This Forum is Closed
December 02, 2021, 01:40:12 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home:
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

Why government shills & intellectual cowards LOVE the term "conspiracy theory"

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: Why government shills & intellectual cowards LOVE the term "conspiracy theory"  (Read 4860 times)
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


View Profile
« on: August 24, 2010, 11:04:41 am »

Since most people have been conditioned to fear being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" more than death itself, when speaking to someone for the first time about 9/11 truth or something similar, you should always start out by asking him (or her) to define the word "conspiracy" for you.

Then, once he finishes bumbling through his Miss Teen South Carolina-style answer, show him what it really means:

    CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

    In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

    Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

    What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

    First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

    Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

    Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

    Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

    An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

    A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.

Make sure you point out the phrase, "two or more persons," so that he sees with his own eyes that, under the law, two is all it takes to make a "conspiracy."

Then ask him, "In view of this definition, is the official government account of 9/11 a conspiracy?"

Once you get him to admit that even the official story is a (gasp!) "conspiracy," you will have greatly reduced if not eliminated the psychological block he likely has to taking seriously anything that has that particular term attached to it.

Unless, of course, he's completely brainwashed, in which case he'll continue to mindlessly invoke the dreaded "C" word no matter how much smoking gun evidence you provide, and thereby prove what a total waste of time it is to discuss anything of importance with him to begin with.

Time is precious these days, so cast your pearls wisely.
Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.051 seconds with 13 queries.