Distinguishing Between Infighting and Controlled Opposition
Chaos Agents, Part 14
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” -Vladimir Lenon
There is great irony in the fact that Lenin was likely himself controlled by the Western bankers who funded the arm of the Bolshevik Revolution that gained greatest influence.
On Substack and Twitter, I’m bombarded with, “Stop all the infighting. You’re damaging the movement.” It is noteworthy that the majority of these cries come from anonymous accounts making zero analysis of the circumstances. In a small few cases, this comes from real people I know—almost entirely in the Steve Kirsch circle. It’s a shame to see people I know dismissing me without an ounce of analysis of the circumstances, or a phone call.
I’m told this is going on in numerous chat groups—people attacking me or my position, but without actually grappling with any facts. Fortunately, I hear that in some chat groups, I’m getting good support—and in those cases there is active discussion of the facts. While I haven’t had time to lay out all the facts, there is enough out there for discussion, and I’m glad to know many people are having tough conversations that need to be had.
Something else is going on: I am receiving emails of support from many real people. Often these are people in the Medical Freedom Movement (MFM) whose voices have been underrepresented, and sometimes with stories that sound like organized dismissal. They have stories that fit neither the mainstream narrative nor the ever-more-rigid and “consensus” counternarrative. I hope to bring some of them on the RTE podcast in 2023. Some of them, like me, feel they are risking their lives.
Let’s be clear: framing this conversation as “infighting” is not simply wrong, but dangerously wrong.
A Brief History of Controlled Opposition
Since I’m on the road with a garbage keyboard and merely one screen, this is overly brief. I’d ask interested readers to seek additional research because there is a lot of it (Lust-Okar, 2004). In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the vast majority of the hundreds of major world events and movements over the past century and then some involved controlled opposition. If this isn’t yet intuitive, I’d recommend naming a major world event with an opposition you imagine not to be controlled, then doing one hour of research on controlled opposition stories related to it. I bet the task is harder than even seasoned skeptics and cynics would imagine!
Going a step further: controlled opposition is the primary mission of intelligence agencies, in general. Going one more step further: almost every version of modern history you might read anywhere is built on strictly false narratives.
Many Most of the world’s nations are controlled and most of the movements are controlled. One of the reasons I felt it was important to talk with Leo Biddle again after I’d seen his Pandata discussion live was that his intuitive recognition and explanation of intelligence agents embedded at positions of leisurely social leadership (my interpretation) in the global conservation community.
Stop the Unhealthy and Start the Healthy
It is interesting to find so many people in the MFM denigrating the notion of controlled opposition before examining the possibility. This is much like the “conspiracy theory” dismissal by the mainstream media designed to create the reality or impression of social pressure “to just stop”. But there is a far healthier, more appropriate, and similarly phrased message for anyone aggressively pushing against the idea of vetting MFM leadership: just stop. Your dictation is historically naive.
Please do debate the facts both/all ways. That’s healthy. And debate it neutrally where possible. The vast majority of my “attacks” (not the term I applied in my own head) on Stew Peters, his crowd, Steve Kirsch, and others is an organized arrangement of facts, with a few jokes and a few opinions tossed in (I believe expressed plainly as such). I may have the conclusion wrong. It may also be that some of these people are compromised for unrelated reasons (How did Peters avoid serious punishment for impersonating law enforcement? How did Leigh Dundas avoid even basic interrogation and promoting what everyone I’ve talked to agrees sounds like hanging and shooting lawmakers at the Capitol? Which people in the MFM are even bothering to make it clear they’ve taken stock of these events?).
Movements should be decentralized as much as possible in order to make the economic cost of containing them higher, so even if I’m wrong about some of the leaders I suspect are controlled opposition from the start or captured, raising the questions should make the MFM more antifragile in handling it. In that case, I’ll merely have embarrassed myself on an opinion or two while the millions or billions of people figure out better ways to vet or even disguise their leaders. More likely, we will never have perfect evidence and will fight to make much of the evidence heard.
A Final Note - Ask Questions
And I mean ask them without bombarding me with a wall (or several) of words explaining to me that I lack wisdom for not doing as they tell me without explanation (that’s what a lot of this comes down to). I get that not everyone has followed the DMED links, and some new readers may have missed much or most of it. It’s a time consuming story [that would have been far simpler had everyone done their self-chosen part]. Whatever pushes with friction against your mental models, ask first before getting emotional. I think there is wisdom in that.
My article on "What is real, what is not, and how can we tell?" https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/welcome-post
It provides a basis for a logical approach to a discussion. And I hope people will expand it further. In short, it is: (1) logical consistency, (2) Scientific evidence (3) Crime and frauds (4) Bias (5) Trust (6) Unknowns (7) Work towards solutions
Logical consistency comes before scientific evidence. Many scientists use logical inconsistent models because they believe they work and no alternatives are considered. Like "vaccines are always safe". It is a problem in every field of science. The problem of "model lock-in". https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/the-problem-of-model-lock-in
I have been on many internet forums. And people tend to push their belief, whatever the evidence really tells us. And then there are people pushing extreme ideas. And they think they are right, because they get so much resistance. Additionally there are bad people spreading false ideas and fake evidence to make the opposition look bad. They become active whenever there is good evidence.
The mainstream media is mainly pushing a certain narrative. Which seems to come from above. Simply stated: "Vaccines good, masks good, freedom bad". This narrative is what they work with, and they fake their own evidence like a movie production team.
With discussions on forums they have teams to promote nazi-stuff, child-porn, racism, violence. And they do mass reporting, to confuse the algorithms. Or attack the internet servers. This is to block the opposition from spreading information. This is the majority of attacks that I have seen.
Then there is the "limited hangout" (partially true information) and seeding of made-up news. Or spreading of fake stuff, even after it was clearly faked. Usually mixed with extremist ideas to make the opposition look bad. Trolls like to spread them too, because they want to stir emotions. But some think it is justified, because the mainstream media is doing the same thing.
That is why I started to work towards a solution. And I developed the above method to work towards the truth.
What/where are the DMED links? Thank you