When Shills Meet . . .

Turn off the sound for this video. It's all bull from these guys, you don't need to listen. It's the facial expressions/body language that makes this video so funny.


Here at 2:27 we see Phoenix confronted over the effect of his actions with The Bank Of Ideas.

And here more humour.

Shills.
If it wasn't for the way they prey on the young and naive we could keep them just for the laughs they provide.

Hm nice to meet you we finally meet

It looks more like these are government plants trying to mellow out the crowds, to keep them from getting violent. That would not really be a shill in my thoughts. Special interest groups trying to steer public interests to support their companies or trades employ shills. Government plants usually keep the peace, special interest shills try to cover specific things up or try to get people to push their agenda.

The main speaker could be a shill being compensated by special interests trying to change consensus to benefit a group. Usually all of these occupy things have special interest involved in altering consensus of the time. Usually someone benefits.

a reply to: Kester

That guy phoenix is awful. Everything about him sucks. Thanks for the warning. I wish I had listened. I cant get his voice out of my head talking rubbish and going back and forth repeating the question like some sort of dive bar comedy skit.

He does come off like a shill.

I dont know if he is or not. He may just be functionally retarded.

So other than body language what evidence to you have that these guys are shills?

Let me save you the bother because i can already predict this thread.

You have zero real evidence they are shills, you will probably bring up Charlie 9/11 switch at some point, post a few more video's perhaps a link or two and show us the Alex Jones video about how he knew Charlie was a operative... yada yada yada......

Then we go round in circles with me (and others) asking for actual proof these guys are real government paid agents of disinformation. You claiming you have posted the proof, us pointing out "no that's not proof that's just a opinion of yours (or a third party)" and a little bit of back and fourth, someone will then ask the almighty question "prove they are not shills" to which they get the "are you honestly asking me (us) to prove a negative LOLz". Once posting crap "evidence" and making the utterly pointless prove the negative argument eventually we will get some very cryptic statements that imply that I (or others members/mods/site owners) are also Shills and that is why you are losing the argument (oblivious to the fact you have zero supporting of your allegation )

Eventually a Mod will turn up remove a few posts and if things get really exciting someone might even get a ban.

Then either this thread will fizzle out as yet another one of those "LOLZ guy who things government agents are everywhere" threads or the mods will shut down the thread

So yeah that is how this thread is going to go, I think we can just save a lot of agro by all agreeing that the OP believes these guys are shills but has no evidence and everyone else thinks this is all very nice in a bad 1980's hollywood movie script.

EDIT::

There will also be at least one person who reads this post and replays to my last sentence with the line " "everyone else"...Speak for yourself, you do not speak for me or anyone else" and/or "hmmm what is your agenda" and/or "if you dont believe this why post" and/or "stop derailing the thread" and eventually "obvious shill, trying to shut down this thread".

Undercovers can be terrible sometimes...and it's OK for them to not be very convincing because of the TYPE of people they're targeting.

If they are targeting radicals that are completely bonkers and live and breathe their cause -- it won't be hard to convince them:

"Heeeey man, I'm, like, so totally down with the cause too...man, for sure! Hey...you should totally elevate things to the next level and get physical and violent to really show how important this is!"

And that's how you take someone who probably would never really go over the edge and push them over the edge. You target your mark carefully and give them just enough encouragement. You don't have to be that convincing, as the person you're convincing WANTS to believe you're on board with them too.

People will believe the stupidest and most obvious con-jobs when they are predisposed to believe something.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

. . . get physical and violent . . .

Phoenix was trying to persuade any poor soul to go along to Yorkley Court Farm where some 'activists' set fire to a contractor's unit and fought with bailiffs and police. Yorkley is a series of very complex issues. Fighting physically is not an effective way to deal with these issues. When my son visited the place, twice in half an hour he overheard people being told 'You have to fight the police to create change'. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Kester

No, it's not. (the getting physical part)

Getting activists to do violent or physical things can get them arrested and their cause to loose steam. That's the idea...push the activists/protesters into illegal activity in order to shut them down.

People can be influenced and persuaded easily when it is something they are predisposed to want to do or believe.

That's why I always tell people to be wary of "new friends" that come out of the blue and happen to just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

Charlie Veitch isn't much better. The guy is all show, he's from a rich family in the oil industry. He totally abandoned a section of his following after he suddenly switched 'teams' in the 9/11 debate too and declared his belief of the official narrative after years of being a 'prominent truther'. There is a LOT more to this guy than meets the eye, some quick googling will show that.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Never mind. Turns out we aren't allowed conspiracy 'theories' anymore, only conspiracy 'facts'. Speculation is bad, free thinking is dangerous. Guess ATS should just be news and confirmed facts now. Hell, why even read ATS then, I could watch that on TV.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

I think Charlie may have co-ordinated the Millbank fire extinguisher drop.

It's all there in his own video. He panned up and down with his camera. Someone inside started breaking windows a few floors up. Charlie shouted "Glass! Glass! Back! Back!" A gap opened up between protestors and police. In my version, Ed Woollard, "massively normal" according to one of his classmates, heard the voices projected into his head telling him to drop the extinguisher. Charlie caught it's descent on video. It crashed to the ground within inches of killing a policeman. Charlie's exclamation sounded disappointed.

Maybe I'm wrong and it was all just another coincidence.

Edit to add.

I'm assuming it was an attempt to regain ground after the murder of Ian Tomlinson.

Coincidentally . . .

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
Charlie Veitch isn't much better. The guy is all show, he's from a rich family in the oil industry. He totally abandoned a section of his following after he suddenly switched 'teams' in the 9/11 debate too and declared his belief of the official narrative after years of being a 'prominent truther'. There is a LOT more to this guy than meets the eye, some quick googling will show that.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Never mind. Turns out we aren't allowed conspiracy 'theories' anymore, only conspiracy 'facts'. Speculation is bad, free thinking is dangerous. Guess ATS should just be news and confirmed facts now. Hell, why even read ATS then, I could watch that on TV.

That reminds me of how scientology treats the people who manage to escape from it's grip. As long as you're 'in' you get lovebombed, but as soon as you change your mind about scientology, you're called a Suppressive Person, and all ties with family, family, friends spuses etc are cut. They actually run a special site which has as it's ai to villify such 'defectors'. They throw any kind of dirt at these people they can possibly think of, accompanied with the worst picture of you they can find.

For example: here's their page on Tory Christman, who is a former scientologist of 30 years:

www.religiousfreedomwatch.org...

And here's her youtube, so you can find out first hand what kind of a person she really is: www.youtube.com...

Anyway the point of all this is to point out the line of thinking that's going on here. Charley Veitch was once a 9/11 'truther', and was heralded as one of the big names in the movement.

But now he has changed his mind about 9/11, and now all we see is that he's being villified by the 'truthers', claiming that he's a shill, an agent, and all the usual paranoid truther fare.

All this tells me that the truther movement has some serious culty elements. There's no space for anyone who believes differently about a specific subject.

In fact, I've gone through the same process Charley has too. I once believed in the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but the people who kept insisting on the pentagon having been hit by a missile was the first crack in the wall for me. Eventually the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards for me, if you'll pardon the pun.

In my experience, it's near impossible to have a honest debate with truthers, because as soon as you seem to endorse something that sounds like 'the official story', you're regarded as a shill, paid agent, undercover plant, etc.

It's all very culty indeed.

a reply to: payt69

I mean ... yeah fair comment, but it wasn't 9/11 that made my mind up over Charlie Veitch. I followed him for a while and 9/11 didn't happen to be the reason why. I didn't like him when he was a 'truther' either. Most of the reason I don't like him is down to the fact that he used his popularity on his youtube channel to ask for donations all the time so he could be a jobless, weed smoking, full-time protester. I find him sly and dishonest, and there is ample reason to.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

Unfortunately I can't name names but Charlie was noticed to have an unusual relationship with a man I know to be horrendous, and apparently protected from on high. The individual who noticed this is a very astute activist. I can't go into detail unless it's a face to face conversation with beer. Let's just say Charlie's relationship with that man possibly indicated another interest very far from 9/11 and all that.

Two members of my family once had a friendly but firm visit from police who said if the un-named man is ever found dead they'd be the first suspects the police went to. And to be honest we'd be proud to kill him, but we can't afford the hassle. Someone very closely involved is arriving at my house later today. If the subject was mentioned it would result in a blown fuse.