Douglas Caddy Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 DIRECTED HISTORY IS NOT CONSPIRACY THEORYPART 1 of 4By Professor Steven YatesMarch 17, 2012NewsWithViews.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven147.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I don't know. It's all a matter of "directed history" and "conspiracy". Conspiracy has a well-established definition. I'm not sure of directed history. A conspiracy in law is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act followed by an act in furtherance of the agreement by any one of the persons. For example, DAP, David Morales, and Lee Oswald agree to kill JFK. In furtherance of this plan, Morales buys a Remington rifle. Conspiracy. All parties to the agreement have committed the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. This much is clear. Directed history? Maybe it's the same thing, maybe not. For example, the Bilderberg group get together each year at some site in Europe. They discuss the future course of world events. Certain members of the group go back to their countries and act on the group's projections. Criminal conspiracy? Depends on the agreement(s) made at the Bilderberg group and the action(s) taken in consequence. I believe the superelites, to use Yates's term, agree to act out of self-interest. Self-interest is not per se illicit. But it may be immoral, and it may contravene natural law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 9, 2015 Author Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) Was it conspiracy or directed history or something else when two judges of the U.S. Supreme Court attend a closed door, invitation only, limited attendance meeting in Palm Springs organized and hosted by the Koch brothers to plot political strategy and then return to Washington where months later by a five to four vote the Court hands down its infamous Citizens United decision that drastically alters the American political system in favor of the money elite? Edited December 9, 2015 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Much as I respect your role here and in history, I lean the other way on Citizens United, for a number of reasons, the most important of which is grounded in the First Amendment, which provides Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Much as I respect your role here and in history, I lean the other way on Citizens United, for a number of reasons, the most important of which is grounded in the First Amendment, which provides Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. You can't yell "fire!" in a theater. But you can buy elections with tons of dark money. Which is the more dangerous speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Cliff, I understand. You are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now