I doubt there is such thing, or that this name has any real value for the elite -- but even if, I would advise against mentioning the "illuminati" without proper surrounding sentences & words aimed at casting at least some reasonable doubt over the whole thing, or making it clear that it is nothing but an opinion -- certainly not an acknowledged fact.MattMariott wrote:...why do the illuminati...
We never agreed that these alleged "illuminati" were behind this event or others. Who demonstrated (I'm not saying proved) they were? Where this comes from? Why do you assume you can slip this concept by like this?
If you, MattMarriott, think you have evidence in this sense, first and foremost give us such evidence (which, of course, should include proof that such group actually exists under that denomination somewhere): otherwise please do not use the word as if it actually identified something we all agreed on.
I don't think it wise to reuse categories passed over by counter-information agents, without tearing them apart first assuming they are disinformation devices.
If we want to operate honestly and without pretending to have insider information that we don't have, we must admit that at this stage there is no way for any of us to be sure about anything that goes on up at those levels. Zionists, freemasons, the military, the CIA and groups of power of sorts: it is a whole mess of true and false that we can handle only with a lot of ifs and maybes.
Like Oscar Wilde said, "The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true". (Which I think would make a wonderful motto and admonition for our research, actually).