[rerevisionist]

A few notes comparing the present with the past, and trying to draw conclusions...
[1] The medieval church as a propagandist system. As fas as I know (I'm basing this on Joseph McCabe, who rebelled against Catholicism) the work medieval monks carried out, in whatever their word was for studios for inventing and copying books, seems to be rather similar to that of the modern media and BBC and the Jews who controlled the USSR. There were hagiographies - biographies of 'saints' and others, attributing all kinds of magical powers to them - such as floating across the Irish sea on tombstones. And accounts of victories over enemies. And of course accounts of 'martyrs'. McCabe states that nobody these days even bothers with the content of these productions; in a similar way the output of media people during (for example) the First World War or Vietnam War is pretty much ignored.
[2] Greater multiplicity of modern belief systems. Since say 1200, parts of the world have grown richer and the technologies of information have grown enormously more widespread and impressive. Richer countries, and population increases, both make possible more and more 'knowledge islands'. Protestantism is an obvious example of fission and invention of new systems, but Catholicism too had many local (usually national) variants. Most of these belief systems are now more-or-less ignored; how many people know what 'paedo-baptists' are, or what the 'Great Schism' was about? The rise of science obviously permitted elaborate new sets and subsets of information and it's noticeable that many money-making systems have been invented in the USA - Mormons, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses etc etc.
[3] There must be more or less Darwinian rules of competition between groups. Assuming all societies can support in a general sense (money, resources, manpower) only a certain amount of irrational or unimportant activity, there must be upper limits to such activity groups before they arouse opposition or conflict, either with the general population, or with other ideas-based groups. Thus in 19th-century Britain there was conflict between assorted groups new and old - Presbyterians, Quakers, Primitive Methodists, Congregationalists, Ebenezer chapels etc - and Anglicans. In the last 50 years, some science frauds known to me seem to have been (in date order) nuclear science, NASA, AIDS, Climate 'science'. Throughout this period there has been a rather undatable tendency for much of biology to ignore control experiments, and construct elaborate wrong theories - which extend over everything from drug action to vaccination. Obviously, in principle, all these groups compete for money. There must also have been an immense amount of military-industrial corruption and fraud. There are also science-like groups, believers in a range of weird things, which seem fuelled by most peoples' inability to understand science.
[4] There's a specific 'Jewish' component in modern times which has become increasingly important, like Islam. For example, Einstein, Marx, Freud, Boas, Wilhelm Reich, Sartre, Chomsky, Derrida and various hangers-on have invented or modified many more-or-less absurd theories. They've also introduced systematic distortions, for example relating to the USSR and Germany. All of these must follow Darwinian rules, and have or had opposition, with, as yet, uncertain results.
[5] Most 'revisionist' types are one-topic people. I'm unsure why this should be. On the face of it, sudden awareness of some fraud might be expected to prompt people to examine other wrong beliefs they held at one time. In fact, most don't. I could list a number of examples known to me personally, but to save time I won't.
[6] Because of [5], much critical work and many attacks on belief systems are ineffective. The sort of thing I have in mind is Dawkins' attacks on God. Dawkins carries with him an immense amount of baggage - for example, (i) claiming to believe in relativity, while simultaneously regarding many Christian beliefs as obviously absurd; it's not credible to me that Dawkins can properly understand relativity - it's just a fashion to pretend to believe in it; (ii) Dawkins' not understanding that tribal and racial belief systems, such as Islam and Judaism, do not have the optional aspect - take it or leave it - that Christianity has; (iii) assuming the official versions of such events as the First World War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, are honest and accurate; (iv) Dawkins doesn't appreciate that defects in modern biology mean that some claims by creationists are in fact correct.
[7] History as a guide? Obviously, history has the great advantage of being empirically verified, rather than being some theoretical construction. Or at least it should be; unfortunately, one lesson from history is that most historians are not very competent. Aspects of the past that suggest themselves as being worth study are: (i) The way bodies of theory lose importance. The obvious example is the Reformation, but its obviousness hides vast numbers of less important examples. (ii) The psychology of attack on wrong beliefs: there are two obvious subdivisions - one is the overview, bringing in many coherent arguments without going into tedious detail; the other is in depth, minute research. 'Holocaust' revisionism illustrates both of these - 'Did Six Million Really Die?' is a brilliant quite brief overview, while many monographs on topics such as 'gas chambers', cyanide, and the Nuremberg Trials illustrate the necessary in-depth work. (ii) Information control - such subjects as 'hoax maintenance', control of media, use of violence. (iv) Studies of actual topics in detail, where possible checking that myths haven't been thoughtlessly carried over. (v) Studies of suppressed topics, lost through deliberate suppression - mass murders in Moghul India, in the Belgian Congo, in Armenia and the in USSR, illustrate the sort of thing.

This sort of thing is what I consider 'revisionism' to be. It's a new subject.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I had a friend who adored John F. Kennedy. He would tell about how the official story of Kennedy's assassination was a lie and that Oswald was a patsy, and go into some detail about it.

At that time, a recent event was the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. When I tried to explain to this friend that the official story of the bombing was a lie, and that Timothy McVeigh was a patsy, same as Oswald, my friend would not accept that, and would actually get a little irritated at me.

I was a little perplexed at this.

But there are many today who will accept that the NASA moon landing was a hoax, but those same people won't consider that the atomic bombings of Japan are a hoax, even though it is much easier to fake the bombings than a moon landing. And less expensive: The Manhattan project was 1.6 billion in 1940's and the NASA moon mission about 16 billion in the 1960's.

[rerevisionist]

Yes, same sort of experience as me. E.g. Peter James, one of the first to question the Egyptian chronology (in 'Centuries of Darkness') would not consider either that AIDS was not as presented; or the 'Holocaust'. Maybe people run out of intellectual steam. David Irving disliked the idea that Jesus might have been (probably was) made up by the early church as one of their long string of fakes and inventions.

[8] Effects of vested interests. It's interesting (or depressing) to examine the way rather second-rate strands of thought are made to emerge. E.g. it's no surprise to find ridiculous claims are made for black inventors by supporters of black pressure groups. It's more surprising to find people claiming Britain was peopled by mongrels, considering it's an island which is as hard to get to as any part of Europe (excepting possibly the snowy northern bits). There's a converse process where long-held beliefs are dropped, in part, because it fits better with current ideas: thus Hegel and German philosophy fell out of favour in Britain, thanks largely to Russell and G E Moore, around 1900. However, there was also a general anti-German feeling being promoted at the time, too. Another example is the PIltdown forgery, which of course was ultimately exposed, BUT at the time there was a change in beliefs about anthropology - if there hadn't been, maybe the fake skull parts would still be hidden away somewhere as a treasure.

There's a famous comment that academic fashions last about twenty years (or was it thirty?) by someone like Clarendon, based on consideration of promotion of professors which of course is part of this syndrome.

[9] Almost all revisionists are white males. There are almost no women. Whether the 'third world' will produce their own new thought remains to be seen. It seems unlikely blacks, Arab types, South Americans will produce revisionist educational or scientific or political structures. But maybe China or India will strike out - for example they may have people willing to carry out painstaking biological research without very expensive equipment; maybe they'll pull ahead.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I believe that the most pervasive fad today that taints all science, religion, government and philosopy is 'political correctness'. Close second to that is evolutionary theory.

For over a hundred years, scientists have measured the cranial capacity of different races, and have determined that White Europeans have about ten percent more cranial capacity, on average, than black Africans. But of course, all of those scientists were racist. And IQ tests are racist. And math tests are racist.

People today say that 'extremist' religion leads to extremist behavior. I think they have it backwards. Psychopaths invent psychopathic religions. Who wrote the Talmud? A bunch of psychopaths. And psychopathic behavior is passed on to offspring by genetics.

White European people tend to feel remorseful over past actions they think were wrong. Therefore, White people predominately chose Christianity, and Christianity is mostly a White man's religion, because White people feel a need for forgiveness for their sins.

Did you ever meet a remorseful jew? Did you ever know a jew to appologize? Not likely. Therefore jews have a religion with no Saviour, no plan of redemtion from sins. Like wise with moslems.

I thus reason that religion derives from the genetics of the people, and that religion doesn't influence the behaviour very much; it just gives excuse for the behavior. The religion follows the behavior; it doesn't precede it.

It follows that the present 'War on Terror', which isn't really a war on terror, and which is a distraction from those really destroying civilization, is based on political correctness, for it emphasizes the 'extremists' following this or that sect of religion, and never addresses, for fear of violating the principles of political correctness, that 'terrorists' act like they do because of genetics, and not because of their religion. And Britian, Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia all allow to immigrate into their nations potential terrorists, even in the midst of a supposed war on terror, because to say that terrorist tendencies might be genetic is of course to be politically incorrect. And you must always be politically correct, even to the point of destroying your own nation, race, culture, and everything your ancestors worked so hard to build.

That ten percent difference in the cranial capacity makes all the difference in whether a people can make an advanced civilization, or a hunter/gatherer nomadic tribe.

[mooninquirer]

@ FirstClassSkeptic ---- I agree with you on evolutionary theory pervading society. Evolutionary psychology has become EXTREMELY hot in the last 20 years. And it is a very adult level subject, requiring a lot of social maturity to accept, yet it is being taught in high school, although I understand that many biology teachers do NOT teach it, although they certainly do not teach intelligent design either. My guess is that they feel very uncomfortable about telling a class of Black students something that is very similar to saying that Blacks are a biologically inferior race. Further, as violence in schools is a problem, for one to simultaneously deny God's existence and say that the the only morality there is, is the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest, is very dangerous.

In the "Protocols of Zion," it is specifically stated that Atheism and Darwinism would be promoted in the schools. Both of these things promote hatred and division between Gentile races, which is the only way the Jews could stay on top. Religion is threatening to Jews, because it can serve as a means to unify separate Gentile tribes in brotherhood, as a unified force against the Jews. This might have been how Christianity came about in the first place.

Jews do not necessary WANT a multi-ethnic society, but they DO want Gentiles to get angry at people other than the Jews, and to the extent that White nationalists are doing this to non-White Gentiles, then this strategy is working. A Gentile who is more loyal to his own tribe, than to the purpose of fighting the Jews, is actually a great asset to the Jews, because he serves to keep the division between Gentiles.

Consider the perspective offered by the following website : www.ARYANISM.net

[rerevisionist]

FirstClassSkeptic, you say 'psychopathic behavior is passed on to offspring by genetics.'

I'm just reading a 1974 book by John Baker, 'Race'. There is quite elaborate stuff on easily visible matters - skull shapes, general build, capacity to run fast in low pressure air etc etc; but the nearest he gets to internal variations is blood groups. I wonder if you've come across any competent work on variations in e.g. adrenalin production, testosterone production, which might affect intelligence in the sense that people unable to sit still won't learn? Or variations in enzymes, or any biochemical things affecting behaviour, including the ones which are digital - on or off - e.g. some races can't digest alcohol; some can't digest cow's milk. Behaviour is what's interesting. I'm not sure if psychopathic behavior IS genetic, though some chromosome combinations might be, presumably because they produce physical effects. Just curious. I wonder if anyone's assembled a notional chart of behaviour, with all the known determinants on it? And I'm assuming all human races are essentially the same - i.e. there aren't any with an organ not found in others. It's a huge omission from Baker though of course his book is not exactly new.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Just curious. I wonder if anyone's assembled a notional chart of behaviour, with all the known determinants on it?

There's crime statistics based on race. In New York City, blacks commit 63% or murders, and latinos commit 25%. The FBI used to publish these statistics, but they quit several years ago after some complaintsk, because the statistics show that blacks commit a very high rate of violent crimes.

There are IQ averages based on race. IN the usa, average IQ of blacks is about 85. But there was a guy questioning that, saying that many blacks aren't averaged in, and he came up with an average of about 75.

Do you think that intelligence is inherited?

[rerevisionist]

I think there are typical levels of intelligence, and of all (or most?) other characteristics, and these can vary by race. [There are also damaging environmental effects - foetuses where the mother smokes or drinks or is undervitamined and mineralled and proteined, probably won't recover]. The way this works, if it's true about inheritance, must presumably depend on the different patterns of inheritance. Assuming all bodies are basically the same - e.g. with the same skeleton, number of muscles, muscle attachments in the same place, intestines, eyes, liver, brain etc etc ... thymus, adrenal glands.. etc - i.e. every single item in their bodies - I take it inheritance controls the balance of these things. Some races e.g. may have hair trigger tempers and be unable to sit still; others may be slower. There may be some way in which friends, enemies etc are perceived - for example it *might* be the case that hostility to what are seen as strangers is under genetic control. Some parts of the brain in some races are different from the same parts in different races. I would guess that surgeons get to know differences between races through familiarity with internal organs. Some races may have vestigial organs, or various susceptibilities. Maybe X ray interpreters get a feel for this, too. However systematic bodily changes would not survive burial or fossilisation.

And there's the digital genetic inheritance of specific genes and alleles, which can have dramatic effects, of course.

So my guess is that brain structure and the biochemistry related to thought is somewhat inherited, and in that sense intelligence is inherited. Presumably though dislike of outgroups, the tendency to deception, etc could also be inherited, if we make assumptions about the biochemistry of friends and enemies. And presumably such characteristics as tendency to threaten, tendency to migrate etc can be inherited.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

A few notes comparing the present with the past, and trying to draw conclusions...
[1] The medieval church as a propagandist system. As fas as I know (I'm basing this on Joseph McCabe, who rebelled against Catholicism) the work medieval monks carried out in whatever their word was for studios for inventing and copying books, seems to be rather similar to that of the modern media and BBC and the Jews who controlled the USSR. There were hagiographies - biographies of 'saints' and others, attributing all kinds of magical powers to them - such as floating across the Irish sea on tombstones. And accounts of victories over enemies.

There may also be the corruption of stories, for the purpose of making them sound like fantasies, in order to hide the true story.

There is some evidence of Irish monks sailing to North America long before Columbus. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that the first peoples in North America were White Europeans, and not the asiatic amer-indians, so called 'native Americans'. This has serious legal implications. The slanderous account that White man killed the indians and stole their land isn't true.

(The first man off the ship when Columbus landed at Hispanola Island was an Irishman. So the Irish have it either way.)

Berry Fell wrote some books along these lines. America BC, Stone Age America . He was a Harvard professor. It's telling that the got called a racist for his books. That goes to show that they're hiding something.

Search for 'ogam writings north america' and you might find a few things about this.

[EyesWideOpen]

I think many people are too focused on the INDIVIDUAL instead of the GROUP. We are taught to be that way in America and to a large extent in modern "democratic" society; one vote, one person bla bla bla. The individual is elevated above the Group, making it so very easy to destroy cultures/groups.

The more important distinctions can be found in the totality of a particular RACIAL GROUP and the characteristics/society they produce. As a RACIAL GROUP, what do they accomplish and how do they function? This is not to say one cannot compare an individual naked Asian with a naked Negro and obviously see the physical/genetic differences (regardless of the red-herring called "skin color"), along with the inherent developmental and behavioral differences of them as well. To any reasonable person, its like comparing the different breeds of birds or fish or monkeys. We dont see any other animal, besides the modern brainwashed human, becoming confused as to who it is and who is part of their grouping/culture.

I would add, that a grouping based only on an IDEOLOGICAL similarity (non-physical/genetic) will never accomplish what a group based on actual PHYSICAL similarities can accomplish. Look at what the IDEOLOGY of International Catholicism did to unique cultures and races around the World (destruction/evil), or how about the IDEOLOGY of International Communism (destruction/evil), or the IDEOLOGY of so-called Multi-Cultural Democracy and the failure we see it producing (destruction/evil).

Now compare the above non-physical IDEOLOGIES and their failures/cultures, with the accomplishments/cultures found among those with PHYSICAL/GENETIC similarities like the Japanese, the Germans, the Scandinavians, the British, Americans prior 1960's etc... No comparison. Yet, in today's "jew" corrupted world, even our educational system is directed at lower and lower acheivement. Never, will a so-called group of Christian Asians build the same type of society/culture as so-called Christian Negros, even though the IDEOLOGY may be the same.

Any animal that walks this Earth knows who is of their kind, yet for some reason humans can become convinced otherwise. I think this has to do with human WORDS and how they can be used to deceive and corrupt the true nature of things.

For instance, since religion has been brought into this, look at the word GOY or GOYIM. The word GOY in the Hebrew Bible never meant “cattle” but always “Nation/Race” (racial kinsman if you like). Then when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek the word GOY was changed to the Greek word ETHNOS (Nation/Race) and then when the Greek Bible was translated into Latin the word ETHNOS was changed to the Latin word GENTILIS (Nation/Race) and then when the Latin Bible was translated into English the word GENTILIS became the English word GENTILE (Nation/Race), although this English translation was purposely corrupted by the use of Gentile in some places and the word Nation in other places when they both mean the same. Furthermore, there was never such a word as "non-Jew" in Hebrew or anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, yet today people "believe" that somehow Gentile was translated from a distant Hebrew word that meant "non-Jew".

Who in their right mind would call themselves a non-something? Does one call themselves a non-male or a non-negro or a non-blonde etc...? There are not even words for such ridiculous concepts, yet people have been duped into this Gentile means non-jew deception. The so-called "jew" is using linguistic deceptions that have changed the way many look at the world for their own benefit/agenda.

Words are powerful, for those who seek to lie and deceive. Ones "belief" about the meaning of a Word can create their Earthly reality in many cases. The Jew has changed the meaning of words 180 degrees, in many instances, from what they originally meant. Look what they did with the word “Semite” that turns Arabs into “anti-Semites” even though Arabs are Semites. Look at what they do with Conspiracy Theorist to question ones sanity when one is really a very aware Criminal Detective. How about Israeli "Defense" Forces when they are really Aggression/Occupation forces? Or humanitarian bombing in Libya? lol.

It appears, that only among the human animal can WORDS override the PHYSICAL realities/sensibilities and make people believe in Non-Physical realities/ideologies that support destruction/evil. How anyone can see the constant lies and deceptions of this group/culture who calls themselves "jews" and still believe that these liars are Israelites or Hebrews is beyond me.

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
2011 AD - "In the end was the Word, and the Word was with Satan, and the Word was Evil."

[rerevisionist]

Interesting comments, EyesWideOpen. I was surprised by your etymology of goy, but you're spot on.

It's true only human beings can be deceived by words (though animals can be deceived in other ways). Can I add a few comments on changes in the meanings of words; and I'll continue your Jewish theme, though here again there's a change in meaning; Jews inevitably have to collude with other groups, and such people I'm counting in effect as Jews, or dupes of Jews, or useful idiots, since they support, or pretend, to have to support to make a living, Jewish interests.

*Democracy. Of course, this has always been a vague word - it has meant rule by property owners, then included males only of certain age groups, then women, then, as regards Britain, anyone from what was the empire who turned up; now, anyone that lawyers at public expense can pretend is British, under imposed EU laws passed by unelected bureaucrats. From the point of view of Jews, democracy was never a starter, since they were inevitably at best a subset cutting across nations as a small minority. Hence they felt no concern whatever at subverting elections, corrupting votes, controlling information on parties, secretly supporting parties, carrying out thuggery, and so on.

*Liberalism. In the 19th century this meant freedom of thought and speech, and freedom of activity within the law. Because international travel was difficult and expensive, there was no special concern about migrations; and because businesses were relatively small, there wasn't much concern over monopoly power. John Stuart Mill was typical (I think) of political 'liberals', and the 'Manchester school' of economics embodied something like the practice. This was always an unstable situation, because competition tends to result in winners, and in any case it was biased towards the successful Anglo-American model - they had little to lose by such policies. By the end of the 19th century, with the rise of the German Zollverein, and with Jewish immigration, it was clear that Jews would collude in ways which the liberals had preferred not to consider seriously. 'Liberals' now in the US are described in ways almost the opposite of traditional liberals: they are liberal in some respects, nearly always matters which Jews think suit themselves. For example, they restrict free speech as much as possible, apart from promoting Jewish issues and promoting Jewish frauds. They favour liberal immigration - not of course into Israel, or into African/ Asian/ S American countries, but only white countries. They favour liberal drug policies - not into Israel, but into white countries under some such pretext as opposing 'prohibition'.

Although 19th century liberalism was, no doubt, unstable, it was a successful system while it lasted; there's a good passage in Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace on a man reading his Times and expecting anything he ordered from his catalogues to be delivered promptly, and to be able to invest his money anywhere in the world, and be surprised and very annoyed at any hindrance to his activities; and that any person with abilities in any way above average could 'rise' in the world.

*'Left' and 'right'. In Britain, local monopolies based on industry started before (I believe) anywhere else. 'Socialism' was almost entirely home-grown: Robert Owen, William Morris, John Ruskin, Oscar Wilde, Keir Hardie illustrate types. 'Port Sunlight', Cadbury in Bournville, the Garden City movement, illustrate practical developments. However, Germany and the USA developed large monopoly industries later, by which time there was large Jewish influence; and these people had their own agenda - the Sozialdemokratische Partei and Jewish-run unions illustrate their influence. The first led to the Labour Party, but in my view it was compromised right from the start: impoverished farm labourers and other workers didn't want to pay contributions, and these were in any case impossibly difficult to collect. They had a problem analogous to the BNP now. Labour must have been secretly funded - as Sidney Webb of the Fabian Society helps indicate. The whole theory of so-called 'communism' was more or less invented by Marx as a perversion of socialism. His work amounted to little more than the obviously false 'labour theory of value' and some narrow interpretations of small bits of history. However it was developed in a religious fashion - even today there are 'theoreticians' who read like computer-generated spam messages.

However - the point of this digression is to explain how 'left' and 'right' are misunderstood. Thus, some observers say the BBC is 'left', or Bolshevik, etc. Some say it's right wing - it never supports working class people, etc. Chomsky says the media are right; others regard the coverage of e.g. criminality by race or promotion of dumbed-down education as 'left'. How are these things reconcilable? Well - 'Left' these days means something favourable to Jewish interests. Examples---

1. There was a huge funded and media movement against apartheid in South Africa. Traditionalists would call this 'left' - the ostensible purpose was to benefit black workers. Peter Hain in Britain, and various other Jews in south Africa, illustrate the types. However, now, the minerals in south Africa are (one gathers) under Oppenheimer control. This of course is traditionally 'right'. Thus the BBC favours south Africa - there is rarely any comment on murdered white farmers, for example. So this attitude is 'left' in the sense it is pro-Jewish. And it's right in the sense it favours blacks being exploited.

2. Looking at England; let's consider Barking, a suburb in north Greater London. The MP is Margaret Hodge, a 'Labour' MP - real name Oppenheimer, apparently a millionaire based on steel in Egypt, married to a judge who g=habitually makes anti-white'British decisions. It's really quite an extraordinary situation, only sustainable with control of information. Her policy is that off the 'Labour' Party now, to inflict as much immigration of unemployable third worlders as possible so as to damage Britain, while trying to suppress any comment on her money and the exploitation of Egyptians. Again, it's easy to see how the meaning of 'left' has been perverted here. Of course the media won't ever give a clear explanation, and it's obvious avergae voters have little idea what's going on - many still use the mantra 'Labour is the party of the working man.'

3. 'Communism'. Is communism a 'left wing' movement, in the sense of favouring democracy, greater economic equality, humanitarianism etc? The history - a vicious, race-based autocracy which caused the deaths of millions and a world war - suggests not. But from a Jewish tribal viewpoint, it's 'left'. This meant that it was necessary to label Germany as 'right' despite its socialist policies. However, many traditional 'right wing' people - such as Margaret Thatcher - referred to 'communism' as 'socialism', because they disliked socialism, and it suited them to pretend 'socialism' was the same as 'communism'. Uneducated media commentators still often describe the planned collapse of the USSR as 'the collapse of socialism'.

Revolution!! May I also point out that some of the assumptions embodied in attitudes are very difficult to even notice, let alone uproot. For example, the widely-promoted lie is that a lot of Russian revolutionaries wrote their underground publications and developed theories etc - and then, bingo, a revolution! I suspect a lot of useful idiots seriously believe this will happen, and their meetings will have some effect. Many people automatically think that, for change, the USA or Europe needs a 'revolution' to kick out corrupt parties, though in fact there are very few examples of successful revolutions of that type - they have been taken in. To illustrate, Hobsbawm, a Jew, who described mass murder in the USSR as 'deleterious to socialism', always talks in terms of revolution; probably a distraction from the truth, which generally involves some sort of long-term financing, and long-term planning, possibly involving large numbers of plotters, resulting in a military or other coup.