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"

Absolutely. This is a complete non story, he was just describing Paulson and his cronies in a way that makes them look uber elitist. I can't imagine anyone seeing aything more in that clip.

Originally posted by Lillydale

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]

Lilly, I don't think any of us are that far apart in our takes on this. The "BS cover up he tried to throw in at the end" might have been just that. A little hesitancy, a lack of conviction perhaps. I think he wanted to say Illuminati, took the chance and then tried to cover his butt by throwing in a little extra verbiage. Much like Joe Peschi saying something smart-alecky in "My Cousin Vinny" and then hiding behind a little confusing verbiage. Art often imitates life.

Did Becky know he was going to say this in advance? Was he instructed to say this? What kind of fall-out, if any, did he experience following this interview. Perhaps he explained his use of the term somewhere on the Internet. Until we get more on this speculation is all we have. And speculation is still free here on ATS.

reply to post by Hemisphere


I guess I am far apart on this then because it looks, sounds, and reads like he was just saying a word to describe people that we were supposed to be aware of. He names Paulson and is obviously talking about him and the people involved. Now do you really think there is something to this? Really? He told you exactly who he was talking about, then called them the Illuminati and then covered it up very calmly with a typical turn of phrase? So now that we know exactly who the Illuminati are, what are we waiting for?

Originally posted by Lillydale

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?

I disagree with your "if you will" It's used to make a concession in a sentence, a way of stating what you want without fully committing to the statement as in the following:

"The man was taking things from his place of employment, a common thief if you will."

Thus I've just called someone a thief in a very indirect, softened manner. Of course I "get it".

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Hemisphere]

Originally posted by Hemisphere


I disagree with your "if you will" It's used to make a concession in a sentence, a way of stating what you want without fully committing to the statement as in the following:

"The man was taking things from his place of employment, a common thief if you will."

Thus I've just called someone a thief in a very indirect, softened manner. Of course I "get it".

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Hemisphere]

My get it was for your capisce but I guess you don't like a one for one trade. I am sorry but even if your sentence is grammatically correct and all, that is just not the typical use of that phrase. We will have to agree to disagree but where I come from that is not generally the way you use that.

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

I guess I am far apart on this then because it looks, sounds, and reads like he was just saying a word to describe people that we were supposed to be aware of. He names Paulson and is obviously talking about him and the people involved. Now do you really think there is something to this? Really? He told you exactly who he was talking about, then called them the Illuminati and then covered it up very calmly with a typical turn of phrase? So now that we know exactly who the Illuminati are, what are we waiting for?

You could be right on his use of the word. I'm not arguing your take but we don't know for certain. How often have you heard this term on the nightly news? Read it in the New York Times? Does everyone you know understand what is meant by "Illuminati"? Very few people I know have heard the term. I might live in "never never land" for all I know but I doubt it. I'm less than 40 minutes from mid-town Manhattan.

If this interview were the first time you had heard the term, what would you do? Ignore it? Where does the line of "people involved" with Paulson stop? I think the line of people behind Paulson at the time of this interview stretched out of site but that's just my opinion. Something to this? Every part of our national if not the global economy is "to this".

This is a small slip that the MSM ignored in my opinion. Possibly this one commentator's opinion and that's what we are waiting for. Even further pantsing of the emperor, enlightenment "if you will" and wider acceptance of conspiratorial activity by our government and in this instance the government appointed bankers. Many have come to think that the government will police the bankers. Many are not willing to believe they are in bed together. Nothing will happen until more viewers take notice of these terms. The overuse and/or misuse of these terms might keep many slumbering. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Hemisphere


I disagree with your "if you will" It's used to make a concession in a sentence, a way of stating what you want without fully committing to the statement as in the following:

"The man was taking things from his place of employment, a common thief if you will."

Thus I've just called someone a thief in a very indirect, softened manner. Of course I "get it".

My get it was for your capisce but I guess you don't like a one for one trade. I am sorry but even if your sentence is grammatically correct and all, that is just not the typical use of that phrase. We will have to agree to disagree but where I come from that is not generally the way you use that.

Touché! Trade accepted, my bad. There are more than one uses for these phrases, let's not quibble. We need to get our opinions voiced and discuss and I think we are doing that nicely despite the minor issues.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
I think I actually watched this live.

But this was last year 2008 around this time if I remember right and there was a thread about it as well. Its funny bc I remember hearing it, then like no way... haha

Your not the only one, this clip is old I just don't remember when it was done. I remember seeing the guy on television saying it and did a double take. I believe it was a slip and it showed that the Powers that be are the Illuminati. If he wanted to say the powers that be he would have said that. I think in his circles they refer to them as the Illuminati (why would the movers and shakers of the world say the PTB if they are on the edge of the group).

reply to post by hoghead cheese


Im not sure exactly what he meant, but it was odd no doubt. Not only that but I am pretty sure I remember it was at like 6:00am or something so not that many people were watching.

There was another poster on here that said he/she heard it mentioned more than that, but I watch a lot of CNBC and that is the only time I have heard that.

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
There is NOTHING put out on the MSM "by accident".

It is apparent that they want this to be known about by those who do not normally hear such things.

It is not some big secret. There was a show on the History channel about it not long ago.

That was a good find though!

I've checked out that government secret link you gave and it brings back more memories and descriptions of what NASA and the govt. was attempting or doing back at that time. I remembered detailed drawings of moon bases on the moon. The problem is that it wasn't the big domed or happy come one come all visit, it was rockets going to the moon and digging under the regileth to build military installations on the moon. Also I'm going to do a little research on the Atomic pile rocket that was mentioned but not described in full detail, I think that back then they where in a rush and didn't know what was to be secret and what wasn't and govt. and civilian officials let things out that may or may not be true.

I replayed it twice . Hmm, I wonder if those no brainers heard it too, or if it was automaticly blocked out cause they didn't believe in it.

Goo Post.

The illuminati features in that simpleminded new Dan Brown film. Now every mouth-breather with an IQ over 60 who knows how to pronounce the word will be tossing it around here and there. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Nevertheless, it is significant that the interviewee is basically positing a centrally-rigged system of some sort...i.e., a conspiracy. This shows that more and more people are aware that there is something rotten and organized at the highest levels, whatever they choose to call it.

[edit on 12/13/09 by silent thunder]

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Touché! Trade accepted, my bad. There are more than one uses for these phrases, let's not quibble. We need to get our opinions voiced and discuss and I think we are doing that nicely despite the minor issues.

I certainly did not mean to be absolute about it and I can certainly be wrong. It is just hard to wander around this place and read thread after thread about rocks on Mars being bases and creatures and trees and then video after video of lights in the sky that are touted about as obvious UFOs and you see a clip like this and ...eh. It just does not ring all that conspiratorial to me the way I hear it but, that could just be me.

Reading the posts following the OP with video from CNBC, I realize something: There was a multimillion dollar movie out in theaters (or at the very least trailers to this movie) here around about the same time this newscast was aired. The movie's name is "Angels and Demons" staring Tom Hanks. I recently watched this movie (awesome adventure movie if you ask me).
So, was this guy using the word "illuminati" out of reasoning since he probably just watched the movie (or trailers) with his family on family night out? OR, is there honestly a secret society meant to over throw the teachings that the Catholic church only wants us to know?
In early religious times, the Catholic church is said to have with held information and different books written by the same scholars who wrote the Bible and during the same time span the Catholic church WAS the government making all laws and rules. It was said that the illuminati were a rogue group of conspiracists bent on making the truth known. So, with that in mind, does this guy use that phrase to make the "truth known" that our gov't conceals the interworkings of the financial market or was he just using a play on words?
Interesting post though!! Loved the reading!

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
Very intresting, I can't believe that slipped right off his tongue on national television, and it also seem like he was going to try to cover it, and than realized he couldn't.

This is exactly what I thought. It's like he let it slip and quickly said something else afterwards to make it not seem in that context.

The word illuminati itself is a word of proxy, This is why no one can find the illuminati because it doesn't exist in that style. The true word that many are seeking to belong to is "Illuminism" a word of the experienced. And to belong to the experience is the brotherhood & sisterhood. It's a high powered experience! Just like everyone who thinks the all seeing eye is the all seeing eye. Another illuminati/proxy effect this shining delta is. And that is what is, It's a shining delta of a greek formula. Masked by the proxy of egyptian lore to remain hidden.

The "Delta" itself which is the triangle, Is of the greek alphabet. It's a symbol for "CHANGE." The triangle is also one of the strongest architectectural designs, This is why it was chosen.
The all seeing EYE in the Delta/Triangle is the "Apotheosis" which means to "to be made divine"
The rays shining around the Delta & eye are the illuminati the "LIGHT" each ray is a symbol for a proxy group. Hence the reason many people have trouble finding "The One" because they are so very many proxy groups that make up the illuminati

That is the illuminati!

i think he didnt mean the society that is going to form the NWO, i think he was just using the word to say the hierarcy of those who we know/think control the economies. Thats why he said the illuminati "if you will".

[edit on 14-12-2009 by NoWorldOrder12]

Originally posted by kayne1982
I thought the same, also they might have thought illuminati now where have i heard that before? I know that Dan Brown was talking about it in that film, you know the one with that Hanks fella in it.

and that is exactly what they want, they throw a bunch of things into movies and desensitize it for the people.

now people think of the Illuminati exactly how they were portrayed in the movie and book

sheeple

I remember not too long ago we ATS was discussing another supposed slip up of the usage of the word "Illuminati" on a cable news show. (tried to do a quick search of the clip but couldn't find it. I'll look more when I'm not being lazy)

But either way...

I had to agree with most the the term was being used in a way much different than we intend. He said "so to speak". Another way to say that is "for lack of a better word". i believe he meant Paulson and his "cronies"/"entourage"/"gang"/fellow elitist, etc.

The word "Illuminati" means a great deal of different things to different people, some of which are accurate and some of which are less so. The word is also used in different ways by different people. It has a more precise historical connotation, but among the general public the word is usually tossed around more freely, simular to the way the term "TPTB" is used on ATS. In other words, "those scary people at the top who we don't really know too much about for sure but about whon we at least realize they present danger."

I wonder how may of you know about the so-called "Royal Secret of the Illuminati." I did I search on ATS and the issue isn't discussed much. But www.abovetopsecret.com... had some interesting insights on the topic, abeit laced with some incorrect information but still well worth reading.

Warning: It is graphic and disturbing and if you don't want to be repulsed I'd advise not reading too much about this. Ultimately its not necessary information but it provides valuable if somewhat garbled structural information as well as an example of the depthts of depravity these people are capable of.