Illuminati, or, simply out of their minds?

Illuminati, or, simply out of their minds?

Hollande

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 15, 2015

 

On January 9, 2014, French President Francois Hollande made a statement regarding those who conducted the attack at Charlie Hebdo, a weekly newspaper known for ridiculing religion, including Islam and Muhammad.

I have only been able to track this back to Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart where he uploaded it to zeeklytv.com. He, or whomever the original source is, has generated an outlandish story about the French President, Hollande, claiming that that the Illuminati was behind the terror attack on the newspaper’s office. France was concerned about the Illuminati back in the eighteenth century, since that organization was a major player in the French Revolution, where members turned against follow members, often removing their heads at the Guillotine. (See Proofs of a Conspiracy, by John Robison – probably the only authoritative source of information about the Illuminati)

So, let’s look at what President Hollande really said. In French, it reads”

“Ceux qui ont commis ces actes: Ces illumines, ces fanatiques n’ont rien a voir avec la religion of musulmane.”

The video at zeeklytv has a voice stating that the President said that the Illuminati was behind the attack, proof positive. However, it is easy to jump to conclusions, without research. A simple Internet translation shows that “illumines”, in French, interprets to illuminate or lights up, in English. However, in French, the term, as in the context of the speech, interprets, especially when used what the word “fanatiques”, would be light-headed, crazy, out of their mind, or something suggestive of a lack of intelligent thought. If he wanted to speak of the Illuminati, he would have used the proper form of the noun, “illuminatis”.

I contacted a lady who speaks French fluently to interpret Hollande’s statement into English, based upon the words and idioms that the French would apply to the statement. She also watched the zeeklytv video and provided the following translation, along with an observation, “The people that made this video are nuts and obsessed with the illuminatis. They need to find anything to put on their site.”

Here is the correct translation:

“Those who committed these acts; these out of their minds, these fanatic people have nothing to do with Islam”

Well, that’s not very sinister. It simply addresses, rather politely, that the people who conducted the attack were, in his view, crazy fanatics. The reason I say “politely” is that if you read what Hollande said, he attempted to separate the acts of the Muslims, from Muslims, even though the perpetrators were Muslims. So, he stands by his politically correct Multiculturalism — regardless of what his people have determined as a result of the attacks.

Before we end the discussion on this subject, I think that there is something else that we should consider. What sources have credibility, and which ones do not? The Internet has created an environment in which anyone can be a videographer and claim to be an “investigative reporter”, simple by calling themselves such. That doesn’t make it so.

However, as a friend learned recently, investigation requires more than grabbing something and going with it. It can take many hours, perhaps hundreds, to do proper research — as opposed to regurgitating something that has already been “gurgitated” hundreds of times. Those might best be described as “Googlers” rather than researchers. So, let’s look at just how I became aware of the Illuminati claim. Lacovara upload the video to zeeklytv on January 12:

Lacovara Illuminati FB image 00

Ironically, there are some in the Alternate Media who are claiming that no one was killed in Paris, based upon their “review” of the “video evidence”, showing that the first cop shot didn’t bleed to the author’s satisfaction. Others claiming that nobody died in the Kosher grocery store, an assertion also based upon “video evidence”

The point is, there are many sources on the Internet that make claims as to their authenticity, yet those claims can only be as valid as the product that they produce.

As Bertrand Russell said, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves…” So, you must consider whether you wish to follow those fools, or find more reliable sources for your information.

 

This article can be found on line at Illuminati, or, simply out of their minds?

 

 

8 Comments

  1. Well…. you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I spoke to 3 seperate French speaking individuals who said that it was a clever and cryptic way to say what he wanted to say. Couple this with the FACT that the so called head shot or AK47 shot was concluded to have been FALSE even by the BBC it was so blatant…… PEOPLE OUT THERE have NO CLUE as to the evil of the CFR as long as it is a dry issue. Simply put…. there are “double meanings” in the open all the time…… but Gary….you already had an issue with me, so without mentuioning that, do you believe your presentation is fair without saying so ?

    Screen Recorded to assure accuracy.

    Oh…..and ” lighten up brother”…… lol

    • ghunt ghunt says:

      Tom,
      I didn’t have an issue with you, I had an issue with what you were reporting. If I have an issue with you, then I will make that clear.
      I do find it interesting that the patriot community damns MSM (including BBC) when they say something that the community doesn’t like, however, MSM becomes an “authority” if they say what those in the community do want to hear.
      Regarding the head shot, the assumptions of what you would see with that low resolution footage is without merit. What is clear is that the muzzle blast would not stop at the body, and could quite easily deflect off of the body and into the sidewalk, raising dust. However, if it was fake, why would the be a muzzle blast? Another aspect is that everyone thought there should be lots of blood. Blood is pumped by the heart. If the first shot did not get any veins or arteries, there would be very little blood, especially that would be apparent from that distance. If the head shot was sufficient, then the heart would stop before any appreciable amount of blood would be pumped out.
      Others who have watched the footage, and have combat experience, have concluded similar to what I have. They don’t assume that a head shot would have clear passage in exiting, if the trajectory was such that the exit would be well under the head, and the sidewalk absorbing both the blood and brains. If you look closely at the aiming point, it appears to be lower on the head (down toward the sidewalk), which would create that scenario.
      Every circumstance is different and dependent on so many things that these “quick conspiratorial analysis” serve no useful purpose, and, thy are absolutely unprofessional.
      As with any true investigative journalism (much like intelligence gathering), corroboration is an essential element. I’m sure that if you have your “interpreters” peruse the French newspaper, or, better yet, contact the reporters or government, you will find that they do have a dead officer at that location. This is supported (corroboration) by subsequent videos showing the police arriving at that scene where the officer was shot. There are no time stamps, but clearly it is well after the shooters left the area. The officer “who was not shot” remains in the exact position as when the fatal shot was made. Now, that is damned good acting,or, well, maybe he really is dead.

      • fbreshears says:

        I will disagree on the head shot brother, where do you think the addege,”blow your head off”, comes from, a 7.62 will leave nothing but carnage close up like that, and at the scene on the b other encounter th er re is a guy running around behind all the cops cooking off rounds that would have only been able to hit the cops in front of him h as d they been real, why too the dudes wearing body armour on the roof all set up before th e action, I call bs on this entire op

        • ghunt ghunt says:

          I’m not familiar with the other video you refer to, and I am not interested in spending a lot of time pursuing it.
          However, let’s take the head shot. Suppose you were five feet from a wall and there was a head shot. Yes, shit splattered all over, but it doesn’t go through the wall, it just adheres to it.
          So. then, you stand against the wall and get a head shot. Well, all that splatter stays mostly behind your head, except what runs down the wall.
          So, what runs down the wall doesn’t have any place to run down, if you are flat on the ground.
          Blood and brains are relatively light. They will stop once they meet resistance (the ground), and if the heart is still not pumping, blood won’t flow.
          As a friend pointed out, if you look very close, you see a little bit of pink immediately after the shot, right in front of the head. Now, I can’t say that it is what it might be, nor that it is not the pink cloud. The footage is simply note sharp enough to make that determination.

    • Kyle says:

      Lacovara, I think you should heed what Cantwell said about alleged conspiracies in his article “Conspiraphobia,” which I think supports Gary’s article you seem to think is unfair, somehow:

      “I think conspiracy folks have this inane tendency to conclude elements of the government are strategically organizing every bad thing that occurs in the world. I just plain don’t have enough faith in the State to believe it would even be capable of such organization. On the other hand, I don’t put it past them to be willing to engage in such acts, and whatever the government tells us usually contains some amount of bullshit.The trick is to determine how much bullshit we’re being fed. Are they taking advantage of a real situation, in order to pursue an agenda, or did they perpetrate/stage said event for said agenda? One of the two is usually the case. I rarely if ever find government doing anything other than pursuing some ridiculous power grab.” – http://christophercantwell.com/2015/01/15/conspiraphobia-reason-vs-ron-paul/

      • ghunt ghunt says:

        Neither of Cantwell’s observation fit this situation. Something happened that was unexpected, at least by the French government. Their support for multiculturalism has blinded them to the reality of what has happened in France, Sweden and England, most notably, that Muslims have a plan and that plan is simply a modern form of invasion with the intended purpose of eventually obtaining sufficient control, through the relatively free form of government, and subvert that government to a Shariah based government.
        Perhaps fortunately, the incident has forced reconsideration by the government, and other European government, though unfortunately not the United States. Governments in France, Belgium, Germany, and perhaps a few others, have begun cracking down on the information they had been simply acquiring, by raiding locations where obvious Muslim cells were operating. Though this is very little, in terms of stemming the problem, it is a start. And, probably, most significantly, will lead to a complete reconsideration of the concept of multiculturalism (tolerance).

  2. jm says:

    hey gary… there is another book that more extensively details the formation of the organization mr. Hollande referenced… John Robison actually talked about this book at the end of “Proofs” its by abbe augustin baurrell

    http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-illustrating-history-jacobinism-Barruel/dp/0964115050/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421403923&sr=8-1&keywords=memoirs+illustrating+the+history+of+jacobinism

Leave a Reply to ghunt