That said, I think people arguing about who is/isn’t CO is a strategy in itself as it distracts from the deeper purpose of the group and results in a lot of friendly fire casualties and damage. So many people accuse people of true integrity of being CO simply because they disagree with them on this or that topic. People have called Mike Yeadon controlled opposition, FFS. This is how genuine opposition groups become fragmented and ineffectual against the philanthropaths, tyrants, and colluders who should be their true targets.
So my approach is to be aware that controlled opposition does exist but not to waste time/energy on it. If people possess true discernment as many dissidents do, they will recognize when a “leader” gives bad advice and will challenge them on it. My feeling is it is better to teach the tools of discernment (propaganda, social engineering, behavioral psychology, etc.) and let people work out for themselves whom to trust or not. They don’t need me to do that for them as I’m all about empowering individuals to think for themselves.
100% Margaret! using and trusting our own intellect and discernment, judging individuals on their own words and deeds over time.
we can recognize that the strategies of the globalists do exist and NOT fall into their traps, no matter how cleverly hidden, one being this reliance on 'experts'. WE are all our own experts if allowed to exercise the critical thinking muscle, and not outsource it.
I never thought Mike Yeadon was controlled opposition in the early days - I thought he was great. I now think he is totally controlled by his handler Tim who has led him a merry dance down the no virus route to make him look completely stupid and therefore easy to dismiss nowadays. I believe he has subconsciously allowed himself to be led this way because I remember him talking in the early days about how unsafe he felt and how his front door opened onto the street and he could just be captured in a car and taken away. I believe he was right to have such fears, but I also know that people who start with a genuine fear can easily convert that into paranoia, especially with a little help from ‘your friends’.
I asked him ‘if you were in a cult, would you like people to try and rescue you?’ And then I asked ‘And how do you think you would react to those people in that situation?’
You've made a useful distinction that is worthwhile to highlight. It is the difference between someone who is a pied-piper plant from the beginning versus a legitimate dissident who, through a targeted influence operation, has become controlled. Voluntary and knowingly fake opposition by preconceived plan, versus unknowingly being controlled. In the case of Mike Yeadon the low point in his arc was a few months ago when came out denouncing ivermectin as "the most violent anti-fertility drug I have ever encountered" based upon "information I have been given privy to". He clearly did not think through the information he was fed before reacting. That incident pretty much sealed his status (in my mind) as a dissident who has fallen under the influence of the enemy.
I'll add: Mike Yeadon's style of communication has always troubled me. He is a declarative speaker. A declarative speaker makes a string of declarative statements without diving into the reasoning. Mike will cite his resume, say that he knows what he is talking about, then declare with confidence that the vaccine was designed to cause harm. I have yet to hear him explaining that point of view in terms of detailed mechanisms. Or, he declares that pandemics are flat out impossible without providing a line of reasoning, or where standard epidemiological theory perhaps breaks down. And the biggie, he declares that viruses do not exists. It isn't given as argumentation. It is declared as an article of faith. From there it is a short hop to declaring there is no such thing as airborne transmissible infectious diseases.
Those concerns aside, Mike deserves eternal respect for his outspoken bravery at the outset of the worldwide Covid Attack.
This is one of the most systematic and detailed comments I've ever seen. It confirms the points of agreement with the previous reply, defines and refines the concept of controlled opposition, and gives the logic and concrete examples without jumping to any conclusion--letting the evidence speak. If everyone learned to argue this way, we could never be misled again.
You're giving voice and data to a question I had in my mind about Mike, but wondered if I was seeing controlled opposition under every rock. I agree that the no-virus dogma is a psyop meant to discredit anti-vaxxers just at the point that they've been proven right. Everyone preaching that gospel and denouncing everyone who doesn't as controlled op should be viewed with suspicion.
Authentic dissidents who, through their resistance, have become dependent on supporters for income are easy to capture, sad to say. And cheap. Giving them money is too obvious anyway. Better to give them roles, speaking engagements, and a platform so they might be able to reach more people who'll give them money. It's why we need to change the economy, which is my primary topic.
But Mike doesn't fall into this category. He was an industry insider at the highest level. He was, as you say, one of the first to speak out. I remember that he was the first 'big name' to ever reply to my comment saying why I felt there was malevolent intent in the vaccine beyond profit margins. Is his paranoia different than Robert Malone saying "I just want to be clear that I'm not suicidal"? Doesn't every covert operative need to express that they might be targeted?
I don't think that we should give Mike Yeadon a pass without calling him on his unsubstantiated declarations. If he is not in on the con, he will appreciate those who rescue him, as Crosscat says.
"I also haven’t yet heard an intelligent coherent explanation why people who have helped to wake millions of people from believing every single thing going in the world, were actually captured in advance. And if they weren’t captured in advance then they aren’t likely to be truly onboard with everything being planned, if at all. Once again this doesn’t mean that they are trustworthy, it just means that maybe people like Michael Ginsburg, Brad Miller and Jane Ruby might not be accurate in their observations.”
This is an important point that is raised and which is absolutely worth addressing.
The first thing is with the words "captured in advance".
What does "in advance" mean in this context? Before the ‘Pandemic’ was declared? Before the Injectables started rolling out? When exactly?
The second thing is that it is crucial imho to understand that someone can become "controlled opposition" as the campaign unfolds and sometimes without their knowledge or even against their will (e.g. blackmail).
As far as why such people will go ahead and wake up so many people with their revelations, this is THE point and is something that people genuinely struggle to get their head around (myself included earlier in the campaign) so it is worth repeating as often as needed:
Controlled Opposition operatives throughout history often (almost always as far as the current WWIII is concerned) will deploy a tactic known as Paltering (a.k.a. Limited Hangout) whereby they reveal some truths to firstly gain credibility but also to stop other parts of the truth, which are actually crucial for the enemy, from coming out (the infamous “look here but not there” trick).
I'd argue that the most elaborate Paltering Operation ever conducted in (known) human history is QAnon. It is on the level of "Operation Trust" but amplified significantly using the modern tools of the Internet and especially social media.
Paltering is a VERY nasty tactic indeed and something we all must be very very much across of if we are to prevail in WWIII (now approaching the end of its fifth year).
I have written a very lengthy article about Paltering awhile back which I hope people find useful:
I think when I say “in advance” I mean for example when RFK (since he seems to be a target of the controlled OP accusations) first started shaking the hands and speaking directly to the Mum’s of vaccine damaged children. Was he captured then? Or has he been captured since? Or do you think that he remains uncaptured?
Also, if someone can be controlled without their knowledge, then that also means that you might be controlled by posting about other people being controlled?! Or maybe I am controlled?!.... I work as a gardener, but maybe I just don’t realise that I am controlled…… How can we know that either of us are not controlled? It becomes like the unsolvable dilemma. This itself also seems like a good tool just to throw doubt and uncertainty into the genuine freedom loving community.
My heartfelt concern is that someone just having an opinion that they air publicly, which at a later date they may decide to change that opinion, can be labelled as “controlled” because they happened to hold “the wrong opinion” in public. This all just seems a little too close to “wrong think” for my liking.
Furthermore, just out of interest, can you link me here to the first public post on any platform that you provided about Trump, Vance, RFK, Musk or any public figure being controlled opposition? I would be interested to know the timeline of when you started speaking out publicly about these things. I assume that this happened long before Covid occurred. I would be interested to read these early posts.
I apologise in advance if this stuff is already available on your Substack. I do not “follow” you, so I haven’t yet seen these very early warnings that I assume you were firing off in those early days.
"My heartfelt concern is that someone just having an opinion that they air publicly, which at a later date they may decide to change that opinion, can be labelled as “controlled” because they happened to hold “the wrong opinion” in public. This all just seems a little too close to “wrong think” for my liking."
I understand where you are coming from but controlled opposition (either witting or unwitting) has specific and clear objectives.
I wrote about it in some detail in my controlled opposition piece but to summarise, they are one (or both) of the following:
1. "Flood the zone" - obfuscating the full agenda through the orchestrated release of a lot of information. Some of this information may be outright false while other reveals some actual truths in order to stop other parts of the truth, which are actually crucial for the enemy, from coming out. This is where the Paltering tactic comes in.
2. "Running out the clock" - to buy time and more specifically, push back as much as possible the point that that a critical mass of humanity understands what is actually going on and what the grand plan as well as what the enemy really must have in place before they can get there as opposed to mere distractions that don’t really matter.
"Can you link me here to the first public post on any platform that you provided about Trump, Vance, RFK, Musk or any public figure being controlled opposition? I would be interested to know the timeline of when you started speaking out publicly about these things. I assume that this happened long before Covid occurred. I would be interested to read these early posts."
I was mostly a "normie" until about mid 2021 and also didn't have a public profile per se until I started a substack in January 2023.
I discussed my own personal journey to "waking up" in the very first post I published on my stack:
As far as the other ones, this would be my major piece on controlled opposition (the one Ahmad interviewed me about) which I published in late February last year:
I think my main concern is the term "controlled opposition" now seems gets used as an ad hominen attack to throw at anyone who happens to disagree or is awake to some situations which are going wrong, but maybe not other situations. So for example, people who see through woke nonsense but still believe that convid was a genuine thing and that vaccines are safe. I see these people in my everyday life. I don't understand how they think convid wasn't what it was, but I believed some pretty stupid shit myself in my life and I am sure that I still undoubtedly do. We just don't know what we don't know.
I look back and see that my awakening to just how corrupt "The Powers that be are" was probably simmering under the surface for over 20 years. However, after 3 weeks of lockdown in the UK I was ready to question anything :)
I do genuinely believe that there are controlled opponents and probably some very obscure ones at that.
Like I say, it is just that at the moment, the situation of genuine everyday honest awake people looking around trying to work who the controlled opponents are and throwing accusations without any proof, just seems to be causing as much confusion as any actual "controlled opposition" could itself.
Trump has made enough huge mistakes (or maybe they were genuine planned actions) for us to focus on and really be publicly critical about.
For me, I certainly don't trust Trump, he got the whole covid situation so wrong and has done nothing to admit that and there are many other issue that concern me about him. Plus I am hugely sceptical of Musk. But to me it just seems that the more logical approach is just to focus on the things these guys have messed up and will mess up, rather speculate about whether they are controlled by the opponents, of free society or the WEF or whoever is really at the heart of all this horrific stuff or not.
I don't know!? For me, it is just seems the whole "controlled opposition" name calling doesn't seem to be helping us in anyway.
I genuinely appreciate you engaging with me. Thanks!
"the situation of genuine everyday honest awake people looking around trying to work who the controlled opponents are and throwing accusations without any proof, just seems to be causing as much confusion as any actual "controlled opposition" could itself."
"Without any proof" is the KEY part of your sentence here. One should not refer to someone as "controlled opposition" merely because they disagree with their views.
Calling someone "controlled opposition" is a SERIOUS accusation and by that I mean that anyone who uses this term to refer to someone (myself absolutely totally included!) should have some concrete factual proof to back that up with.
If you read my own article about controlled opposition, you will (hopefully) see that I have provided extensive receipts for any of the specific names I am calling out there.
If not, do let me know and I'll see if I can add more receipts. The article is already very very long as it is and I actually had to stop because I hit the technical limit of what the Substack editor is capable of handling.
'Controlled opposition' is a term used to denigrate all opposition when the reality is we are all controlled in one way or another by the social political and economic realities of our immediate and wider world. That is why this term is so successful in attacking detractors and critics because all opposition is controlled.
As they used to say in the old East Germany: 'We do have freedom. Yes we really do. We are free to do what we are allowed to do.'
maybe we need to recognize the difference between manipulated or even just influenced, and true 'controlled opposition'. OP implies a planned, deliberate effort at some kind of subterfuge, correct?
If I were the enemy what would I do? I would want to get ‘you’ to pay & create your own destruction, and to fight amongst yourselves. I would allow you to use your own ammunition, time, energy and create a focus point (each other) to blame for whatever I could. The ‘what’ doesn’t matter.
The British Establishment used these tactics to colonise much bigger more populated nations. In 1947 the separation of India appears in retrospect to be just this and as such an ‘enemy’ was created as is currently being played out in our newspapers, and by politicians currently with the gangs of men who have been assaulting girls (our children). This appears to have been planned by those in authority and this was part of the reason for the enquiry that was rejected by all those MPs who appear to not care about the people but their party interest. Was it a free vote? I’m not sure but if whips were involved that is actually unconstitutional and therefore illegal - they are meant to represent We The People and not the so called ‘party’. Why are they called parties? Grr!
Anyway I went off on a tangent but my point is that much of this is planned and in a step by step method of social destruction.
Anyone who is not aware of the Fabian Society should look them up and also who Fabian the Roman soldier was, and his tactics. The entire cabinet, the PM, Blair, almost all of Blair’s cabinet, the London Mayor and many, many of the Labour MPs are Fabian, and many organisations are connected to. I can’t produce this as it has disappeared from my saved links but I did see some of the funding came from a George Soros, but alas I can’t provide evidence at this time, but it does lead to many questions. Kissinger was quoted in letting his poor victims pay for their own demise.
So, perhaps we are all to some degree being controlled. Who knows who we can trust but I am hopeful. There are more of us than there are of them and we are more aware than ever. The press is in full swing at confusing us all, creating panic etc. Today’s newspapers are headlining we have just a week of gas left?? What happened in 1973? That brought down the government but it was down to a strike not supply issues. Why a week’s notice? This is a sackable offence for the so called ‘energy’ secretary and the ones who oversee it all. People will die if they’re too cold. But also, people will panic and buy electric heaters to tide them over. Think burst pipes too, and the number of plumbers that are trained to deal are in decline due to Tony Blair’s nonsensical idea to change apprenticeships that had worked for time immemorial; that might turn out to be as disastrous as making square wheels unless we stop the government from making business decisions. What has a lawyer that from what I recall, never had a memorable case to quote that he won, know anything about business and training? To quote Bridget Jones he is a ‘knobhead with no knob’. Apologies to any ladies I’ve offended but it is a good quote to describe the useless. Useless as he was, and is, his incompetence and lack of due care with our country was useful to those who used his charm offensive to destroy us. He is definitely opposition but is he being controlled or has he been promoted to being the controller? He may have been compromised way back by those who booked his seat on a certain flight to a certain island. Klaus is opposition but is he controlled? We don’t really know. Some think Charlie boy is in charge and others think he is controlled by Klaus, and previously by Saville. The only people who really know are the controllers and even they don’t know if their puppets are double agents. Spies have existed for all of time and have even gone along with ‘it’ to appear genuine, and some may have been taken out and painted as the real ‘bad guy’ when perhaps they’d infiltrated the enemy for good. The more I read and hear about Nixon, I don’t believe Watergate at all but will we ever know the truth?
I’m rambling and writing as I think so it won’t flow but that’s how I try to work out the truth from the thing everyone calls the narrative’, a word I have become to hate. I also detest the word ‘siblings’ as it describes brothers and sisters but no gender, and these things are important. The same applies to ‘partner’ rather than husband or wife to eradicate marriage as the ‘norm’. These are Fabian tactics and the more their agenda and existence is brought to the front the better. This video is old but is interesting about these people who really are part of the controllers (or would be) https://rumble.com/v1tn4m0-the-fabian-elite-and-their-not-so-secret-agenda.html
“People will die if they’re too cold. But also, people will panic and buy electric heaters to tide them over.” They are using gas to power the electricity supply! After proudly blowing up the last coal powered station. And they plan to reduce our dependence on gas….
I love you Ahmed. But in light of today's article I feel obliged to come to the defense of your unnamed correspondent.
Among non-normie circles the center point of discussion is not whether Operation Trust happened, or is still a strategy, or is beneficial to the establishment. Of that we do not need convincing. It is the application to a particular person or group that is under contention. In this case obviously we are talking of Trump and Make America Great Again. Just because something is possible does not mean that _that_ is what you are witness to, in the particular.
Before discussion may commence, though, it is critical to reflect upon underlying premises, as that can dictate the outcome as a foregone conclusion. To wit: do you consider it not merely unlikely, but impossible for a figure having the general population's interests truly at heart to rise to a high level of political power? To put it another way, are you of the belief that there exists a "glass ceiling" above which honest people are unable to rise within politics, law enforcement, the military, or intelligence? And how do you know?
I'll name two names to add precision to what I mean. Whitney Webb and James Corbett are two talented and accomplished independent journalists who nonetheless - or as a result - are so highly black-pilled that they consider such a "silly" notion an outright impossibility. In their worldview if you spot a high level political figure then they are ipso facto working for the deep state. No counter-point is entertained, for their commitment is ideological. "Don't you be fooled!" I can hear James intoning, "no one is coming to save you!". (A false formulation, by the way.)
Personally I do not consider this premise to be a rational nor defensible position. It is especially at odds with the historical and cultural context of America, where there is still a wellpool of resistance to the threat of loss of individual liberties. Recognizing the option of an organized resistance leaves ones interpretation of events likewise broadened. When the mental straightjacket of "it's only us versus them" falls away, what emerges is a more complex and nuanced view of the world.
I come from Canada. Similar to the U.K., in Canada it is hard to escape the conclusion that all major political parties are locked into the UN/WEF agenda. In Canada a Conservative yet Globalist-aligned leader takes the form of, for example, Stephen Harper. The same can be said of America prior to the appearance of Trump on the scene. When the Republican establishment - who uniformly hates Donald Trump - serves up a phony opponent designated to lose the national election and advance the Globalist plan, what you get is Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney or John McCain. Offer a mild presence of patriotism yet be hopelessly ineffectual, all by intent.
On the question "Donald J Trump - with us or against us?" pay close attention to the reactions of the 100% verifiable deep state. Whether it be on the domestic scene with Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Obama etc., at the United Nations when Trump delivered his globalism-is-over address, or visiting European dignitaries, the reaction is consistent. They absolutely loath Trump. The hatred is searing and seething. At one trip to Europe Trump was on the stage with Prince Harry. Harry was positioned to Trump's right and slightly behind. At one moment when Trump was looking to his left, Prince Harry pulls out right hand, holds it in front of his stomach and curls his fingers in the shape of a gun. He then cocks his thumb in a visual impossible to misinterpret. I think he also made the Freemason Hidden Hand sign, too. To show his allegiances.
You realize, Ahmed, that you have it within you to remove all questions once and for all. All you have to do it get Prince Harry onto your podcast. In you inimitable and endearing way, say "Dude, I'm dying to know. How have you and the Royal families and the WEF and Bill Gates and the WHO the UN and the central bankers and the whole cabal of Freemasons and secret societies across the world - how have you conspired with Trump to trick America into going along with your plan? That is quite some trick!"
Very thoughtful Ahmad. I do like your correspondent's feral cat observation. Feral cats with egos the size of planets, an unpleasant combination, but probably in 2025 a degree or two better than the likes of Starmer, Sunak, Trudeau, Macron etc and provide considerably more by way of entertainment.
Whilst I cannot disagree with anything that you wrote, there is a little bit of me that still is more optimistic!
Firstly can I just ask that you all ‘prove me wrong’! Then I’ll give up my hopium! By this I mean that I so wanted everyone who wasn’t voting in the last election to vote for Reform, get them in, and then we can see if they really are controlled opposition. I still have hope you see, but you could have black pilled me once and for all by voting them in and then saying ‘I told you so’! Until that happens I’ll always have hope.
Secondly, don’t you think that by believing such a nihilistic point of view, that ‘they’ have done an excellent job of immobilising the opposition, such that you don’t even bother to exercise your democratic right?
Thirdly, even if Reform are CO, then living under them, day to day, couldn’t have been as bad as Labour that we’re stuck with now for 5 years.
I’m not fully back pilled yet and I challenge you all to prove me wrong!
What an excellent, excellent analysis. You've really detailed this strategy in a way that will be beneficial for years to come--it would be longer except that I'm optimistic that we're going to figure this out and change it within the next five years. You took my second and third circle of psyops theory and expanded it with fart jokes and that perfect diagram of sailing tacks, which makes the concept crystal clear. Well done you!
I do not, however, wish that you were wrong about this. If you (and I) were wrong, it would mean that we're doomed because this is just how people are: divisive and full of hate. If we're right, it leaves the possibility that we're smart and cooperative and naturally loving and productive, if we weren't being manipulated to blame each other for the things 'They' are doing to us.
In a current example, it's no accident that the LA firestorm was inflicted just before the inauguration. My sister-in-law (who lost her husband to turbo cancer a year ago) lives 12 miles from the incinerated area. She mentioned arsonists and how social media is full of people who hate California and are happy to see it burn. Trump thumpers? Of course.
So they're putting in the hate-bots and planting immigrants with flamethrowers and multiple passports so we punch down. We don't look at satellite imagery, strange white flashes, nano-aluminum fire accelerants, fire hydrants suddenly turned off, and requests for water-bearing helicopters denied when the fire was small and contained.
Trump will now come in, clean as a whistle, and blame the previous administration. That's part of the psyop and why Biden was put in with that sudden surge of Democratic voters that he never challenged, except to incite the J6 patsies. All the damage of the pandemic and crushed businesses can be blamed on them, just as was intended. That's why Trump 1.0 was so intentionally offensive, without changing anything, to set up Democrats to be against anything he was for and for anything he was against. The Great Setup to the Great Reset.
Thanks very insightful article! Thought you were just a 'dumb orthopod'(your words)🤣.....love it when you really make me think about things and perhaps in ways I wouldn't have done otherwise!
Thankyou for explaining the Hegelian dialectic so well. After grappling to understand it, I finally get it! I think the Bible sums it up well in Isaiah 5.20
Thoughtful analysis & opinions all around BUT the one thing I take issue with is that none of the 'theories' of controlled opposition really take into account the separateness of the INDIVIDUAL. They all assume some kind of 'group think' and/or nefarious intention is at play. To be sure, every single person is a product of their environment, upbringing, experiences, education, etc. Every single person, famous or not, influential or not, owns the thoughts in their own head. Conversely, they do NOT own or can even truly KNOW with certainty, the thoughts, intentions, motivations in the heads of others. In the absence of clear, public admissions (maybe not even then,) its all speculation. period. full stop.
I am a firm believer in judging individuals on what they themselves SAY & DO. I don't believe in speculating about about hidden agendas or pigeon-holing people into various camps, like are they 'on our side' or not. It IS possible for an individual to be only partially 'on our side' and still not be some kind of 'controlled opposition'. It is possible for someone to agree on some points and not others and still have something worthwhile to offer in the big picture. The idea of some 'purity test' is counterintuitive and divisive, not to mention intellectually lazy. Having certainty is easy; respecting nuance is hard.
People like Trump or Musk or even RFK jr are, at the end of the day, still INDIVIDUAL human beings, with unique perspectives and motives. and like ALL humans, THEY TOO are allowed to change their minds, pivot their focuses, have different priorities and paths to get there. and yes, sometimes act like feral cats (I prefer a feral cat over a fawning phony any day!) Yet none are heroes nor saviors. None will ever be the perfect leader; such a thing doesn't exist. I humbly suggest we get over that, pronto.
We KNOW who the enemies are, friends! The globalists make themselves known and tell us their intentions. The world politicians (I refuse to call them 'leaders') spout their buzz words, some knowingly and others maybe not so much. (I'll not claim manipulation isn't a thing cuz surely it IS! imho, that we are even having this discussion proves its existence!)
I fully agree with MAA that the majority of us in the awakening freedom space (or whatever the frack we are calling ourselves,) have the discernment to SEE this and tell friend from foe (regardless of disagreement in details). I also agree with Ahmad to 'question everything' (always great advice!) However I'll tell ya straight up who/what I DON'T need nor have any respect for: those stating that anyone who doesn't agree with xyz is a 'dumbass' or claim they know the inner thoughts/motivations of a public figure they became aware of last week, or insist that they alone know xyz, or that THEIR priorities are the correct ones. Nope, sorry. MY beliefs & opinions are not dependent on the judgements of others. You have a difference of opinion or priority with ME, then persuade me with open, honest dialog. If your tools are name-calling or dismissal, then whatever you have to say becomes completely irrelevant to me. Disrespect me and my intellect and/or discernment, then we're done. Simple Simon.
Ahmad, you are a very patient man. My patience runs extremely thin with people who say stuff like your correspondent:
“For me, when Stalin spoke of “controlled opposition”, he was talking of a Sunak/Starmer type scenario, where both sides argue over minutiae and claim to hate each other but never ever deviate from the cast iron objectives of the communist agenda. "
I am sorry what I am about to say will sound harsh. However, this person is an IDIOT. Total utter IDIOT!!!! It is precisely because people like him that millions get slaughtered. It's because Stalin or Dzerzhinski would have been able to accomplish jack shit if it weren't for the political cult members like this guy. Trump and Biden admin flawlessly pass the ball to each other on the way to the NWO goal. But your subscriber here will wear a MAGA hat on the way to GULAG and will be still trusting the plan. Because his team won, you see! Because his favorite leader said America first, while doing a 180 degree turn (even before the inauguration!) His favorite "non-communist" is already responsible for the global death toll that would make Lenin blush... and takes full credit for the beautiful poison! You correspondent probably thinks Zuk is a great guy now that he went on Joe Rogan and said "Biden bad, censorship bad". problem solved, see, no communism anymore. Calm down victims!
I didn’t use the word correspondent, that was Ahmad’s terminology. I suppose I am a “correspondent” by definition in this scenario, but I wouldn’t refer to myself as such.
I always thought that exercising free speech and engaging in critical debate, without resorting to ad hominen was the antithesis of totalitarianism. Indeed, unlike your claim, I never thought that exercising free speech was something that would be the root cause of “millions getting slaughtered”. Instead, I thought these atrocities in history are ultimately caused by censorship, the withdrawal of alienable rights, the destruction of medical ethics and the pigeon holing of groups of people and assuming that “they” the dirty people all think the same way.
You have made many assumptions about me. Indeed, you seem to believe that you can read my mind.
I hugely respect your work. But your suggestion that people exercising free speech is the root cause of mass atrocity is not a view I would agree with.
Folks, I'm off today and will not be posting here again. Please can you pause and take a deep breath before commenting. Be polite and respectful. Not only is it poor form, it is rude and reflects badly on yourself. Thank you Ahmad x
Thank you for your response. "Correspondent" simply means a person who wrote a letter of some sort.
If you read what I wrote:
1) Nowhere did I say that you don't have a right to express your opinion freely (i.e. free speech). In fact , I encourage you to post on social media instead of writing private letters if that is your goal, as free speech is meant as public speech primarily. Like you are doing here. I am all for it! Even though your argument about free speech does not apply - free speech is something between the government and individual, not between 2 private parties.
2) However, if we are talking about free speech, I also have a right of free speech and expression of my opinion, as I am exercising here. Do you realize that the 1st Amendment specifically protects offensive speech? The non-offensive kind does not require protection.
3) while I used harsh language characterizing your view on Trump as controlled opposition, it is not ad hominem, as it wasn't personal and I actually explained why I used the words.
4) I explained the reason for my opinion. I grew up under communism, until I was in my 20's. I am well familiar with the history of communism. I am well familiar with how regime changes, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, and how it was done many years ago (even in the Tsarist Russia), and my opinion of your statement is very deeply informed by my direct experience and my study of history. Perhaps I should have said "dangerously naive" that was probably a more correct characterization, but I also said why I have almost zero patience for this (I am also entitled to feel what I feel). Your statement in regard to how controlled opposition is designed is extremely naive. however naive is what got us into genocide in 2020, that's why I use emotional language on this matter. Thanks for understanding.
I am a subscriber to Your Substack and I believe that I have decent understanding of your superb work that you have done over the last few years.
I may just a lowly gardener :), but I do understand the concept of free speech and I most certainly wasn’t saying that you can’t call me an idiot. That is absolutely an inalienable right that you have. It is your opinion and you have every right to say that as much as you want.
I think you misunderstood what I saying to Ahmad in my email. I don't defend Trump's actions during covid. Also, I am not American, but not withstanding that I am not a MAGA either. Not that these things make people "bad" or in my opinion "idiots".
Free speech is also about the freedom of speech publicly between sovereign citizens and not just citizens and their governments. I believe in “inalienable” rights and that means we don’t need them to be written down somewhere in order for them to “inalienable”. I do understand the meaning of the word.
Also, I do post things publicly on social media about my concerns of what is going on in the world. But I don’t think that that means that I also shouldn’t message people privately. Also, Ahmad included the excerpt of my email publicly with my permission. I really wasn’t that worried about being anonymous. As my response to your comment last night suggests.
Just as a personal preference, I like to try and avoid ad hominen attacks. But like I say, I respect you have the absolute right to say whatever you want about anyone. However, calling someone “an IDIOT. Total utter IDIOT!!!!” is ad hominen. To claim otherwise is gaslighting.
You also did say “because people like him that millions get slaughtered”. All I did was express an opinion. So, you were suggesting that “wrong think” in and of itself, is dangerous. You were also claiming to be able to read what my train of thought was. You suggested this in your first message and in subsequent comments. I can reassure you that you can’t read minds.
Communist governments cause communism. These governments exploit naivety, but naivety in and of itself does not a cause communism in the way you suggest. This is one of the countless reasons why free speech is so important, because it allows people to understand each other better and reduce our naivety about things like communism and also reduce naivety about how other people might think.
I personally think that you just read the situation wrong yesterday when you launched into writing that first message.
Roy, thanks for understanding, but the meaning of the word "idiot" is not "BAD person". These are not synonymous! "Dangerously naive" is much closer than "bad person". Because the statement is about someone's erroneous or impaired (for whatever reason) understanding of reality, rather than an underlying malicious character.
And again, a non-personal statement which is explained by at least some reasoning, is not an ad-hominem.
My point wasn't even about supporting Trump, it was about the dangers of calling for unity behind any political leader. There are NO political leaders under which anyone should unify, none existed in history (with exception of probably Diocletian, and he quit and went to grow cabbages). Regardless of who gets elected when and where, the proper response is suspicion of their every action and vocal criticism. The politicians must be afraid of us at all times. Therefore my criticism was of your criticism of Ahmad's guests.
I would like to point out just in general, that there's a significant difference between 'name calling' and labeling a person's behavior. 'you're acting like a...' or 'your words sound like...' is not the same as 'you ARE an ****'.
I applaud your diplomacy, Roy. (way better than ME ;) )
everyone responds to bully-like behavior differently I supposed and I freely admit to not having much experience with it other than just calling it out. at the end of the day, I just don't have the tolerance nor energy for it.
besides the observation that your comment under the quote doesn't seem to make a lot of sense (the writer is basically saying the same thing YOU are! how they pretend to be opponents...) wow, your assumptions about him are just dead wrong. 100% wrong. really sad coming from such a smart person as yourself. so judgmental from nearly zero information. my opinion of you just changed completely. (not that I think you should care. shit you'll probably verbally impale me just for saying this but oh well, I'm a big girl.)
this person is the furthest thing from a political cult member, he's not even an American. certainly not remotely MAGA nor trusts any 'plan' and would never in a million years give a crap about what Zukerberger has to say. yikes.
I don't understand how you can be so sure of yourself from such a tiny sliver of someone's thought processes. Ahmad didn't even publish a fraction of the original letter.
wow, just wow... name calling is beyond sad and petty. all the other comments are thoughtful, respectful & engaging. yours is vile and mean and lacking in clarity.
"100% wrong. really sad coming from such a smart person as yourself." Yeah, I know. I am very smart, but also stupid and immediately a controlled opposition because you don't like what I said.
"So judgmental from zero information" - what looks like zero information to you, is more than enough information for me. That's how "being smart" works. Thanks.
PS. MAGA and trust the plan is a global phenomenon. It's not unique to Americans. That's because we are all being marched into One World Government. The nations are superficial decorations.
if its 'smart' to misjudge another human being completely and then be totally conceited and catty about it to boot, then I will never want to be called 'smart' in your estimation.
I never called you either controlled opposition nor stupid, because I don't do 'name calling'. you're going all 'high school girl' on us here and I guess you don't care who sees it cuz apparently you are completely certain of your own superiority. whatever, girl. I just put you in my 'irrelevant' box.
"I don't do name calling.... you are going all high school girl on us" - all in one sentence! Well done.
I am not trying to be an ass, just pointing our the obvious (to me). Perhaps this may indicate to you that your perception of me forming conclusions on "zero" information is not actually correct. There is lots of information. Every word has information. And it's OK to be smart. And I wouldn't take it against you if you wanted to be smart.
It's ok to act on knowledge once you have information, hence, again - to you it seems I am over assured. I assure you, this is just an effect of asymmetry of information processing.
Wow! That was very insightful Doc! Thank you for sharing your thoughts
on this! It does make so much sense!
I would like to share what i have learned on how we win;
Doing everything we can to raise our vibrations, which helps to raise the vibrations of those around us💕
Although, it is good to know the evil truth, that will not raise our vibrations. If we have no hope, then we are living in fear, and lower vibrations. I am trying really hard to at least stay balanced. Love and authenticity are supposed to be the highest vibrations 💕
If you, and all those reading this believe we are energy, and we are capable of much,much, more than we have been taught, then this will make sense 💕
Thank you, thank, thank you for all your hard work! I have learned so much about trying to get my health in order from you and your guests! This Is also how they lose!
Big hugs to all of you wonderful listeners out there 🥰
I discuss my thoughts regarding controlled opposition in the “Reflections on Finger-Pointing” essay after “Rites of the Tear-Downers” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/rites-of-the-tear-downers), but I am pretty much in agreement with you, Ahmad, about being cautious of accusing anyone of being CO without evidence while acknowledging it is a real strategy deployed (see my discussion of the 2008 “Conspiracy Theories” paper (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=public_law_and_legal_theory) about cognitive infiltration strategies in my Apocaloptimist Manifesto (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/against-defeatism-the-apocaloptimist)).
That said, I think people arguing about who is/isn’t CO is a strategy in itself as it distracts from the deeper purpose of the group and results in a lot of friendly fire casualties and damage. So many people accuse people of true integrity of being CO simply because they disagree with them on this or that topic. People have called Mike Yeadon controlled opposition, FFS. This is how genuine opposition groups become fragmented and ineffectual against the philanthropaths, tyrants, and colluders who should be their true targets.
So my approach is to be aware that controlled opposition does exist but not to waste time/energy on it. If people possess true discernment as many dissidents do, they will recognize when a “leader” gives bad advice and will challenge them on it. My feeling is it is better to teach the tools of discernment (propaganda, social engineering, behavioral psychology, etc.) and let people work out for themselves whom to trust or not. They don’t need me to do that for them as I’m all about empowering individuals to think for themselves.
100% Margaret! using and trusting our own intellect and discernment, judging individuals on their own words and deeds over time.
we can recognize that the strategies of the globalists do exist and NOT fall into their traps, no matter how cleverly hidden, one being this reliance on 'experts'. WE are all our own experts if allowed to exercise the critical thinking muscle, and not outsource it.
I never thought Mike Yeadon was controlled opposition in the early days - I thought he was great. I now think he is totally controlled by his handler Tim who has led him a merry dance down the no virus route to make him look completely stupid and therefore easy to dismiss nowadays. I believe he has subconsciously allowed himself to be led this way because I remember him talking in the early days about how unsafe he felt and how his front door opened onto the street and he could just be captured in a car and taken away. I believe he was right to have such fears, but I also know that people who start with a genuine fear can easily convert that into paranoia, especially with a little help from ‘your friends’.
I asked him ‘if you were in a cult, would you like people to try and rescue you?’ And then I asked ‘And how do you think you would react to those people in that situation?’
You've made a useful distinction that is worthwhile to highlight. It is the difference between someone who is a pied-piper plant from the beginning versus a legitimate dissident who, through a targeted influence operation, has become controlled. Voluntary and knowingly fake opposition by preconceived plan, versus unknowingly being controlled. In the case of Mike Yeadon the low point in his arc was a few months ago when came out denouncing ivermectin as "the most violent anti-fertility drug I have ever encountered" based upon "information I have been given privy to". He clearly did not think through the information he was fed before reacting. That incident pretty much sealed his status (in my mind) as a dissident who has fallen under the influence of the enemy.
I'll add: Mike Yeadon's style of communication has always troubled me. He is a declarative speaker. A declarative speaker makes a string of declarative statements without diving into the reasoning. Mike will cite his resume, say that he knows what he is talking about, then declare with confidence that the vaccine was designed to cause harm. I have yet to hear him explaining that point of view in terms of detailed mechanisms. Or, he declares that pandemics are flat out impossible without providing a line of reasoning, or where standard epidemiological theory perhaps breaks down. And the biggie, he declares that viruses do not exists. It isn't given as argumentation. It is declared as an article of faith. From there it is a short hop to declaring there is no such thing as airborne transmissible infectious diseases.
Those concerns aside, Mike deserves eternal respect for his outspoken bravery at the outset of the worldwide Covid Attack.
This is one of the most systematic and detailed comments I've ever seen. It confirms the points of agreement with the previous reply, defines and refines the concept of controlled opposition, and gives the logic and concrete examples without jumping to any conclusion--letting the evidence speak. If everyone learned to argue this way, we could never be misled again.
You're giving voice and data to a question I had in my mind about Mike, but wondered if I was seeing controlled opposition under every rock. I agree that the no-virus dogma is a psyop meant to discredit anti-vaxxers just at the point that they've been proven right. Everyone preaching that gospel and denouncing everyone who doesn't as controlled op should be viewed with suspicion.
Authentic dissidents who, through their resistance, have become dependent on supporters for income are easy to capture, sad to say. And cheap. Giving them money is too obvious anyway. Better to give them roles, speaking engagements, and a platform so they might be able to reach more people who'll give them money. It's why we need to change the economy, which is my primary topic.
But Mike doesn't fall into this category. He was an industry insider at the highest level. He was, as you say, one of the first to speak out. I remember that he was the first 'big name' to ever reply to my comment saying why I felt there was malevolent intent in the vaccine beyond profit margins. Is his paranoia different than Robert Malone saying "I just want to be clear that I'm not suicidal"? Doesn't every covert operative need to express that they might be targeted?
I don't think that we should give Mike Yeadon a pass without calling him on his unsubstantiated declarations. If he is not in on the con, he will appreciate those who rescue him, as Crosscat says.
"I also haven’t yet heard an intelligent coherent explanation why people who have helped to wake millions of people from believing every single thing going in the world, were actually captured in advance. And if they weren’t captured in advance then they aren’t likely to be truly onboard with everything being planned, if at all. Once again this doesn’t mean that they are trustworthy, it just means that maybe people like Michael Ginsburg, Brad Miller and Jane Ruby might not be accurate in their observations.”
This is an important point that is raised and which is absolutely worth addressing.
The first thing is with the words "captured in advance".
What does "in advance" mean in this context? Before the ‘Pandemic’ was declared? Before the Injectables started rolling out? When exactly?
The second thing is that it is crucial imho to understand that someone can become "controlled opposition" as the campaign unfolds and sometimes without their knowledge or even against their will (e.g. blackmail).
As far as why such people will go ahead and wake up so many people with their revelations, this is THE point and is something that people genuinely struggle to get their head around (myself included earlier in the campaign) so it is worth repeating as often as needed:
Controlled Opposition operatives throughout history often (almost always as far as the current WWIII is concerned) will deploy a tactic known as Paltering (a.k.a. Limited Hangout) whereby they reveal some truths to firstly gain credibility but also to stop other parts of the truth, which are actually crucial for the enemy, from coming out (the infamous “look here but not there” trick).
I'd argue that the most elaborate Paltering Operation ever conducted in (known) human history is QAnon. It is on the level of "Operation Trust" but amplified significantly using the modern tools of the Internet and especially social media.
Paltering is a VERY nasty tactic indeed and something we all must be very very much across of if we are to prevail in WWIII (now approaching the end of its fifth year).
I have written a very lengthy article about Paltering awhile back which I hope people find useful:
https://actionabletruth.substack.com/p/paltering-fifth-generation-warfare
Hi Michael
I wrote the email that Ahmad is responding to.
I think when I say “in advance” I mean for example when RFK (since he seems to be a target of the controlled OP accusations) first started shaking the hands and speaking directly to the Mum’s of vaccine damaged children. Was he captured then? Or has he been captured since? Or do you think that he remains uncaptured?
Also, if someone can be controlled without their knowledge, then that also means that you might be controlled by posting about other people being controlled?! Or maybe I am controlled?!.... I work as a gardener, but maybe I just don’t realise that I am controlled…… How can we know that either of us are not controlled? It becomes like the unsolvable dilemma. This itself also seems like a good tool just to throw doubt and uncertainty into the genuine freedom loving community.
My heartfelt concern is that someone just having an opinion that they air publicly, which at a later date they may decide to change that opinion, can be labelled as “controlled” because they happened to hold “the wrong opinion” in public. This all just seems a little too close to “wrong think” for my liking.
Furthermore, just out of interest, can you link me here to the first public post on any platform that you provided about Trump, Vance, RFK, Musk or any public figure being controlled opposition? I would be interested to know the timeline of when you started speaking out publicly about these things. I assume that this happened long before Covid occurred. I would be interested to read these early posts.
I apologise in advance if this stuff is already available on your Substack. I do not “follow” you, so I haven’t yet seen these very early warnings that I assume you were firing off in those early days.
Many thanks, Roy
Appreciate the thoughtful reply Roy.
"My heartfelt concern is that someone just having an opinion that they air publicly, which at a later date they may decide to change that opinion, can be labelled as “controlled” because they happened to hold “the wrong opinion” in public. This all just seems a little too close to “wrong think” for my liking."
I understand where you are coming from but controlled opposition (either witting or unwitting) has specific and clear objectives.
I wrote about it in some detail in my controlled opposition piece but to summarise, they are one (or both) of the following:
1. "Flood the zone" - obfuscating the full agenda through the orchestrated release of a lot of information. Some of this information may be outright false while other reveals some actual truths in order to stop other parts of the truth, which are actually crucial for the enemy, from coming out. This is where the Paltering tactic comes in.
2. "Running out the clock" - to buy time and more specifically, push back as much as possible the point that that a critical mass of humanity understands what is actually going on and what the grand plan as well as what the enemy really must have in place before they can get there as opposed to mere distractions that don’t really matter.
"Can you link me here to the first public post on any platform that you provided about Trump, Vance, RFK, Musk or any public figure being controlled opposition? I would be interested to know the timeline of when you started speaking out publicly about these things. I assume that this happened long before Covid occurred. I would be interested to read these early posts."
I was mostly a "normie" until about mid 2021 and also didn't have a public profile per se until I started a substack in January 2023.
I discussed my own personal journey to "waking up" in the very first post I published on my stack:
https://actionabletruth.substack.com/p/my-personal-journey-to-awakening
The first time I raised concerns about Trump was in August 2023:
https://actionabletruth.substack.com/i/134977902/the-truth-about-donald-trump-aka-the-qanon-messiah
As far as the other ones, this would be my major piece on controlled opposition (the one Ahmad interviewed me about) which I published in late February last year:
https://actionabletruth.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-controlled-opposition
Hope that helps.
Hi Michael. I will read through all those links.
I think my main concern is the term "controlled opposition" now seems gets used as an ad hominen attack to throw at anyone who happens to disagree or is awake to some situations which are going wrong, but maybe not other situations. So for example, people who see through woke nonsense but still believe that convid was a genuine thing and that vaccines are safe. I see these people in my everyday life. I don't understand how they think convid wasn't what it was, but I believed some pretty stupid shit myself in my life and I am sure that I still undoubtedly do. We just don't know what we don't know.
I look back and see that my awakening to just how corrupt "The Powers that be are" was probably simmering under the surface for over 20 years. However, after 3 weeks of lockdown in the UK I was ready to question anything :)
I do genuinely believe that there are controlled opponents and probably some very obscure ones at that.
Like I say, it is just that at the moment, the situation of genuine everyday honest awake people looking around trying to work who the controlled opponents are and throwing accusations without any proof, just seems to be causing as much confusion as any actual "controlled opposition" could itself.
Trump has made enough huge mistakes (or maybe they were genuine planned actions) for us to focus on and really be publicly critical about.
For me, I certainly don't trust Trump, he got the whole covid situation so wrong and has done nothing to admit that and there are many other issue that concern me about him. Plus I am hugely sceptical of Musk. But to me it just seems that the more logical approach is just to focus on the things these guys have messed up and will mess up, rather speculate about whether they are controlled by the opponents, of free society or the WEF or whoever is really at the heart of all this horrific stuff or not.
I don't know!? For me, it is just seems the whole "controlled opposition" name calling doesn't seem to be helping us in anyway.
I genuinely appreciate you engaging with me. Thanks!
My pleasure Roy
"the situation of genuine everyday honest awake people looking around trying to work who the controlled opponents are and throwing accusations without any proof, just seems to be causing as much confusion as any actual "controlled opposition" could itself."
"Without any proof" is the KEY part of your sentence here. One should not refer to someone as "controlled opposition" merely because they disagree with their views.
Calling someone "controlled opposition" is a SERIOUS accusation and by that I mean that anyone who uses this term to refer to someone (myself absolutely totally included!) should have some concrete factual proof to back that up with.
If you read my own article about controlled opposition, you will (hopefully) see that I have provided extensive receipts for any of the specific names I am calling out there.
If not, do let me know and I'll see if I can add more receipts. The article is already very very long as it is and I actually had to stop because I hit the technical limit of what the Substack editor is capable of handling.
'Controlled opposition' is a term used to denigrate all opposition when the reality is we are all controlled in one way or another by the social political and economic realities of our immediate and wider world. That is why this term is so successful in attacking detractors and critics because all opposition is controlled.
As they used to say in the old East Germany: 'We do have freedom. Yes we really do. We are free to do what we are allowed to do.'
maybe we need to recognize the difference between manipulated or even just influenced, and true 'controlled opposition'. OP implies a planned, deliberate effort at some kind of subterfuge, correct?
If I were the enemy what would I do? I would want to get ‘you’ to pay & create your own destruction, and to fight amongst yourselves. I would allow you to use your own ammunition, time, energy and create a focus point (each other) to blame for whatever I could. The ‘what’ doesn’t matter.
The British Establishment used these tactics to colonise much bigger more populated nations. In 1947 the separation of India appears in retrospect to be just this and as such an ‘enemy’ was created as is currently being played out in our newspapers, and by politicians currently with the gangs of men who have been assaulting girls (our children). This appears to have been planned by those in authority and this was part of the reason for the enquiry that was rejected by all those MPs who appear to not care about the people but their party interest. Was it a free vote? I’m not sure but if whips were involved that is actually unconstitutional and therefore illegal - they are meant to represent We The People and not the so called ‘party’. Why are they called parties? Grr!
Anyway I went off on a tangent but my point is that much of this is planned and in a step by step method of social destruction.
Anyone who is not aware of the Fabian Society should look them up and also who Fabian the Roman soldier was, and his tactics. The entire cabinet, the PM, Blair, almost all of Blair’s cabinet, the London Mayor and many, many of the Labour MPs are Fabian, and many organisations are connected to. I can’t produce this as it has disappeared from my saved links but I did see some of the funding came from a George Soros, but alas I can’t provide evidence at this time, but it does lead to many questions. Kissinger was quoted in letting his poor victims pay for their own demise.
So, perhaps we are all to some degree being controlled. Who knows who we can trust but I am hopeful. There are more of us than there are of them and we are more aware than ever. The press is in full swing at confusing us all, creating panic etc. Today’s newspapers are headlining we have just a week of gas left?? What happened in 1973? That brought down the government but it was down to a strike not supply issues. Why a week’s notice? This is a sackable offence for the so called ‘energy’ secretary and the ones who oversee it all. People will die if they’re too cold. But also, people will panic and buy electric heaters to tide them over. Think burst pipes too, and the number of plumbers that are trained to deal are in decline due to Tony Blair’s nonsensical idea to change apprenticeships that had worked for time immemorial; that might turn out to be as disastrous as making square wheels unless we stop the government from making business decisions. What has a lawyer that from what I recall, never had a memorable case to quote that he won, know anything about business and training? To quote Bridget Jones he is a ‘knobhead with no knob’. Apologies to any ladies I’ve offended but it is a good quote to describe the useless. Useless as he was, and is, his incompetence and lack of due care with our country was useful to those who used his charm offensive to destroy us. He is definitely opposition but is he being controlled or has he been promoted to being the controller? He may have been compromised way back by those who booked his seat on a certain flight to a certain island. Klaus is opposition but is he controlled? We don’t really know. Some think Charlie boy is in charge and others think he is controlled by Klaus, and previously by Saville. The only people who really know are the controllers and even they don’t know if their puppets are double agents. Spies have existed for all of time and have even gone along with ‘it’ to appear genuine, and some may have been taken out and painted as the real ‘bad guy’ when perhaps they’d infiltrated the enemy for good. The more I read and hear about Nixon, I don’t believe Watergate at all but will we ever know the truth?
I’m rambling and writing as I think so it won’t flow but that’s how I try to work out the truth from the thing everyone calls the narrative’, a word I have become to hate. I also detest the word ‘siblings’ as it describes brothers and sisters but no gender, and these things are important. The same applies to ‘partner’ rather than husband or wife to eradicate marriage as the ‘norm’. These are Fabian tactics and the more their agenda and existence is brought to the front the better. This video is old but is interesting about these people who really are part of the controllers (or would be) https://rumble.com/v1tn4m0-the-fabian-elite-and-their-not-so-secret-agenda.html
👏 brilliant
The original coat of arms of the Fabian Society featured a wolf in sheep’s clothing:
https://unexpectedturns.substack.com/p/a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing
“People will die if they’re too cold. But also, people will panic and buy electric heaters to tide them over.” They are using gas to power the electricity supply! After proudly blowing up the last coal powered station. And they plan to reduce our dependence on gas….
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2020/01/29/the-reluctant-warrior-how-fabius-maximus-became-romes-greatest-general-by-avoiding-battle/
Important not to forget that Trump is literally an actor. Details on his IMDb page:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0874339/
I love you Ahmed. But in light of today's article I feel obliged to come to the defense of your unnamed correspondent.
Among non-normie circles the center point of discussion is not whether Operation Trust happened, or is still a strategy, or is beneficial to the establishment. Of that we do not need convincing. It is the application to a particular person or group that is under contention. In this case obviously we are talking of Trump and Make America Great Again. Just because something is possible does not mean that _that_ is what you are witness to, in the particular.
Before discussion may commence, though, it is critical to reflect upon underlying premises, as that can dictate the outcome as a foregone conclusion. To wit: do you consider it not merely unlikely, but impossible for a figure having the general population's interests truly at heart to rise to a high level of political power? To put it another way, are you of the belief that there exists a "glass ceiling" above which honest people are unable to rise within politics, law enforcement, the military, or intelligence? And how do you know?
I'll name two names to add precision to what I mean. Whitney Webb and James Corbett are two talented and accomplished independent journalists who nonetheless - or as a result - are so highly black-pilled that they consider such a "silly" notion an outright impossibility. In their worldview if you spot a high level political figure then they are ipso facto working for the deep state. No counter-point is entertained, for their commitment is ideological. "Don't you be fooled!" I can hear James intoning, "no one is coming to save you!". (A false formulation, by the way.)
Personally I do not consider this premise to be a rational nor defensible position. It is especially at odds with the historical and cultural context of America, where there is still a wellpool of resistance to the threat of loss of individual liberties. Recognizing the option of an organized resistance leaves ones interpretation of events likewise broadened. When the mental straightjacket of "it's only us versus them" falls away, what emerges is a more complex and nuanced view of the world.
I come from Canada. Similar to the U.K., in Canada it is hard to escape the conclusion that all major political parties are locked into the UN/WEF agenda. In Canada a Conservative yet Globalist-aligned leader takes the form of, for example, Stephen Harper. The same can be said of America prior to the appearance of Trump on the scene. When the Republican establishment - who uniformly hates Donald Trump - serves up a phony opponent designated to lose the national election and advance the Globalist plan, what you get is Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney or John McCain. Offer a mild presence of patriotism yet be hopelessly ineffectual, all by intent.
On the question "Donald J Trump - with us or against us?" pay close attention to the reactions of the 100% verifiable deep state. Whether it be on the domestic scene with Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Obama etc., at the United Nations when Trump delivered his globalism-is-over address, or visiting European dignitaries, the reaction is consistent. They absolutely loath Trump. The hatred is searing and seething. At one trip to Europe Trump was on the stage with Prince Harry. Harry was positioned to Trump's right and slightly behind. At one moment when Trump was looking to his left, Prince Harry pulls out right hand, holds it in front of his stomach and curls his fingers in the shape of a gun. He then cocks his thumb in a visual impossible to misinterpret. I think he also made the Freemason Hidden Hand sign, too. To show his allegiances.
You realize, Ahmed, that you have it within you to remove all questions once and for all. All you have to do it get Prince Harry onto your podcast. In you inimitable and endearing way, say "Dude, I'm dying to know. How have you and the Royal families and the WEF and Bill Gates and the WHO the UN and the central bankers and the whole cabal of Freemasons and secret societies across the world - how have you conspired with Trump to trick America into going along with your plan? That is quite some trick!"
I loved this! It made me chuckle so thank you. Wouldn't that make for an interesting conversation?! Prince Harry!
Very thoughtful Ahmad. I do like your correspondent's feral cat observation. Feral cats with egos the size of planets, an unpleasant combination, but probably in 2025 a degree or two better than the likes of Starmer, Sunak, Trudeau, Macron etc and provide considerably more by way of entertainment.
Whilst I cannot disagree with anything that you wrote, there is a little bit of me that still is more optimistic!
Firstly can I just ask that you all ‘prove me wrong’! Then I’ll give up my hopium! By this I mean that I so wanted everyone who wasn’t voting in the last election to vote for Reform, get them in, and then we can see if they really are controlled opposition. I still have hope you see, but you could have black pilled me once and for all by voting them in and then saying ‘I told you so’! Until that happens I’ll always have hope.
Secondly, don’t you think that by believing such a nihilistic point of view, that ‘they’ have done an excellent job of immobilising the opposition, such that you don’t even bother to exercise your democratic right?
Thirdly, even if Reform are CO, then living under them, day to day, couldn’t have been as bad as Labour that we’re stuck with now for 5 years.
I’m not fully back pilled yet and I challenge you all to prove me wrong!
To quote Richard D Hall : " Believe none of what you hear and question everything you see " x
MiriAF’s September piece on Richard D Hall is worth a read:
https://miri.substack.com/p/richard-ds-hall-of-mirrors
Thank you I'll be sure to give this a read 😊
What an excellent, excellent analysis. You've really detailed this strategy in a way that will be beneficial for years to come--it would be longer except that I'm optimistic that we're going to figure this out and change it within the next five years. You took my second and third circle of psyops theory and expanded it with fart jokes and that perfect diagram of sailing tacks, which makes the concept crystal clear. Well done you!
I do not, however, wish that you were wrong about this. If you (and I) were wrong, it would mean that we're doomed because this is just how people are: divisive and full of hate. If we're right, it leaves the possibility that we're smart and cooperative and naturally loving and productive, if we weren't being manipulated to blame each other for the things 'They' are doing to us.
In a current example, it's no accident that the LA firestorm was inflicted just before the inauguration. My sister-in-law (who lost her husband to turbo cancer a year ago) lives 12 miles from the incinerated area. She mentioned arsonists and how social media is full of people who hate California and are happy to see it burn. Trump thumpers? Of course.
So they're putting in the hate-bots and planting immigrants with flamethrowers and multiple passports so we punch down. We don't look at satellite imagery, strange white flashes, nano-aluminum fire accelerants, fire hydrants suddenly turned off, and requests for water-bearing helicopters denied when the fire was small and contained.
Trump will now come in, clean as a whistle, and blame the previous administration. That's part of the psyop and why Biden was put in with that sudden surge of Democratic voters that he never challenged, except to incite the J6 patsies. All the damage of the pandemic and crushed businesses can be blamed on them, just as was intended. That's why Trump 1.0 was so intentionally offensive, without changing anything, to set up Democrats to be against anything he was for and for anything he was against. The Great Setup to the Great Reset.
I'll be keeping this article close to refer to in the future. This one of mine does a similar analysis using Malone on six tells for whether someone's controlled opposition: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/malone-and-slaughterhouse-four.
Thanks very insightful article! Thought you were just a 'dumb orthopod'(your words)🤣.....love it when you really make me think about things and perhaps in ways I wouldn't have done otherwise!
Thankyou for explaining the Hegelian dialectic so well. After grappling to understand it, I finally get it! I think the Bible sums it up well in Isaiah 5.20
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
And Amos 5.7 and 5.10
O you who turn justice to wormwood
and cast down righteousness to the earth!
They hate him who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor him who speaks the truth.
Great (and timely) analysis!
Thoughtful analysis & opinions all around BUT the one thing I take issue with is that none of the 'theories' of controlled opposition really take into account the separateness of the INDIVIDUAL. They all assume some kind of 'group think' and/or nefarious intention is at play. To be sure, every single person is a product of their environment, upbringing, experiences, education, etc. Every single person, famous or not, influential or not, owns the thoughts in their own head. Conversely, they do NOT own or can even truly KNOW with certainty, the thoughts, intentions, motivations in the heads of others. In the absence of clear, public admissions (maybe not even then,) its all speculation. period. full stop.
I am a firm believer in judging individuals on what they themselves SAY & DO. I don't believe in speculating about about hidden agendas or pigeon-holing people into various camps, like are they 'on our side' or not. It IS possible for an individual to be only partially 'on our side' and still not be some kind of 'controlled opposition'. It is possible for someone to agree on some points and not others and still have something worthwhile to offer in the big picture. The idea of some 'purity test' is counterintuitive and divisive, not to mention intellectually lazy. Having certainty is easy; respecting nuance is hard.
People like Trump or Musk or even RFK jr are, at the end of the day, still INDIVIDUAL human beings, with unique perspectives and motives. and like ALL humans, THEY TOO are allowed to change their minds, pivot their focuses, have different priorities and paths to get there. and yes, sometimes act like feral cats (I prefer a feral cat over a fawning phony any day!) Yet none are heroes nor saviors. None will ever be the perfect leader; such a thing doesn't exist. I humbly suggest we get over that, pronto.
We KNOW who the enemies are, friends! The globalists make themselves known and tell us their intentions. The world politicians (I refuse to call them 'leaders') spout their buzz words, some knowingly and others maybe not so much. (I'll not claim manipulation isn't a thing cuz surely it IS! imho, that we are even having this discussion proves its existence!)
I fully agree with MAA that the majority of us in the awakening freedom space (or whatever the frack we are calling ourselves,) have the discernment to SEE this and tell friend from foe (regardless of disagreement in details). I also agree with Ahmad to 'question everything' (always great advice!) However I'll tell ya straight up who/what I DON'T need nor have any respect for: those stating that anyone who doesn't agree with xyz is a 'dumbass' or claim they know the inner thoughts/motivations of a public figure they became aware of last week, or insist that they alone know xyz, or that THEIR priorities are the correct ones. Nope, sorry. MY beliefs & opinions are not dependent on the judgements of others. You have a difference of opinion or priority with ME, then persuade me with open, honest dialog. If your tools are name-calling or dismissal, then whatever you have to say becomes completely irrelevant to me. Disrespect me and my intellect and/or discernment, then we're done. Simple Simon.
Ahmad, you are a very patient man. My patience runs extremely thin with people who say stuff like your correspondent:
“For me, when Stalin spoke of “controlled opposition”, he was talking of a Sunak/Starmer type scenario, where both sides argue over minutiae and claim to hate each other but never ever deviate from the cast iron objectives of the communist agenda. "
I am sorry what I am about to say will sound harsh. However, this person is an IDIOT. Total utter IDIOT!!!! It is precisely because people like him that millions get slaughtered. It's because Stalin or Dzerzhinski would have been able to accomplish jack shit if it weren't for the political cult members like this guy. Trump and Biden admin flawlessly pass the ball to each other on the way to the NWO goal. But your subscriber here will wear a MAGA hat on the way to GULAG and will be still trusting the plan. Because his team won, you see! Because his favorite leader said America first, while doing a 180 degree turn (even before the inauguration!) His favorite "non-communist" is already responsible for the global death toll that would make Lenin blush... and takes full credit for the beautiful poison! You correspondent probably thinks Zuk is a great guy now that he went on Joe Rogan and said "Biden bad, censorship bad". problem solved, see, no communism anymore. Calm down victims!
Honestly, I can't even with these people.
Sorry, had to vent here.
Hi Sasha
It was my email that Ahmad was responding to.
I didn’t use the word correspondent, that was Ahmad’s terminology. I suppose I am a “correspondent” by definition in this scenario, but I wouldn’t refer to myself as such.
I always thought that exercising free speech and engaging in critical debate, without resorting to ad hominen was the antithesis of totalitarianism. Indeed, unlike your claim, I never thought that exercising free speech was something that would be the root cause of “millions getting slaughtered”. Instead, I thought these atrocities in history are ultimately caused by censorship, the withdrawal of alienable rights, the destruction of medical ethics and the pigeon holing of groups of people and assuming that “they” the dirty people all think the same way.
You have made many assumptions about me. Indeed, you seem to believe that you can read my mind.
I hugely respect your work. But your suggestion that people exercising free speech is the root cause of mass atrocity is not a view I would agree with.
Thank you for engaging,
Roy
Folks, I'm off today and will not be posting here again. Please can you pause and take a deep breath before commenting. Be polite and respectful. Not only is it poor form, it is rude and reflects badly on yourself. Thank you Ahmad x
don't worry, man ;)
Hi Roy,
Thank you for your response. "Correspondent" simply means a person who wrote a letter of some sort.
If you read what I wrote:
1) Nowhere did I say that you don't have a right to express your opinion freely (i.e. free speech). In fact , I encourage you to post on social media instead of writing private letters if that is your goal, as free speech is meant as public speech primarily. Like you are doing here. I am all for it! Even though your argument about free speech does not apply - free speech is something between the government and individual, not between 2 private parties.
2) However, if we are talking about free speech, I also have a right of free speech and expression of my opinion, as I am exercising here. Do you realize that the 1st Amendment specifically protects offensive speech? The non-offensive kind does not require protection.
3) while I used harsh language characterizing your view on Trump as controlled opposition, it is not ad hominem, as it wasn't personal and I actually explained why I used the words.
4) I explained the reason for my opinion. I grew up under communism, until I was in my 20's. I am well familiar with the history of communism. I am well familiar with how regime changes, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, and how it was done many years ago (even in the Tsarist Russia), and my opinion of your statement is very deeply informed by my direct experience and my study of history. Perhaps I should have said "dangerously naive" that was probably a more correct characterization, but I also said why I have almost zero patience for this (I am also entitled to feel what I feel). Your statement in regard to how controlled opposition is designed is extremely naive. however naive is what got us into genocide in 2020, that's why I use emotional language on this matter. Thanks for understanding.
Hi Sasha,
I am a subscriber to Your Substack and I believe that I have decent understanding of your superb work that you have done over the last few years.
I may just a lowly gardener :), but I do understand the concept of free speech and I most certainly wasn’t saying that you can’t call me an idiot. That is absolutely an inalienable right that you have. It is your opinion and you have every right to say that as much as you want.
I think you misunderstood what I saying to Ahmad in my email. I don't defend Trump's actions during covid. Also, I am not American, but not withstanding that I am not a MAGA either. Not that these things make people "bad" or in my opinion "idiots".
Free speech is also about the freedom of speech publicly between sovereign citizens and not just citizens and their governments. I believe in “inalienable” rights and that means we don’t need them to be written down somewhere in order for them to “inalienable”. I do understand the meaning of the word.
Also, I do post things publicly on social media about my concerns of what is going on in the world. But I don’t think that that means that I also shouldn’t message people privately. Also, Ahmad included the excerpt of my email publicly with my permission. I really wasn’t that worried about being anonymous. As my response to your comment last night suggests.
Just as a personal preference, I like to try and avoid ad hominen attacks. But like I say, I respect you have the absolute right to say whatever you want about anyone. However, calling someone “an IDIOT. Total utter IDIOT!!!!” is ad hominen. To claim otherwise is gaslighting.
You also did say “because people like him that millions get slaughtered”. All I did was express an opinion. So, you were suggesting that “wrong think” in and of itself, is dangerous. You were also claiming to be able to read what my train of thought was. You suggested this in your first message and in subsequent comments. I can reassure you that you can’t read minds.
Communist governments cause communism. These governments exploit naivety, but naivety in and of itself does not a cause communism in the way you suggest. This is one of the countless reasons why free speech is so important, because it allows people to understand each other better and reduce our naivety about things like communism and also reduce naivety about how other people might think.
I personally think that you just read the situation wrong yesterday when you launched into writing that first message.
Roy, thanks for understanding, but the meaning of the word "idiot" is not "BAD person". These are not synonymous! "Dangerously naive" is much closer than "bad person". Because the statement is about someone's erroneous or impaired (for whatever reason) understanding of reality, rather than an underlying malicious character.
And again, a non-personal statement which is explained by at least some reasoning, is not an ad-hominem.
My point wasn't even about supporting Trump, it was about the dangers of calling for unity behind any political leader. There are NO political leaders under which anyone should unify, none existed in history (with exception of probably Diocletian, and he quit and went to grow cabbages). Regardless of who gets elected when and where, the proper response is suspicion of their every action and vocal criticism. The politicians must be afraid of us at all times. Therefore my criticism was of your criticism of Ahmad's guests.
Hope this clarifies it.
I would like to point out just in general, that there's a significant difference between 'name calling' and labeling a person's behavior. 'you're acting like a...' or 'your words sound like...' is not the same as 'you ARE an ****'.
I applaud your diplomacy, Roy. (way better than ME ;) )
everyone responds to bully-like behavior differently I supposed and I freely admit to not having much experience with it other than just calling it out. at the end of the day, I just don't have the tolerance nor energy for it.
besides the observation that your comment under the quote doesn't seem to make a lot of sense (the writer is basically saying the same thing YOU are! how they pretend to be opponents...) wow, your assumptions about him are just dead wrong. 100% wrong. really sad coming from such a smart person as yourself. so judgmental from nearly zero information. my opinion of you just changed completely. (not that I think you should care. shit you'll probably verbally impale me just for saying this but oh well, I'm a big girl.)
this person is the furthest thing from a political cult member, he's not even an American. certainly not remotely MAGA nor trusts any 'plan' and would never in a million years give a crap about what Zukerberger has to say. yikes.
I don't understand how you can be so sure of yourself from such a tiny sliver of someone's thought processes. Ahmad didn't even publish a fraction of the original letter.
wow, just wow... name calling is beyond sad and petty. all the other comments are thoughtful, respectful & engaging. yours is vile and mean and lacking in clarity.
"100% wrong. really sad coming from such a smart person as yourself." Yeah, I know. I am very smart, but also stupid and immediately a controlled opposition because you don't like what I said.
"So judgmental from zero information" - what looks like zero information to you, is more than enough information for me. That's how "being smart" works. Thanks.
PS. MAGA and trust the plan is a global phenomenon. It's not unique to Americans. That's because we are all being marched into One World Government. The nations are superficial decorations.
if its 'smart' to misjudge another human being completely and then be totally conceited and catty about it to boot, then I will never want to be called 'smart' in your estimation.
I never called you either controlled opposition nor stupid, because I don't do 'name calling'. you're going all 'high school girl' on us here and I guess you don't care who sees it cuz apparently you are completely certain of your own superiority. whatever, girl. I just put you in my 'irrelevant' box.
"misjudge another human being" - do you know him?
"I don't do name calling.... you are going all high school girl on us" - all in one sentence! Well done.
I am not trying to be an ass, just pointing our the obvious (to me). Perhaps this may indicate to you that your perception of me forming conclusions on "zero" information is not actually correct. There is lots of information. Every word has information. And it's OK to be smart. And I wouldn't take it against you if you wanted to be smart.
It's ok to act on knowledge once you have information, hence, again - to you it seems I am over assured. I assure you, this is just an effect of asymmetry of information processing.
yes I DO know him quite well. I would not have made any assumptions about him if I didn't. I did say 'nearly zero' (information). not completely zero.
Wow! That was very insightful Doc! Thank you for sharing your thoughts
on this! It does make so much sense!
I would like to share what i have learned on how we win;
Doing everything we can to raise our vibrations, which helps to raise the vibrations of those around us💕
Although, it is good to know the evil truth, that will not raise our vibrations. If we have no hope, then we are living in fear, and lower vibrations. I am trying really hard to at least stay balanced. Love and authenticity are supposed to be the highest vibrations 💕
If you, and all those reading this believe we are energy, and we are capable of much,much, more than we have been taught, then this will make sense 💕
Thank you, thank, thank you for all your hard work! I have learned so much about trying to get my health in order from you and your guests! This Is also how they lose!
Big hugs to all of you wonderful listeners out there 🥰