CNBC accidentally mentions the Illuminati

Originally posted by diccolo
It sounds like he was using the word Illuminati loosely, as in "the powers that be" or "elected officials"

I agree completely...

...he said "...the 'Illuminati', if you will...."

the "if you will" part makes it seem obvious to me that he was using the term loosely. "If you will" is the same as "so to speak". If he really meant 'The Illuminati', he would not have added the "if you will"

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Yeah unfortunately that seems to be the case, I wish he would of actually ment the illuminati, just to help prove the case that their real and all that good stuff.. but when he said "if you will" that could mean almost anything.

Thought this was interesting.....

1. The purpose with the society is to create a One World Government with them in charge over mankind. To be able to control the population, they need to reduce us from 6 billion to approximately 500 million. This is done by creating conflicts, wars, inventing diseases and viruses and now as of recent, orchestrating a War on Terror and a financial meltdown (2008). On the top of the Illuminati Pyramid worldwide are mainly 13 royal bloodlines, who go way back in time. However, as this website will show, there is another Hidden Hand, or Hidden Power that is even higher up than the 13 bloodlines. I will not touch that subject in this particular overview article, though. The reader needs to learn more before he/she is ready to read about the absolute top of the Hierarchy and who they really are...

www.illuminati-news.com...

Originally posted by seethelight
I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what the word means...after all he's an economist (i.e. dumb as a brick and used to people not questioning the stupid crap he spouts).

Until he mentions Adam Weishaupt I won't think its intentional or vaguely meaningful.

I am guessing he used the word in this context:

illuminati
One entry found.

Main Entry: il·lu·mi·na·ti
Pronunciation: \i-ˌlü-mə-ˈnä-tē\
Function: noun plural
Etymology: Italian & New Latin; Italian, from New Latin, from Latin, plural of illuminatus
Date: 1599

1 capitalized : any of various groups claiming special religious enlightenment
2 : persons who are or who claim to be unusually enlightened
3 : elite 1d

The speaker was using the term as a verbal slight directed toward the economists in the Fed and Treasury.

Those who claim to be unusually enlightened. .

[edit on 12/13/2009 by clay2 baraka]

meh...replace the word illuminati with elites or tycoons or whatnot and you get the same thing...the few people with most of the money and power.

This is hardly a secret..its a well known fact that most of our money is held by a few hands, and money=power.

CNBC accidentally mentions the Illuminati

kayne1982, I think it's very possible that this was not accidental. This could be desensitization at work. Much like when Vince McMahon's wrestling went through the "NWO" stage a few years back. Simple minds require simple diversions. Imagine the millions watching staged wrestling becoming numb to the "NWO" moniker and forever associating that with a group of wrestlers.

This of course is moving desensitization up the food chain but the concept and the desired outcome remains. What investing minded person has not at least heard the term "Illuminati" by this time? Most pooh pooh the idea of clandestine organizations and sprinkling the word into a newscast or interview does much to make it a vague throw away term. Linking it to Hank Paulson, "Well now Illuminati must be interchangeable with government appointees". This is but one method of getting more of the brain-washed to think that. I feel certain that if asked Becky would say something along the lines of "It wasn't worth addressing with him." She's one snappy droid.

Originally posted by Hemisphere
Most pooh pooh the idea of clandestine organizations and sprinkling the word into a newscast or interview does much to make it a vague throw away term. Linking it to Hank Paulson, "Well now Illuminati must be interchangeable with government appointees". This is but one method of getting more of the brain-washed to think that. I feel certain that if asked Becky would say something along the lines of "It wasn't worth addressing with him." She's one snappy droid.

Um...so by your logic, people have been brainwashed to associate the new world order with professional wrestling? What would be the goal there? Either it is used to associate people like you say Illuminati and politicos or just get used to the idea. Since the wrestling NWO things is pretty over with does that mean it worked and the NWO was implemented and I missed it?

reply to post by Lillydale


what i think he means is that it was a ploy of words, inserted here and there, set distractions from the real meaning. kind of like smoke and mirrors.

How can people sit here and say "well what he meant was this".
How in the hell do you know what he meant? what if he meant exactly what he said?
I mean come on.
"so to speak" or any other quote afterwords doesnt change the context. sorry.
You can speculate all you want, but you really dont know if he meant it as he said it or if he is just a dumbass.

Just my two cents

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Lillydale

 

what i think he means is that it was a ploy of words, inserted here and there, set distractions from the real meaning. kind of like smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, I get that but then he goes on to compare it to wrestling using NWO to do the same thing. What same thing? If it is to get us used to the word illuminati and a connection to politicians then the NWO thing would have only achieved getting us to associate NWO with pro wrestlers. If that is the tactic then they need to do something about Terry Bolan because he is making sure that the only scary thing about the NWO is that they can get their untalented daughter's singing careers.

Originally posted by Common Good
"so to speak" or any other quote afterwords doesnt change the context. sorry.

Actually, that is the context. That is exactly what context is. Putting it back with the words that surround it is keeping it in context.

Want your two cents back?

"mistakes made by ben bernake and the illuminati of our country and we are now paying for them" He is correct in his analysis but I suspect he said what he said for *ridicule purposes*.

Normally they don't use secret lingo on mainstream media unless to belittle and ridicule the theory. I have seen many ufo, illuminati, mason, area 51 documentaries and almost all are heavily baised. Even so at least they mention things rather than keep absolute silence, anything is better than nothing...

[edit on 13-12-2009 by EarthCitizen07]

reply to post by Lillydale


it was just an example. I am not the person who wrote it, i take it for what it is, and let it be that.

Ploy of words, letting words slip in sensitive times, its always going to be taken the wrong way.

Can someone say Larry Silverstien, and the term (Pull it.)

Although i do think Larry meant it at the time, and it played it like it was a slip, just like this guy saying Illuminati. the ears perk up when key words are mentioned, especially in the conspiracy community.

IMO, i think he actually mentioned it on purpose, and for its exact meaning.

Has he made a statement regarding it, or are they (MSM) just going to let the people over-think about it, and then sweep it under the rug?

[edit on 12/13/2009 by ugie1028]

reply to post by Lillydale


::shakes head::

If I say....

Yea Im part of the Illuminati, so to speak.

I am saying that I am part of the illuminati!
Straight out of the horses mouth.
Make it into what you want it to be, but I hear it for what it is.
I dont care about the BS cover up he tried to throw in at the end.

Keep those two cents, you might need it to pay off your home loan.

I don't think he was referring to the Illuminati. I think he meant it like "the head honchos" or like glitterati. It just sounds like that because it's on an appropriate channel.

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Lillydale

 

::shakes head::

If I say....

Yea Im part of the Illuminati, so to speak.

I am saying that I am part of the illuminati!
Straight out of the horses mouth.
Make it into what you want it to be, but I hear it for what it is.
I dont care about the BS cover up he tried to throw in at the end.

Keep those two cents, you might need it to pay off your home loan.

I am just confused because you said 'Do not let the context change the context.' To me that seems like an insincere kind of attitude and that of someone who would love to stoke this conspiracy fire but in all honesty cannot. IN context, he says "if you will" and to most people that points out that he is using some sort of poetic license. That is what it means in the English language in the USA in the year 2009. You can take it out of context all you like but you cannot complain that the context is screwing up the context and then shake your head at me for pointing out that makes little sense.

[edit on 12/13/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Common Good
"so to speak" or any other quote afterwords doesnt change the context. sorry.

Actually, that is the context. That is exactly what context is. Putting it back with the words that surround it is keeping it in context.

Want your two cents back?

"So to speak" is often thrown in to soften the blow of the offending word or statement preceding it. "If you will", "not for nothin' but" and "I'm just sayin'" often fill the same role. I'm just sayin'. One could imagine a Joe Peschi character saying something like:

"Hey you're a jackass but that's just one man's opinion."

And so "the words that surround it" can sometimes be part of the smoke and mirrors, further softening the impact and actual meaning.

Capisce?

Originally posted by Common Good
How can people sit here and say "well what he meant was this".
How in the hell do you know what he meant? what if he meant exactly what he said?
I mean come on.
"so to speak" or any other quote afterwords doesnt change the context. sorry.
You can speculate all you want, but you really dont know if he meant it as he said it or if he is just a dumbass.

Just my two cents

You are correct regarding "so to speak", see my other post regarding that. Regarding my opinion or anyone's of "what he meant". That is what we do here and perhaps you have not noticed. We make educated guesses and discuss what people in the media, government and the limelight in general mean by what they say, so to speak. In this case it doesn't matter what he meant, it matters what he said. He said Illuminati and perhaps he was referring to their supernatural "inner glow".

Challenge my opinion but don't challenge my right to one.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Lillydale

 

what i think he means is that it was a ploy of words, inserted here and there, set distractions from the real meaning. kind of like smoke and mirrors.

You are correct sir. I also mentioned desensitization. In this case a number of years back a wrestling television show used the term "NWO" for a group of "bad guy" renegade wrestlers. In my opinion this was prior to most peoples' being aware of the term in the context of clandestine elitist control of the world. In my opinion, associating the term "NWO" to a popular fad helped reduce the term in some minds to mere pop terminology with little to no real world context. This, not exactly like but something like the overuse of "Where's the beef?", "Wazzup?" and "git-r-done". Of course these phrases have meaning but it is largely ignore due to overuse/desensitization. And so people hear these terms and are if anything annoyed by hearing them and rarely consider their meaning.

I don't know or care whether the wrestling promoters did this in concert with an actual "NWO". I'm saying that it had a subversive, softening affect on those hearing the term used loosely and out of the historical context. The television wrestling was likely the first time many people encountered the "NWO" term. That was my point. Here was a man interviewed on CNBC throwing out the term Illuminati without a blink from the interviewer even though we rarely if ever hear the term used outside of conspiracy websites. And as some have pointed out the surrounding words did not make it disappear. That's curious to say the least and worthy of discussion here.

Thank you ugie, this was for the benefit of others reading the thread.

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Common Good
"so to speak" or any other quote afterwords doesnt change the context. sorry.

Actually, that is the context. That is exactly what context is. Putting it back with the words that surround it is keeping it in context.

Want your two cents back?

"So to speak" is often thrown in to soften the blow of the offending word or statement preceding it. "If you will", "not for nothin' but" and "I'm just sayin'" often fill the same role. I'm just sayin'. One could imagine a Joe Peschi character saying something like:

"Hey you're a jackass but that's just one man's opinion."

I beg to differ. "If you will" is rarely used in that context which is why I would guess it is not the example you offered. "If you will" is short for 'if you will allow' which is most often used when substituting one word for something else in a more colorful way. It is not used to soften an insult but used to color language and rarely in a derogatory manner.

And so "the words that surround it" can sometimes be part of the smoke and mirrors, further softening the impact and actual meaning.

Capisce?

Yeah um, the reason I pointed out "the words that surround it" is simply because someone tried to state that including those exact words was somehow changing the context. I just wanted to clear up what context was.

Get it?