Originally posted by Hanslune
and you imply that all he meant was 'just' your usual monopolies, I call bollocks. if the biggest men in the united states cant even talk about it,
then its a little bit beyond a normal monopoly. Note he called it "A power". Not powers. He also described 'it' as organised, subtle, interlocked
and COMPLETE, In other words, its a functional description of the business workings of the illuminati (at least I see it as such, and yes, I had a
read of the speech). Just because he doesn't name it as such does not change its identity.
Go read the entire speech, the president explains it in great detail, you've been deceived by a quote that has been taken out of context. Ever hear
of the Sherman act?
Well obvious HE could talk about it as did every other person in the US - which is why the Sherman act came into effect to curtain monopolies.
Bit of the subject aren't we now? LOL
I have read the speech(*), and I do not think I am the one who has been deceived
(though we might have to agree to disagree). Monopolies,
corrupt government acting for special interests of cartels of organised, complete, subtle, interlocked, powerful interests etc etc. If it looks like
a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you want to call it a bird, that doesn't make it any less of a duck. Or perhaps a closer analogy
is the story about the three blind men describing the elephant. In this case, just because Woodrow MAY not have realized he was describing a large
part of the functional mechanics of how the Illuminati controls things (ie their trunk), does not mean the rest of the elephant was not attached
behind the trunk, out of his arms reach.
regarding the Sherman act, and to Woodrow being able to (perhaps unknowingly) HINT at the Illuminati, while still leaving the interpretation open
enough for people like you to miss it , it comes down to this: Has it helped? could anyone today seriously say that the US government is not
controlled by special interest groups in exactly the way Woodrow described? could you seriously claim that monopolies don't exist in many business
areas? try bringing a new car to market, or competing with the telcos, then answer that. So sure the act was brought in, but thats because a) "they"
didnt have complete control (still dont) and b) they knew they could get round it. Its analogous to the Federal reserve act, perhaps at the time you
could argue the structure allowed for public control and checks and balances, but with US debt at around 10 trillion and rising, and the great
depression being something that even Bernanke admits the fed itself caused (of course he says accidentally, but then he would, wouldn't he), I think
its plainly obvious that Warburg et al knew exactly how they were going to circumvent those measures they invented when they introduced it.
as to being off topic: depends on which particular group you want to talk about being behind the (possible) cover up. Me, I see potential tentacles of
the Illuminati octopus in many of the potential groups hiding info (eg Vatican, Smithsonian, Egyptian antiquities (hawass)), although I also see the
(IMO less likely) option they are doing it completely independently of each other for their own reasons. Anyway, you're the one asking for examples
of who might be behind it all, then when given attack their existance (nothing wrong with that), then when they are defended, you say "off topic"?
(*)as an interesting side note, I wonder, could his description of government as an evolving living thing be considered one of the earliest
descriptions of memetic evolution?