I find it ironic Craig that this excellent article about Cointelpro gets comments right off the bat by two Cointelpro agents that attempt immediately to derail the discussion onto disinformation tropes such as DEW's and nukes. Of course your article has nothing to do with either of those topics. Maybe that is the point. I quote your articles last point regarding how agents behave:
"· People who claim to be truthers who distract from good evidence by pushing extreme and unfounded theories; "
In case there are any doubts about who I am accusing of derailing the discussion, I am talking about 911 Revisionist and Maxwell C. Bridges. If you look at their pattern of posting on your blog Craig I think you will see clearly that they try on almost every single article to derail the discussion onto their disinformation tropes DEW's and Nukes. Go back and look, they are almost always among the very first commenters and they rarely if ever actually address the topic of the article they are commenting on. I personally believe they are paid Cointelpro agents or perhaps sock puppets of the same paid agent. They have been assigned to you Craig so that must mean that you are doing something right. You don't get flak until you are over the target right?
"I find it ironic this excellent article about Cointelpro gets comments right off the bat by two Cointelpro agents that attempt immediately to derail the discussion onto disinformation tropes such as DEW's and nukes.... In case there are any doubts about who I am accusing of derailing the discussion, I am talking about 911 Revisionist and Maxwell C. Bridges."
What I find ironic is that you wrote that on March 25, while my first comment to this substack article is today (March 29) and this very comment. Are you pulling a "Minority Report" (Tom Cruise movie reference) "pre-crime" ploy?
Mr. Ruff, you call me out by name for an offense that all latter-day lurker readers will see at a glance that I DID NOT COMMIT. However, you are correct in calling out 9/11 Revisionist for his Chat-GPT bot efforts. [His bot-ish emails to me are no different.]
But seeing how YOU broached the subject of 9/11 nuclear devices and YOU called me out by name, YOU just made it fair game and on-topic. BRAVO, old chap!
Here is a link to my recent (2024-03-21) presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth that I tried to make you aware of. Because I know you don't like emails from me and have me blocked in most places including substack and Facebook, I asked Mr. McKee to personally see that you were aware of this milestone event.
I see this happen with every post I make. There is always an excuse for mentioning nukes or DEW. I'm glad you pointed out the latest example. I've removed a number of off-topic comments posted today. I wonder if I have to make a rule about certain topics. Or do I just delete on a case by case basis. Substack doesn't allow me to cut part of a comment out, so it's possible for a commenter to make reference to the subject of the article and then to add a bunch of other stuff.
I think in this particular case it may be best to leave the comments up as a real time illustration of Cointelpro tactics being used to disrupt a discussion about Cointelpro tactics. See my point?
I am not interested in your disinformation. I am going to just ignore you since I know you will never ever stop due to your OCD issues. By the way your attempts to bait me into anger are amateurish at best. I would have to respect you first before your insults would have any effect on me and since I don't respect you...
I get so annoyed at the term conspiracy theory being used as derogatory. Anyone who I actually engage in this conversation with, my main points are that the level of corruption in government and big business cannot be understated at this point, regardless of which party is in charge. Therefore, your best bet is to assume everything is a lie, because it's a continual attempt to protect their corruption from exposure.
If it makes me a big bad conspiracy theorist that I disbelieve the most corrupt world governments the history of the world has ever known, then so be it. You're a f'ing idiot if you believe everything you're told.
And another thing on censorship. The truth does not need protection through censorship. Only lies do. The truth can stand up to logical attacks if it is the truth. Lies cannot. So if something is being censored, the odds are 99.999999% that it's an inconvenient truth for those doing the censoring.
The main job of the government and intelligence agencies is to protect themselves, to grow their budgets and their power. They do this through lying about everything and creating more and bigger problems that the public agrees need to be solved. And of course it's an unwritten rule that only the government can solve problems, even though they never have and only ever make them worse by design. After all, if a problem were solved, the budget used to fix it would disappear. If the problem were made worse, the budget would increase. Therefore, the government always makes problems worse on purpose. I don't know how anyone could possibly argue against this logic.
I wrote a piece two years about about how the mainstream media use the "conspiracy theory" trope to quash dissent. You might find it interesting. https://www.ae911truth.org/news/849
Thank you - I have encountered some of these tactics. I was personally slandered within a 9/11 group. As far as I could tell, the rumors centered around me as a woman. I went out to (platonic) dinner once with a 9/11 activist, after which the rumor campaign apparently started.
For years now, I've had to deal with in-person harassment also. It's still going on. It involves what Tarpley called “surveillance role players." From my limited research and FOIA attempts, I think the quote from Tarpley is correct as far as the government entities behind the harassment. There's a fusion center in a town not far from where I live. Some private companies that receive federal money participate as well. For instance, I discovered a local company owns and leases some of the vehicles driven by harassers. This company receives funding from the GSA. At this point, there are probably many small companies making money from these activities across the USA.
Thank you for this crucial information, Craig. The psychopathic tyrants will go to extreme lengths to hold onto their perceived power. And in that category, unfortunately, are their cush-job-keeping career clown "experts" who will, for example, denounce vaxxes with plenty of corroborating and/or correlational evidence, but they refuse to openly point to the 10 million pound elephant in the room, germ theory. Why? Because even *questioning* it would likely end their career as they know it. Are these "experts" actually plants, or are they just fearful? Their popularity and lasting power in the fake truther community may provide the answer. The secret agencies know full well that the average person, as you say, has learned to not question the narrative outside of accepted mainstream discussion. Ah, the incrementalism.
that the masses are to taught to accept as truth because they said so, and they back it up with more propaganda disguised slight-of-hand scientific “proof”.
How many hundreds of times are you going to post and repost the same links? Do you think we didn't see it the first hundred times or do you get paid per post?
Right on cue here you are to derail the conversation about the cointelpro program onto the directed energy weapon topic. Why is that? Hmm let me think about why a person might want to derail a discussion like this one. I will get back to you agent Revisionist, oops Freudian slip there, I meant to say honest and sincere truther... LOL.
So unfounded charges require no response. I see nothing in your DEW disinformation that is founded on anything other than hot air. Judy Wood is a crack pot and her theory is a load of crap. You fell for it only because you have no discernment or you are a paid disinformation agent. In either case I want nothing to do with you. You and Maxwell C. Bridges are two peas in a pod both pushing disinformation tropes that go nowhere. That is the point right?
I have not had my head buried in the sand. I have made a choice not to get involved in a debate that I don't think leads anywhere productive. My position is that we know the buildings were brought down with some kind of explosive force, that they didn't come down because of plane impacts and fires. You are free to focus on the question of the technology used, but I don't see the value in this. And the whole "we need to expose this technology to the world to fight the elites" just doesn't do it for me. I want to expose the 9/11 false flag to the world and what you're talking about will not help me do that. And I've never heard a strong case made for focusing on this.
Oh look how 911 Revisionist and Maxwell C. Bridges are now having an "argument" about DEW's and nukes? Hmm interesting isn't it? Oh wait a second, this article is about Cointelpro not DEW's or nukes right? I wonder then how this seemingly spontaneous "argument" has broken out already between these "two" entities? Are they actually one person using sock puppet accounts to create this derailing "argument"? Who knows, they/he/she will deny it of course and protest their innocence. One things is for sure though neither one of them is talking about your article Craig.
I find it ironic Craig that this excellent article about Cointelpro gets comments right off the bat by two Cointelpro agents that attempt immediately to derail the discussion onto disinformation tropes such as DEW's and nukes. Of course your article has nothing to do with either of those topics. Maybe that is the point. I quote your articles last point regarding how agents behave:
"· People who claim to be truthers who distract from good evidence by pushing extreme and unfounded theories; "
In case there are any doubts about who I am accusing of derailing the discussion, I am talking about 911 Revisionist and Maxwell C. Bridges. If you look at their pattern of posting on your blog Craig I think you will see clearly that they try on almost every single article to derail the discussion onto their disinformation tropes DEW's and Nukes. Go back and look, they are almost always among the very first commenters and they rarely if ever actually address the topic of the article they are commenting on. I personally believe they are paid Cointelpro agents or perhaps sock puppets of the same paid agent. They have been assigned to you Craig so that must mean that you are doing something right. You don't get flak until you are over the target right?
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff, You wrote:
"I find it ironic this excellent article about Cointelpro gets comments right off the bat by two Cointelpro agents that attempt immediately to derail the discussion onto disinformation tropes such as DEW's and nukes.... In case there are any doubts about who I am accusing of derailing the discussion, I am talking about 911 Revisionist and Maxwell C. Bridges."
What I find ironic is that you wrote that on March 25, while my first comment to this substack article is today (March 29) and this very comment. Are you pulling a "Minority Report" (Tom Cruise movie reference) "pre-crime" ploy?
Mr. Ruff, you call me out by name for an offense that all latter-day lurker readers will see at a glance that I DID NOT COMMIT. However, you are correct in calling out 9/11 Revisionist for his Chat-GPT bot efforts. [His bot-ish emails to me are no different.]
But seeing how YOU broached the subject of 9/11 nuclear devices and YOU called me out by name, YOU just made it fair game and on-topic. BRAVO, old chap!
Here is a link to my recent (2024-03-21) presentation to Boston 9/11 Truth that I tried to make you aware of. Because I know you don't like emails from me and have me blocked in most places including substack and Facebook, I asked Mr. McKee to personally see that you were aware of this milestone event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_27Xtq19o
Please give the video a watch. A milestone event for me.
//
I see this happen with every post I make. There is always an excuse for mentioning nukes or DEW. I'm glad you pointed out the latest example. I've removed a number of off-topic comments posted today. I wonder if I have to make a rule about certain topics. Or do I just delete on a case by case basis. Substack doesn't allow me to cut part of a comment out, so it's possible for a commenter to make reference to the subject of the article and then to add a bunch of other stuff.
I think in this particular case it may be best to leave the comments up as a real time illustration of Cointelpro tactics being used to disrupt a discussion about Cointelpro tactics. See my point?
I am not interested in your disinformation. I am going to just ignore you since I know you will never ever stop due to your OCD issues. By the way your attempts to bait me into anger are amateurish at best. I would have to respect you first before your insults would have any effect on me and since I don't respect you...
I get so annoyed at the term conspiracy theory being used as derogatory. Anyone who I actually engage in this conversation with, my main points are that the level of corruption in government and big business cannot be understated at this point, regardless of which party is in charge. Therefore, your best bet is to assume everything is a lie, because it's a continual attempt to protect their corruption from exposure.
If it makes me a big bad conspiracy theorist that I disbelieve the most corrupt world governments the history of the world has ever known, then so be it. You're a f'ing idiot if you believe everything you're told.
And another thing on censorship. The truth does not need protection through censorship. Only lies do. The truth can stand up to logical attacks if it is the truth. Lies cannot. So if something is being censored, the odds are 99.999999% that it's an inconvenient truth for those doing the censoring.
The main job of the government and intelligence agencies is to protect themselves, to grow their budgets and their power. They do this through lying about everything and creating more and bigger problems that the public agrees need to be solved. And of course it's an unwritten rule that only the government can solve problems, even though they never have and only ever make them worse by design. After all, if a problem were solved, the budget used to fix it would disappear. If the problem were made worse, the budget would increase. Therefore, the government always makes problems worse on purpose. I don't know how anyone could possibly argue against this logic.
Well said. I agree.
I wrote a piece two years about about how the mainstream media use the "conspiracy theory" trope to quash dissent. You might find it interesting. https://www.ae911truth.org/news/849
Thank you - I have encountered some of these tactics. I was personally slandered within a 9/11 group. As far as I could tell, the rumors centered around me as a woman. I went out to (platonic) dinner once with a 9/11 activist, after which the rumor campaign apparently started.
For years now, I've had to deal with in-person harassment also. It's still going on. It involves what Tarpley called “surveillance role players." From my limited research and FOIA attempts, I think the quote from Tarpley is correct as far as the government entities behind the harassment. There's a fusion center in a town not far from where I live. Some private companies that receive federal money participate as well. For instance, I discovered a local company owns and leases some of the vehicles driven by harassers. This company receives funding from the GSA. At this point, there are probably many small companies making money from these activities across the USA.
Thank you for bringing attention to this.
Perhaps you are a targeted individual? The program is real and you may be one of the victims of it.
Yes possibly. I've spoken to three other people who are experiencing similar harassment.
Thank you for reading the piece and for your comment. I'm sorry to hear that you've been harassed in this way.
Thank you for this crucial information, Craig. The psychopathic tyrants will go to extreme lengths to hold onto their perceived power. And in that category, unfortunately, are their cush-job-keeping career clown "experts" who will, for example, denounce vaxxes with plenty of corroborating and/or correlational evidence, but they refuse to openly point to the 10 million pound elephant in the room, germ theory. Why? Because even *questioning* it would likely end their career as they know it. Are these "experts" actually plants, or are they just fearful? Their popularity and lasting power in the fake truther community may provide the answer. The secret agencies know full well that the average person, as you say, has learned to not question the narrative outside of accepted mainstream discussion. Ah, the incrementalism.
Thank you, Sharine. And I agree that we have been conditioned not to ask questions.
Correct.
Education = Indoctrination + Brainwashing
that the masses are to taught to accept as truth because they said so, and they back it up with more propaganda disguised slight-of-hand scientific “proof”.
How many hundreds of times are you going to post and repost the same links? Do you think we didn't see it the first hundred times or do you get paid per post?
Right on cue here you are to derail the conversation about the cointelpro program onto the directed energy weapon topic. Why is that? Hmm let me think about why a person might want to derail a discussion like this one. I will get back to you agent Revisionist, oops Freudian slip there, I meant to say honest and sincere truther... LOL.
How about you stop trying to derail the discussion instead agent Revisionist?
So unfounded charges require no response. I see nothing in your DEW disinformation that is founded on anything other than hot air. Judy Wood is a crack pot and her theory is a load of crap. You fell for it only because you have no discernment or you are a paid disinformation agent. In either case I want nothing to do with you. You and Maxwell C. Bridges are two peas in a pod both pushing disinformation tropes that go nowhere. That is the point right?
I have not had my head buried in the sand. I have made a choice not to get involved in a debate that I don't think leads anywhere productive. My position is that we know the buildings were brought down with some kind of explosive force, that they didn't come down because of plane impacts and fires. You are free to focus on the question of the technology used, but I don't see the value in this. And the whole "we need to expose this technology to the world to fight the elites" just doesn't do it for me. I want to expose the 9/11 false flag to the world and what you're talking about will not help me do that. And I've never heard a strong case made for focusing on this.
Oh look how 911 Revisionist and Maxwell C. Bridges are now having an "argument" about DEW's and nukes? Hmm interesting isn't it? Oh wait a second, this article is about Cointelpro not DEW's or nukes right? I wonder then how this seemingly spontaneous "argument" has broken out already between these "two" entities? Are they actually one person using sock puppet accounts to create this derailing "argument"? Who knows, they/he/she will deny it of course and protest their innocence. One things is for sure though neither one of them is talking about your article Craig.