Divide and conquer conspiracy

From a former plain clothes officer :

It is reasonably well known that the law enforcement and intelligence communities have a tactic of infiltration of criminal gangs and campaigning groups. What is less well known is the extent to which this occurs and the tactics used by embedded operatives to gather information and allow further action. The policy is to slowly establish a power base within key groups by offering support and engaging in group activities. Whilst embedded officers are exempt from prosecution for their actions, although many have accepted prosecution to further their acceptance within a given group. This is standard procedure, and many officers have attained leadership status within their groups. This is where the conspiracy aspect comes to the for.

What is seldom understood is that senior figures within several criminal and social groups are not simply police informers but are embedded police officers. One of the best examples of recent times if the supposed FBI anonymous informant “Sabu”. This was a classic example of the way this setup works. Sabu was a key figure within anonymous, rising through the movement by providing evidence of high level security infiltration ability. He was instrumental in the hack of the FBI computer system, a move which caused many to question his inside knowledge of the network. Having attained a position within the organisation the officer is then in a position to guide and lead the organisation, not only actively encouraging illegal activity to allow for later prosecutions, but additionally encouraging actions specifically designed to increase public unrest, allowing politicians to implement greater societal controls moving the World closer to a police state.

This encouragement is seen particularly in radical political movements and follows the model used in Germany in the 1930's with the state funded destruction of the Reichstag being blamed on Communists as a means of allowing greater powers for the German leadership and reducing civil liberties. It was seen again within the peace movements of the 1960's particularly CND in the UK with again suggestions of links to Communist groups. These allowed increases in police powers demonstrated later in the police brutality and violence of the Battle of the Beanfield and the battles seen in the Miners strike. It is currently being used in an enhanced form within both nationalist and religious groups with overt strategies of confrontation. The long term aim is to polarise communities leading to further violent confrontation and further police powers. It will also be used to push through unpopular policies of ID tagging and monitoring.

Evidence of this was seen in the government sanctioned exercise of the looting in the UK in 2011. Many people were surprised that what was reported as a series of riots had very little actual violence and damage, and the reason for this was that it was orchestrated from the outset. It is interesting to note that in response to the looters, EDL and Shieldwall along with several football hooligan firms were active in town centres, and religious community groups were active in local communities. Again this was an active policy, in this case to prepare society for the government planned civil unrest which will occur in late 2012 – early 2013 and will create an environment whereby the conservative government can demonstrate their power and control in the same way that the Thatcher government engineered the Falklands conflict in co-operation with the Argentinian leadership.

Whenever there is large scale confrontation or unrest it has always been sanctioned and is always occurring for a reason, often but not always to effect societies transition to a controlled state. This links in with the governments use of the media to control information, demonstrated by the desperate attempts to suggest that the media is independent by presenting supposed attacks on the government. This was of course another example of misdirection and misinformation. The infiltration of undercover intelligence officers extends even into the corporate boardroom. Ask yourself, could bank boards of directors really have missed the fact that the banks were being set up to fail? Are corporate board members, most of whom are successful business people in their own right really that stupid? Or is there some other reason for them turning a blind eye? Encouraged by one of their own perhaps?

I leave it up to you to decide, and to start asking your own questions....