, we are told that ‘Humpty Dumpty had a great fall’ - not an accidental fall, not a simple fall - but ‘a great fall’! This is certainly a strange way to express an innocuous fall from a wall. The word ‘great’ implies something that is ‘grander’ than normal, something that is ‘larger’ than normal. If, as we have suggested, Humpty’s position on the wall has elevated him to a position ‘grander’ than normal, even ‘larger’ than normal, then the word ‘great’, as applied to his fall, are absolutely appropriate! We suggest that these very same words ‘great fall’ unquestionably confirm our hypothesis that Humpty had become a role model of defiance! The question we must now entertain lies at the very core of our hypothesis: Was Humpty’s ‘fall’ an accident�or was he pushed? The answer, we suggest, lies hidden in Lines 3 and 4.
[Author - Before we continue with this study, we would like to address a difficulty seemingly posed by the remaining two sentences. In these lines, we are told that 'all the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again'. The implication of these two lines is staggering: is it really possible that the king actually dispatched ALL of his men to the wall when Humpty fell down? This makes no sense. If ALL the armed forces of a king were sent to one location, then clearly the borders of the kingdom would be vulnerable to invasion. It is inconceivable that any king would ever remove his armed forces from their positions of defense in order to assist one citizen who had taken a fall! Not only that, but any other problems which might arise in the kingdom (crime, disaster, revolt, fires, traffic, etc.) could not be addressed. We suggest therefore that the actual meaning of the phrase 'all the king's horses and all the king's men' does NOT refer to the totality of the king's forces, but rather, to the men and horses actually dispatched to the site of the fall! In other words, 'all the king's horses and all the king's men' (who were sent to the wall) 'couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.']
In the last two lines of this story, we are told that ‘all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again’. The two lines seem relatively simple enough, is there a hidden message in these sentences? The answer is yes. The first point for consideration is crucial to our study: Humpty’s fall was of sufficient importance that the king dispatched his own men to the site! But why? Why did the king feel he needed to send his men to the site where a simple accident had occurred? Or was it really a ’simple’ accident? Let us examine the story, particularly the implications of the last two lines, just a little more closely.
There are six possible scenarios suggested by the first two lines: ‘Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall�’ They are: (1) Humpty was innocently sitting on the wall and he fell off accidentally; (2) Humpty was innocently sitting on the wall and he was pushed off the wall by an identified person; and (3) Humpty was innocently sitting on the wall and he was pushed off the wall by an unknown person. However, suppose Humpty is a role model of defiance, as we have suggested his name implies? Then there are three more scenarios possible: (4) Humpty knew he was being defiant by sitting on the wall and he fell off the wall accidentally; (5) Humpty knew he was being defiant by sitting on the wall and he was pushed off the wall by an identified person; or (6) Humpty knew he was being defiant by sitting on the wall and he was pushed off the wall by an unknown person. Based on the meager information provided us by the government, these are the most likely scenarios sketched out by the first two lines. Let us examine each possibility and try to rationally and logically figure out which one is most likely to be true.
If (1) Humpty was innocently sitting on the wall and he fell off the wall accidentally, why would the king dispatch his men and their horses to the wall? ‘To put Humpty Dumpty together again’? This simply makes no sense. If Humpty’s injuries were of such seriousness that he needed some form of emergency treatment, a simple ambulance or paramedic crew would be enough to handle the situation. Even a local doctor or nurse could respond. The mobilization of soldiers to a wall where one innocent citizen has taken a fall, for the purpose of rendering medical assistance, is simply not reasonable. There are, however, two possible scenarios where the king’s men might be summoned. (A) If there had been a great number of people sitting on the wall with Humpty, the need for the presence of a group of soldiers who would assist the local police and medical people in dealing with any injured citizens and maintaining order is understandable, but this is not what happened. The story clearly puts Humpty totally alone on top of the wall! Scenario A is weak and improbable. (B) If it was against the law of the kingdom to sit on a wall, then we could understand, the presence of the king’s men. But Lines 3 and 4 tell us that the king’s men were there ‘to put Humpty Dumpty together again’, not to arrest him! This Senario is also weak.
If (2) Humpty was sitting innocently on the wall, but he was pushed off by an identified person, why would the king dispatch his men and their horses? If the culprit is known, jurisdiction for the crime falls to the local authorities. The only reason for the king’s men to be summoned is if a crime has been committed against the kingdom. As we have shown above, the king’s men were not there to arrest Humpty, they were there to help him, even if after the fact. This Scenario is also weak. But what, you may ask, if the culprit was an enemy of the state? Had this been the case, and the king’s soldiers had responded in force to arrest the villain, the story would probably read something like this: ‘Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall, Humpty Dumpty was pushed from behind, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, locked up the villain with his traitorous mind.’ Since it does not, we suggest Scenario 2 is still very weak and improbable.
But�what if (3) Humpty was sitting innocently on the wall and he was pushed off by a totally unknown person? Since the assailant is unidentified, local authorities would retain jurisdiction, local medical teams would handle any injuries, and there would be absolutely no reason to summon the king’s men�unless, of course, the ‘enemy of the state’ we spoke of above was the culprit. Since the story makes no mention of such a villain, Scenario 3 is weak and improbable.
But what if our analysis of Humpty’s name is accurate and Humpty’s positioning himself on the wall is an act of defiance? Why would the king send in his troops? Humpty’s sitting on the wall creates a potentially sensitive political situation. It is possible that the king would send in his troops in order to prevent any sort of riot from occurring. The problem is, the presence of his troops might actually cause the riot to erupt�unless, of course, it was announced that they were there in order to prevent any injuries from happening to either Humpty or the crowd. Which is precisely what we are told in Lines 3 and 4. This scenario - a politically ticklish and explosive situation; an individual whose very name reveals potential defiance; and the presence of king’s troops with a ‘cover story’ that they are there for the purpose of preventing injury - with all of its pieces, begins to weave a very plausible story. With this framework in mind, we must now assess the strengths of three possible reasons for Humpty’s fall: Scenario (4) Humpty fell off the wall accidentally; Scenario (5) Humpty was pushed off by an identified culprit; or Scenario (6) Humpty was pushed by an unidentified assailant.
The first possibility, Scenario (4), suggests that Humpty fell off accidentally. With the presence of the king’s men and a gathered crowd of some sort, there would be plenty of witnesses who could testify to the accidental nature of the fall. But why then would the king’s men attempt ‘to put Humpty together again’? This makes no sense. In a politically sensitive situation, the king’s men would keep their hands off, allowing local authorities and local medical teams to take charge of the events. To rush in and take over Humpty’s medical treatment, even if it was the medical corps that was present, would only heighten suspicion and might very well cause a riot to happen on the spot. While the basic scenario is plausible, the actions by the king’s men to put ‘Humpty together again’ after an accident is weak.
What if (5) Humpty was pushed off the wall by an identified person? If the assailant is known, even though the king’s men are present, the jurisdiction for the crime would fall to the local authorities. Unless the perpetrator was an enemy of the state, wanted for a crime against the kingdom, there would be no reason for the king’s men to step in. But, as we noted above, since the far more dramatic ending, that a dastardly villain was arrested and jailed ‘until who knows when’, was never published, we suggest that this ending is still somewhat weak.
But suppose that (6) Humpty was pushed off the wall by an unidentified person? Once again, if the culprit is unknown, jurisdiction for the crime would fall to the local authorities. Until such time as it was discovered that an enemy of the state was the culprit, there would be no reason for the king’s men to take action. This scenario is plausible but still weak.
As we examine the possible scenarios suggested by the four lines of this story, we can begin to piece together a reasonable scenario: Humpty was being defiant, as his name suggests; the king’s men were there because of the touchy political situation that Humpty was creating; and the story that they were there ‘to prevent or assist in case of injuries’ becomes plausible. Whether Humpty was the victim of an accident or he was deliberately pushed, we still cannot answer with any certainty. But what if there was yet another possibility? Suppose Humpty was pushed�by an agent of the king himself!
THE HUMPTY DUMPTY CONSPIRACY UNVEILED
Let us suppose that Humpty knew what he was doing by sitting on the wall. He was, as his name implies, defiantly taking a position that placed him above the average citizen and above the laws of the kingdom. We can understand then, that when the king found out about the impending event, he dispatched his men to the wall with the cover story that they were there to prevent any potential injuries either to Humpty or to the general populace. The fact that this was a delicate political situation, fraught with possible dangers, would justify the presence of the king’s men.
But now, let us suppose that the king hired a ‘hit man’ or ‘hit men’, to attack Humpty while he was in his high profile position on the wall. If the king could execute the ‘hit’ and place the blame on a simple citizen, he could use the event as an argument that the general public did not like Humpty’s actions and that a simple yet patriotic citizen had taken it upon himself to rid the kingdom of this vile and traitorous individual. The king was not, therefore, the guilty party, an irate citizen of the realm was. (This would, of course, require that the ‘pusher’ not survive the event so that he could never reveal the king’s sinister plot.)
In order to insure success, the king would have two contingencies of soldiers in the area. One group would be in full uniform, ostensibly present to maintain order and prevent injuries to any individual who was present at this politically sensitive event. The second group would be under-cover, hidden away in the crowd and in areas surrounding the wall. The undercover group would make sure that the ‘hit men’ could have access to the back of the wall and that no innocent bystander could interfere with the plot. In addition, the king’s undercover group would insure that the ‘hit men’ could escape after the fact, or more likely, that the ‘hit men’ would lose their lives in the confusion as they tried to escape. To insure that every escape route would be covered, it would make sense that a relatively large number of men would be needed to assure success.
Now suppose that someone present at the wall saw the king’s agent, or agents, committing the crime itself? It is important that these individuals be taken into custody, by the king’s men and not the local authorities, immediately after the crime. This would insure that no innocent bystander could possibly reveal the ‘conspiracy’. This would also require a relatively large number of king’s men to be present, perhaps even in uniforms of the local authorities. To keep control of all the possible problems, it would make sense for the king to send a large contingency to the wall. Some of these troops would be in uniform while some would be undercover.
Now, since it would be smart to have more than one agent in place ready to push Humpty off the wall, and since it is possible that one of them might panic the night before and run off, it would be wise for the king to have some of his men watching each of the perpetrators for days prior to the crime. In fact, it would be wise to have someone watching each of the perpetrators involved from the moment they were hired to commit the crime. Should they become intoxicated and begin to talk, or should they decide to run, the king’s men could immediately seize them and, if necessary, terminate them. The Humpty conspiracy, therefore, requires considerable thought beforehand, good planning, and a relatively large number of king’s men. This one simple fact, that a large number of men would be required to pull off the plot justifies the descriptive words used in the story: ‘all the king’s horses and all the king’s men’.
We suggest then, that the best scenario portrayed by the seemingly innocent four lines of the Humpty Dumpty story, reveals that: (1) ‘Humpty Dumpty’ is not a real egg but a symbolic ‘egg’; (2) his deliberately chosen name reveals that Humpty was a symbol of defiance; (3) the word ‘great’ used to describe Humpty’s fall reveals this was no simple event; and (4) the presence of the king’s men was justified in part because Humpty had created a tense political situation. The explanation that the king’s men were there to ‘put Humpty Dumpty together again’ makes no sense unless it was a cover story. If it was a cover story, (6) the presence of the king’s men incriminates the king. And finally, (7) the words ‘all the king’s men’ are reasonably justified when we note how many men it would take to successfully execute a plot to push Humpty. In short, the story has a message: If you seek to achieve your potential (’Humpty’), and you take a defiant position against the government, you will be punished (’Dumpty’). The ‘fall’ will be so ‘great’ that no one will ever be able to pick up the pieces again, not even the ‘the king’s men’ (which is a reminder that they are always around!).
And finally�
We began this paper by suggesting that at the heart of the Humpty Dumpty Conspiracy was the Illuminati themselves, that it was this group who was ultimately responsible for Humpty’s fall and for the continued suppression of the human spirit. How can we justify this position? We shall take a look at that one piece of the puzzle which we have not as yet addressed: the ‘king’s horses’. Why did the government feel the need to include the phrase ‘all the king’s horses’ in this story? Would not keeping the focus on the king’s men have made the point that we should not mess with the king’s rule? Absolutely! So why the ‘king’s horses’? We suggest that in this story, the horses represent the presence of the Illuminati!
How can we make this extraordinary suggestion? For the answer, we return once again to the world of symbology. According to accepted interpretation, the horse has a very complex and varied history as a symbol. On one hand, it ’stands for control (and) mastery’, clearly a well-known characteristic of the Illuminati; on the other hand, the horse is a symbol of the initiates who pursued the ancient mysteries,* clearly another description which could be applied to the Illuminati. Initiates who underwent ’secret initiation ceremonies into divine mysteries’ were said to have been ‘unbridled’ upon completion of the ritual, thus equating the initiate with a horse.* Illuminati members would thus be considered symbolically to be ‘horses’. The presence of ‘all the king’s horses’ in the Humpty Dumpty story very likely refers to the presence of Illuminati agents both at the scene of the ‘fall’ and within the plot to push Humpty!
*’Dictionary of Symbols’, p. 516-521, J.B. Brown, Penguin, 1994
The horse was also a ’solar symbol’, ‘it represented the sun’ - or put in other words - it was a symbol of ‘illumination’. The horse was also associated with ‘darker human drives’, clearly a trait which can be attributed to the Illuminati; and it was also ‘a manifestation of the power of the Underworld and of death’, another description which we suggest can be applied to the Illuminati. The horse is also crucial to achieving ascension: the ‘whole process of ascension culminates in the figure of the majestic white horse’. It is ‘the steed of heroes, saints and spiritual victors - All great messianic figures ride such horses’.*
*’Dictionary of Symbols’, p. 516-521, J.B. Brown, Penguin, 1994
In short, in the story of Humpty Dumpty, the horse is a symbol of the Illuminati. The presence of ‘all the king’s horses’ suggests that all the Illuminati agents within the king’s realm were not only very likely connected to the plot, but they were probably the instigators and the true power behind the king. The hidden message of the Humpty Dumpty story tells us not to defy the power and control of the state (’the kingdom’), even in pursuit of one’s potential. If one takes a defiant position, the king, the king’s men, and the Illuminati (’the king’s horses’) will descend upon the transgressor with a vengeance - ‘Humpty’ will always be ‘Dumpty’!
For your consideration�
Robert Morning Sky
The study which you have just read is a tongue-in-cheek effort intended to show how easy it is to find an Illuminati conspiracy�even in a child’s story. For far too long, the Illuminati have been the favorite ‘whipping boy’ for Conspiracy buffs. In a larger study entitled ‘The Conspiracy Conspiracy’, we will show how the fabric of the Illuminati ‘threat’ is woven out of rumor and myth. It has become almost fashionable for individuals to blame Weishaupt and his defunct group rather than pursuing fresh and more rational research. While we do agree that there is a pursuit for power on the global political stage (an attempt to ‘take over the world’ as it were), we do not agree that it is the Illuminati or the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds, et. al. Stay tuned for our newest study, ‘The Conspiracy Conspiracy’.
