Conspiracy Theories!
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
a) That the cabal of the world's power is run by child-molesting Lucifer worshippers bent on attaining One World Order.
b) That life on earth is a result of alien farming and experimentation
c) David Icke's lizard men shite
d) Tolkein mythos preceding life on earth as we know it
b) That life on earth is a result of alien farming and experimentation
c) David Icke's lizard men shite
d) Tolkein mythos preceding life on earth as we know it
A friend of mine was thrown off a conspiracy network as too paranoid even for them when he put forward these two theories:
JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. The actual reason was that Kennedy had had an affair with Mrs Oswald, and the whole purpose of all of the other ostensible conspiracies was to keep Kennedy's memory pure.
The other was his explanation for 9/11. Tony Blair was due to address the Trades Union Congress that day and would not have been kindly greeted. Given the choice betwen killing several thousand people directly and causing the deaths of tens of thousand more, on the one hand, and having a bunch of lower-class horny-handed sons of toil being cruel and beastly to him on the other, it is quite obvious what Mr Tony would do...
JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. The actual reason was that Kennedy had had an affair with Mrs Oswald, and the whole purpose of all of the other ostensible conspiracies was to keep Kennedy's memory pure.
The other was his explanation for 9/11. Tony Blair was due to address the Trades Union Congress that day and would not have been kindly greeted. Given the choice betwen killing several thousand people directly and causing the deaths of tens of thousand more, on the one hand, and having a bunch of lower-class horny-handed sons of toil being cruel and beastly to him on the other, it is quite obvious what Mr Tony would do...
What They Don't Want You to Know
In order to understand reading you need to realize that everything is controlled by a women made up of the ugly ones with help from whites only,
The conspiracy first started during vietnam war in america. They have been responsible for many events throughout history, including magnar carter.
Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified by picking your nose.
They want to slap christians and imprison resisters in the north pole using a bus.
In order to prepare for this, we all must return. Since the media is controlled by born again xians we should all get our information from politician.
it makes no sense I know it was fabricated here have a go yourself.
In order to understand reading you need to realize that everything is controlled by a women made up of the ugly ones with help from whites only,
The conspiracy first started during vietnam war in america. They have been responsible for many events throughout history, including magnar carter.
Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified by picking your nose.
They want to slap christians and imprison resisters in the north pole using a bus.
In order to prepare for this, we all must return. Since the media is controlled by born again xians we should all get our information from politician.
it makes no sense I know it was fabricated here have a go yourself.
I think this thread is deteriorating a little. The thread starter should perhaps of identified what is a "Conspiracy Theory" as apposed to what people perceive them to be.
For instance a "Conspiracy Theory" usually takes an axiom of truth, and twist a double doseing of science fiction to an event usually in an attempt to either create a contradictory "theory" to what originally occured or potentially to unmask that the original concept theory was errored in some way.
Such conspiracy theories a usually around the John F. Kennedy Assassination and Roswell Incident(both unrelated), in the sense that a real event occured and people couldn't understand what truly occured because they weren't apart of the investigation but "guessed" what must of happened.
In science such guesses do exist, they usually occur as Metaphysics and are applied before experimentation is carried out to work out if the "theory" is accurate. However this is where science which tests a theory, meets "Pseudoscience" being untested Metaphysics taken by the theorist as a reality.
I mention this to perhaps give people a scope and limit their "Jokes" of madeup conspiracies to a minimum. (We have a whole cesspool for that)
For instance a "Conspiracy Theory" usually takes an axiom of truth, and twist a double doseing of science fiction to an event usually in an attempt to either create a contradictory "theory" to what originally occured or potentially to unmask that the original concept theory was errored in some way.
Such conspiracy theories a usually around the John F. Kennedy Assassination and Roswell Incident(both unrelated), in the sense that a real event occured and people couldn't understand what truly occured because they weren't apart of the investigation but "guessed" what must of happened.
In science such guesses do exist, they usually occur as Metaphysics and are applied before experimentation is carried out to work out if the "theory" is accurate. However this is where science which tests a theory, meets "Pseudoscience" being untested Metaphysics taken by the theorist as a reality.
I mention this to perhaps give people a scope and limit their "Jokes" of madeup conspiracies to a minimum. (We have a whole cesspool for that)
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
His name is Robert L thompsett and he recruits people to protect the master plan of the freemasons. I posted this article to show you how he places blame on others to hide the Freemason involvement. He works for C.S.I.S and MI-6 but secretly he works strictly for the new world order.
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/communism.html
Gramsi's master plan involves people like Robert to go out and create confusion. Here is roberts articles, see if you can see his deception and this does have a lot to do with your guns taken away because he was hired by Allan Rock.
http://stuffnewspaper.com/ttheteam.html
http://stuffnewspaper.com/pages/Art/WalkingWounded.htm
Connections Cut To ConnecticutThis isn't just a jeer
Or a soulful moan,
But there is a little number
That's come up on my phone.
Twenty, three, four-three-one
Fifteen more
And after which
Three score and a digit one.
(Pretty long isn't it?
But luckily I'm done!)
I'd love to call this number
If only she'd let me do
But I'd have to be less dumber
Or she'll only tell me "No!"
For it ain't just a someone,
But a victim of my strife
Which is really, really very sad,
As I'd life her in my life.
By Robert L Thompsett
On this site he is known as quelquechosedautre
Do not be fooled he is an agent for the freemasons
http://groups.msn.com/psycologicalwarfare
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/communism.html
Gramsi's master plan involves people like Robert to go out and create confusion. Here is roberts articles, see if you can see his deception and this does have a lot to do with your guns taken away because he was hired by Allan Rock.
http://stuffnewspaper.com/ttheteam.html
http://stuffnewspaper.com/pages/Art/WalkingWounded.htm
Connections Cut To ConnecticutThis isn't just a jeer
Or a soulful moan,
But there is a little number
That's come up on my phone.
Twenty, three, four-three-one
Fifteen more
And after which
Three score and a digit one.
(Pretty long isn't it?
But luckily I'm done!)
I'd love to call this number
If only she'd let me do
But I'd have to be less dumber
Or she'll only tell me "No!"
For it ain't just a someone,
But a victim of my strife
Which is really, really very sad,
As I'd life her in my life.
By Robert L Thompsett
On this site he is known as quelquechosedautre
Do not be fooled he is an agent for the freemasons
http://groups.msn.com/psycologicalwarfare
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
Take time to read this, it is so obviously the basis of so much We see every day. I ran across this many years ago, but it got buried in the volume of all I was taking in.
I suppose I have been an extremist, but maybe only in reaction to what I see as extreme evil.
This is the blueprint for all You see happening.
GRAMSCI AND THE U.S. BODY POLITIC
By: Alberto Luzárraga
Why the interest in Gramsci? Certainly, he is not a household name for most people, but nonetheless he is relevant enough to be mentioned the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. In a recent piece (12/19/00) by George Melloan, the columnist refers to an article published by John Fonte in the Policy Review of the Hudson Institute.
According to the WSJ writer, "[Fonte] defines the ideological split in America as a contest between present-day Tocquevillians and disciples of the 20th-century Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who drew on the ideas of Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx. The Tocquevillians incline toward individualism, religious belief and patriotism. The Gramscians see any society, including America, as an arena where the "marginalized" are necessarily at war with the privileged classes. Good old-fashioned class warfare, in other words."
As we know, political events do not happen in a vacuum. There are always causes. Ideas that were deemed a failure decades ago can be successfully implemented today. In the world of ideas, decades are often only an incubation period and today Gramsci s ideas are very much alive in the political arena.
Born at Ales, Italy on January 1891, Antonio Gramsci was the fourth son of Francesco Gramsci, a clerk in the local registrar s office. He suffered through a difficult childhood, eventually received a scholarship, and graduated from the University of Turin. In 1921 he became a founding member of the Italian Communist party. In 1922 he traveled to Moscow as a member of the Communist International and remained in Moscow for a year. It was the beginning of the Stalinist period.
Gramsci, a bright man, thought that Stalinist methods would not work in western societies. Violence and revolution, in his opinion, would generate a fatal reaction against the communist movement. He returned to Italy with more subtle and long term ideas and began to develop them. Shortly upon his return, Mussolini jailed Gramsci. The fascist regime saw his ideas as a danger to the State. It was from prison (where he died in 1937) that Gramsci wrote his 33 books. They contain very shrewd insights on how a "capitalist, bourgeois society" works and how it can be taken over peacefully and dominated through a systematic change of its ideas.
His methods became in fact, the "field manual" for the many that followed. If you understand Gramsci, you will understand the "peculiar" and "weird" theories that are in vogue today. And you will understand that they are not the work of "weird crazy people" but rather of calculating and quite intelligent operatives.
One word of caution howeve. Followers of the Gramscian doctrines are a mixed lot. It would be a service rendered to the socialists to call every Gramsci follower a full fledged socialist although many certainly are that. Socialists love absolute accusations in order to label people "extremist", one of their preferred epithets. Part of the methodology is to deviate attention by accusing others of what they are or do. We should not give them that chance. Moreover, although the Gramscian proposal demands from the common follower consent and acceptance of its ideas, this does not necessarily imply that all rank and file followers have a clear understanding of where they are going.
And then, many of the more adept Gramscian operators may not fully support his economic ideas. His relevance lies in the fact that for many ambitious and opportunistic political operatives Gramsci is seen as a modern Machiavelli with a good method to achieve power. And to them this is more important than a specific economic model. The important point to understand is the method. It is a road map that shows one of the favored strategies used by persons with an unlimited lust for power to climb and acquire notoriousness, while advancing their ideas.
So what is Gramsci all about? Well, let s start with his concept of "hegemony" a word frequently used by people not noted for their love of hundred dollar words. For Gramsci ,"hegemony" is not mere dominance by force. Rather, it is the set of ideas by which dominant groups in a society secure the consent of subordinate groups to their rule.
Note the emphasis on consent. A governing class must succeed in persuading the governed to accept the moral, political and cultural values suggested by those in power. Gramsci noted that this is the way "bourgeois societies" ruled. Extreme measures were only used when there was rebellion against the established mores.
Therefore his conclusion was: Let s do the same and capture the minds of the population, as well as the institutions of the bourgeoisie and do it with ideas that we will present as "common sense". The implementation will be through intellectuals and figures of influence gained to the cause by vanity, convenience or ambition and a by a new element, intellectual operatives that work with the people. All of it, coupled to constant use of the media.
In his words: "the mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence & but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer, "permanent persuader" and not just a simple orator&"
Gramsci understood what Marx did not understand: Economic crises by themselves would not subvert capitalism, because capitalism always managed to overcome the crises and emerged stronger. Another theory was necessary for a different reality. One that recognized the importance of culture and ideology, and methods that went beyond the coarser forms of Marxist class struggle. Methods that would be efficient in capturing power in a western society. Methods that would fit the use of mass media because they were subtle and persuasive. If you gain the minds you gain the bodies. Even a partial victory is useful, because it weakens and diminishes your opposition.
Gramsci perceived that in a western society, the bond between the ruler and the ruled was what kept it together and this bond was what created "hegemony." And where was that bond? How was it cemented?
In the classical institutions, and through them of course. The family, the church, the schools, the civil society and its organizations, none other than the building blocks of the State.
The revolutionaries who wished to break the "hegemony" had to build up a "counter hegemony" to that of the ruling class. It was necessary to change the minds, to change the popular consensus, to change the way institutions work. In sum, to make the people question the right of their leaders to rule in the accepted way.
Success would consist in permeating throughout society a whole new system of values, beliefs and morality. A system that would become accepted by all in a way that would appear to be the normal thing to do.
How is it done? Besides the traditional intellectuals (those who see themselves as such) there must exist the "organic intellectual", i.e. the one that grows with a social group, and becomes its thinking and organizing element. The role of informal "educators" in local communities becomes essential. The educator must not be seen as a distant "brainy" figure but as "one of us", one of the neighborhood, another one of the group.
The same applies to the schools which Gramsci sees as a means used by social groups "to perpetuate a function, [namely] to rule or to be subordinate". Ergo, schools and curriculums must be controlled either directly or indirectly.
Once organized these groups would engage in incessant political activity and use massive means of communication. No armed conspiracies, just unrelenting propaganda. The introduction of Gramscian methodology in society, produces a constant clash for supremacy of ideas and a patient but persistent subversion of the building blocks of that society. Subversion is a many faced endeavor played by different people with different objectives but the modern method has a substantial Gramscian content.
Take a case in point. Why it is that we must often suffer a way of thinking that attempts to coerce us intellectually? Look around. How many times have you heard: You must not be "judgmental" or "intolerant." What does that mean in Gramscian terms? It means: You must accept our values and not argue. If you do not you are out the mainstream. Remember the Gramscian objective of turning their ideas into "common sense"?
Do you now understand, why we have political correctness?
Why we have neighborhood groups that look more like agitation and propaganda entities than neighborhood associations?
Why we have schools that push a peculiar curriculum and ignore parents, school budgets that make available funds for incredible courses, and teachers unions that often do not appear to represent teachers true interests?
Why we have churches that have become political discourse centers?
Why we have a myriad civil associations with goals that appear to be destructive and divisive?
Why we have mass media that often operate as propaganda machines rather than reporters of events?
The Wall Street Journal article continues: "Mr. Fonte says the Gramscian view has special currency in higher intellectual circles, particularly on elite college campuses. The plight of women, minorities, gays and other victims of cultural hegemony is a favorite subject of student indoctrinations, not to mention speech and thought control, in such places. The federal Violence Against Women Act produced a Supreme Court case in which a 10-year-old boy was charged with harassing a fifth-grade female classmate. It is no accident that the Gramscian New York Times editorial page thought that the most important thing Al Gore said in his eloquent concession speech was that he would continue to fight for people "who need burdens lifted and barriers removed." How he might have conducted his fight if he had been elected has never been clear; certainly not by cutting their taxes."
The only way to gain absolute power in the United States is through long range Gramscian tactics. There is hope however, if we don t take for granted what we now enjoy and fight to maintain power divided. The true strength of the American Republic is the division of power. This is why the would be revolutionaries so hate the Electoral College, States Rights, local self government, etc. The system devised by the Founding Fathers complicates their life tremendously. As the quoted article notes:
"Over and above these structural features, there are the multiplicity of interests and interest groups, the immense diversity of American society and the excessive rhetoric that characterizes the conflict of those separated in fact by minor differences." Underlying it all, however, "is the sheer power of the idea of freedom an idea so powerful that not even those opposed to freedom condemn it . . . ."
The last sentence is crucial. Even those that seek to destroy the system must pay lip service, at least, to the idea of liberty. They must talk about the people s right to vote while they work against it and seek to discredit the process.
The Gramscians in the United States cannot wage a war of conquest. They must wage a war of attrition and position. If we understand their tactics we can stop them and win. But it won t happen by staying at home and watching the game. We must all become involved. In the same way they become involved. To use a Gramscian term, each one of us must become an "organic intellectual" of sorts, one that explains and convinces. Gramsci was right when he said that all men have intellectual concerns outside their field of activity. The problem is that most citizens are so busy with their lives that they do not have the time to think things through. They need help and those who understand must help, each in his own way.
We have in our favor truth and true common sense. If they succeed it is only because we allowed the party with the harmful product to sell it to an unsuspecting public
I suppose I have been an extremist, but maybe only in reaction to what I see as extreme evil.
This is the blueprint for all You see happening.
GRAMSCI AND THE U.S. BODY POLITIC
By: Alberto Luzárraga
Why the interest in Gramsci? Certainly, he is not a household name for most people, but nonetheless he is relevant enough to be mentioned the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. In a recent piece (12/19/00) by George Melloan, the columnist refers to an article published by John Fonte in the Policy Review of the Hudson Institute.
According to the WSJ writer, "[Fonte] defines the ideological split in America as a contest between present-day Tocquevillians and disciples of the 20th-century Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who drew on the ideas of Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx. The Tocquevillians incline toward individualism, religious belief and patriotism. The Gramscians see any society, including America, as an arena where the "marginalized" are necessarily at war with the privileged classes. Good old-fashioned class warfare, in other words."
As we know, political events do not happen in a vacuum. There are always causes. Ideas that were deemed a failure decades ago can be successfully implemented today. In the world of ideas, decades are often only an incubation period and today Gramsci s ideas are very much alive in the political arena.
Born at Ales, Italy on January 1891, Antonio Gramsci was the fourth son of Francesco Gramsci, a clerk in the local registrar s office. He suffered through a difficult childhood, eventually received a scholarship, and graduated from the University of Turin. In 1921 he became a founding member of the Italian Communist party. In 1922 he traveled to Moscow as a member of the Communist International and remained in Moscow for a year. It was the beginning of the Stalinist period.
Gramsci, a bright man, thought that Stalinist methods would not work in western societies. Violence and revolution, in his opinion, would generate a fatal reaction against the communist movement. He returned to Italy with more subtle and long term ideas and began to develop them. Shortly upon his return, Mussolini jailed Gramsci. The fascist regime saw his ideas as a danger to the State. It was from prison (where he died in 1937) that Gramsci wrote his 33 books. They contain very shrewd insights on how a "capitalist, bourgeois society" works and how it can be taken over peacefully and dominated through a systematic change of its ideas.
His methods became in fact, the "field manual" for the many that followed. If you understand Gramsci, you will understand the "peculiar" and "weird" theories that are in vogue today. And you will understand that they are not the work of "weird crazy people" but rather of calculating and quite intelligent operatives.
One word of caution howeve. Followers of the Gramscian doctrines are a mixed lot. It would be a service rendered to the socialists to call every Gramsci follower a full fledged socialist although many certainly are that. Socialists love absolute accusations in order to label people "extremist", one of their preferred epithets. Part of the methodology is to deviate attention by accusing others of what they are or do. We should not give them that chance. Moreover, although the Gramscian proposal demands from the common follower consent and acceptance of its ideas, this does not necessarily imply that all rank and file followers have a clear understanding of where they are going.
And then, many of the more adept Gramscian operators may not fully support his economic ideas. His relevance lies in the fact that for many ambitious and opportunistic political operatives Gramsci is seen as a modern Machiavelli with a good method to achieve power. And to them this is more important than a specific economic model. The important point to understand is the method. It is a road map that shows one of the favored strategies used by persons with an unlimited lust for power to climb and acquire notoriousness, while advancing their ideas.
So what is Gramsci all about? Well, let s start with his concept of "hegemony" a word frequently used by people not noted for their love of hundred dollar words. For Gramsci ,"hegemony" is not mere dominance by force. Rather, it is the set of ideas by which dominant groups in a society secure the consent of subordinate groups to their rule.
Note the emphasis on consent. A governing class must succeed in persuading the governed to accept the moral, political and cultural values suggested by those in power. Gramsci noted that this is the way "bourgeois societies" ruled. Extreme measures were only used when there was rebellion against the established mores.
Therefore his conclusion was: Let s do the same and capture the minds of the population, as well as the institutions of the bourgeoisie and do it with ideas that we will present as "common sense". The implementation will be through intellectuals and figures of influence gained to the cause by vanity, convenience or ambition and a by a new element, intellectual operatives that work with the people. All of it, coupled to constant use of the media.
In his words: "the mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence & but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer, "permanent persuader" and not just a simple orator&"
Gramsci understood what Marx did not understand: Economic crises by themselves would not subvert capitalism, because capitalism always managed to overcome the crises and emerged stronger. Another theory was necessary for a different reality. One that recognized the importance of culture and ideology, and methods that went beyond the coarser forms of Marxist class struggle. Methods that would be efficient in capturing power in a western society. Methods that would fit the use of mass media because they were subtle and persuasive. If you gain the minds you gain the bodies. Even a partial victory is useful, because it weakens and diminishes your opposition.
Gramsci perceived that in a western society, the bond between the ruler and the ruled was what kept it together and this bond was what created "hegemony." And where was that bond? How was it cemented?
In the classical institutions, and through them of course. The family, the church, the schools, the civil society and its organizations, none other than the building blocks of the State.
The revolutionaries who wished to break the "hegemony" had to build up a "counter hegemony" to that of the ruling class. It was necessary to change the minds, to change the popular consensus, to change the way institutions work. In sum, to make the people question the right of their leaders to rule in the accepted way.
Success would consist in permeating throughout society a whole new system of values, beliefs and morality. A system that would become accepted by all in a way that would appear to be the normal thing to do.
How is it done? Besides the traditional intellectuals (those who see themselves as such) there must exist the "organic intellectual", i.e. the one that grows with a social group, and becomes its thinking and organizing element. The role of informal "educators" in local communities becomes essential. The educator must not be seen as a distant "brainy" figure but as "one of us", one of the neighborhood, another one of the group.
The same applies to the schools which Gramsci sees as a means used by social groups "to perpetuate a function, [namely] to rule or to be subordinate". Ergo, schools and curriculums must be controlled either directly or indirectly.
Once organized these groups would engage in incessant political activity and use massive means of communication. No armed conspiracies, just unrelenting propaganda. The introduction of Gramscian methodology in society, produces a constant clash for supremacy of ideas and a patient but persistent subversion of the building blocks of that society. Subversion is a many faced endeavor played by different people with different objectives but the modern method has a substantial Gramscian content.
Take a case in point. Why it is that we must often suffer a way of thinking that attempts to coerce us intellectually? Look around. How many times have you heard: You must not be "judgmental" or "intolerant." What does that mean in Gramscian terms? It means: You must accept our values and not argue. If you do not you are out the mainstream. Remember the Gramscian objective of turning their ideas into "common sense"?
Do you now understand, why we have political correctness?
Why we have neighborhood groups that look more like agitation and propaganda entities than neighborhood associations?
Why we have schools that push a peculiar curriculum and ignore parents, school budgets that make available funds for incredible courses, and teachers unions that often do not appear to represent teachers true interests?
Why we have churches that have become political discourse centers?
Why we have a myriad civil associations with goals that appear to be destructive and divisive?
Why we have mass media that often operate as propaganda machines rather than reporters of events?
The Wall Street Journal article continues: "Mr. Fonte says the Gramscian view has special currency in higher intellectual circles, particularly on elite college campuses. The plight of women, minorities, gays and other victims of cultural hegemony is a favorite subject of student indoctrinations, not to mention speech and thought control, in such places. The federal Violence Against Women Act produced a Supreme Court case in which a 10-year-old boy was charged with harassing a fifth-grade female classmate. It is no accident that the Gramscian New York Times editorial page thought that the most important thing Al Gore said in his eloquent concession speech was that he would continue to fight for people "who need burdens lifted and barriers removed." How he might have conducted his fight if he had been elected has never been clear; certainly not by cutting their taxes."
The only way to gain absolute power in the United States is through long range Gramscian tactics. There is hope however, if we don t take for granted what we now enjoy and fight to maintain power divided. The true strength of the American Republic is the division of power. This is why the would be revolutionaries so hate the Electoral College, States Rights, local self government, etc. The system devised by the Founding Fathers complicates their life tremendously. As the quoted article notes:
"Over and above these structural features, there are the multiplicity of interests and interest groups, the immense diversity of American society and the excessive rhetoric that characterizes the conflict of those separated in fact by minor differences." Underlying it all, however, "is the sheer power of the idea of freedom an idea so powerful that not even those opposed to freedom condemn it . . . ."
The last sentence is crucial. Even those that seek to destroy the system must pay lip service, at least, to the idea of liberty. They must talk about the people s right to vote while they work against it and seek to discredit the process.
The Gramscians in the United States cannot wage a war of conquest. They must wage a war of attrition and position. If we understand their tactics we can stop them and win. But it won t happen by staying at home and watching the game. We must all become involved. In the same way they become involved. To use a Gramscian term, each one of us must become an "organic intellectual" of sorts, one that explains and convinces. Gramsci was right when he said that all men have intellectual concerns outside their field of activity. The problem is that most citizens are so busy with their lives that they do not have the time to think things through. They need help and those who understand must help, each in his own way.
We have in our favor truth and true common sense. If they succeed it is only because we allowed the party with the harmful product to sell it to an unsuspecting public
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
Robert L Thompsett was used by the freemason to show investors how to insure stocks so when disasters hit they could clean up on putt and calls. ROberts friends cleaned up on 911. They cleaned up on the blackout and mafia boy who is from quebec and is only a scapegoat for the masons treachury. Although there more peaceful mason's Robert I believe belongs to a extremist version of the elite cult. Mafiaboy attacked large American corporation such as microsoft and yahoo and few more.
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
Robert L Thompsett is here foraging for psychopaths, sociopath's anybody that wants to ruthlessly attack people and bring them into the new world order. Sorry Robert just thought I could speed up your hunting. See now all you have to do is ask them....
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
I thought we were posting conspiracies
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
My bad .....guess your not ready for the real thing
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member
Agent provocateur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs) is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provocateurs seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.
An agent provocateur is often a police officer whose duty is to make sure suspected individual(s) carry out a crime to guarantee their punishment; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime the provocateur suggested. The phrase comes from the French language, where it means, roughly, "inciting agent".
The activities of agents provocateurs are typically called sting operations. Agents provocateurs are typically used to investigate consensual or "victimless" crimes; since each participant in such a crime is a willing participant, only a police spy posing as a fellow participant in criminal activity is likely to be able to uncover such a crime.
Agents provocateurs are also used in the investigation of political crimes. Here, it has been claimed that the provocateurs deliberately seek to incite ineffective radical acts, in order to foster public disdain for the political group being investigated; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of political groups the U.S. government found unacceptably radical. The activities of agents provocateurs against political dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution.
The activities of agents provocateurs pose a number of ethical and legal issues. Within common law jurisdictions, the law of entrapment seeks to discern whether the provocateur's target intended to commit the crime he participated in with the provocateur, or whether the suggestion to commit the crime began with the provocateur. It is also debatable whether the institutionalized deception that resort to agents provocateurs entails by definition does more harm to the social order than the various consensual offenses typically investigated by provocateurs.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs) is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provocateurs seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.
An agent provocateur is often a police officer whose duty is to make sure suspected individual(s) carry out a crime to guarantee their punishment; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime the provocateur suggested. The phrase comes from the French language, where it means, roughly, "inciting agent".
The activities of agents provocateurs are typically called sting operations. Agents provocateurs are typically used to investigate consensual or "victimless" crimes; since each participant in such a crime is a willing participant, only a police spy posing as a fellow participant in criminal activity is likely to be able to uncover such a crime.
Agents provocateurs are also used in the investigation of political crimes. Here, it has been claimed that the provocateurs deliberately seek to incite ineffective radical acts, in order to foster public disdain for the political group being investigated; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of political groups the U.S. government found unacceptably radical. The activities of agents provocateurs against political dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution.
The activities of agents provocateurs pose a number of ethical and legal issues. Within common law jurisdictions, the law of entrapment seeks to discern whether the provocateur's target intended to commit the crime he participated in with the provocateur, or whether the suggestion to commit the crime began with the provocateur. It is also debatable whether the institutionalized deception that resort to agents provocateurs entails by definition does more harm to the social order than the various consensual offenses typically investigated by provocateurs.
twowitnesses
Registered Senior Member