Thoughts About Controlled opposition [edit: and questions!]

Philosophy
#1

I want to share some remarks indirectly related to the discussion around the
Joe Rogan Experience 1747.

I have not seen the interview yet, but I’d like to share some general remarks, doubts and questions about “Controlled opposition”. Imho, the concept is easily overstretched, specially since hardly anybody bothers to define it.

Controlled opposition could be defined as someone or some organisation that claims to be against the establishment and the deep state or for the people, but instead collaborates explicitly; or pretend not to know and surely knows. And that collaboration should go beyond just using some major communication platform…

First there is the case of some different cases of alt media, where I had the clear impression if not conviction that they do not tell everything they know, because they want to keep their audience and help them to understand without telling the full story, eg being a kind of teacher. (Maybe I am myself in the learning process and still do not understand well :wink: ) Let’s say you want to talk publicly about 9/11, then you better not talk about no-planers and directed energy weapons or the like, right? Or, when discussing with people, I personnally try to catch up with what people know and make sure they accept my opinions; so one could have the impression that I hide something…

Then, I’m not sure if I do not prefer having a country with a lot of controlled oppositions than none, because it teaches and exercices the spirit of opposition and pluralism, which then in the best case returns against them: This would be my understanding of the Yellow Vests movement that some (who do not know a lot about) claimed also to be Color Revolution while Macron was allegedly so desperate ready to escape by helicopter…
Another example is Q-anon which … brought me indirectly here, so even if obviously coming from some fraction of the deep state, it feeds indirectly critical thinking.

Also, before claiming “controlled opposition”, one must be sure that they do not know better. But my impression is that many even very well known figures know much less than we might think: because knowledge takes time, specially if one wants to be sure that it is not wrong information while having other things to do; also, a socially highly exposed person will not bother a lot about fringe science and socially not accepted opinions.

Here is another case: Long before I stumbled over GDS and DJ, I was interested in Deep State, False Flag etc. And then, one of Germany’s best independent journalist – Dirk Pohlmann – both interested in Deep State and UFOs got me motivated into the UFO file. But it turns out, his interest was triggered by the WP and NYT articles, and three years later, it seems that he and others still seem not to understand that the whole “UFO disclosure” narrative is an CIA op. It could be “controlled opposition”, but it could also be that they just have a blind spot? Note that Pohlmann was kicked out of MSM after his documentary about Israel and the atomic bomb; and later harrassed for his inquires about Wikipedia.

The last remark or question concerns ideology vs mind control. Many seem to believe that the opposite of their political convictions are mind controlled and manipulated, for instance some right wing seem to believe that every left wing thought and conviction is just mind control and manipulation, but some left wing thinks exactly the same thing about the right wingers. And that misunderstanding will generate a whole other set of impressions of “Controlled Opposition” and the like.
I think in this context, the understanding of ideology through antropology like Emmanuel Todd is very helpful: for instance, there are different family systems that will feed rather individualist or rather collective ideologies, and also egalitarian or inegalitarian ideologies and some more like freedom vs savety etc. That’s not mind control, but culture.

So, what’s your approach opinion about it?

3 Likes
#2

I think the key word here is “Controlled”. Take a look at the DJ/CAF video I posted earlier, where Biden is literally kneeling before the PM of Israel. Fitts makes the statement that the pic did not have to be released, but was release nonetheless. Is this “controlled”, or “free-flowing assistance with a narrative”?

2 Likes
#3

There is also the question of whether it is controlled opposition or careful misdirection. When you have a media, including what we term “social media”, that deletes facts and creates the narrative they control as “truth” and when you have the number of paid trolls to enforce that discussion or paid to create an alternate set of “facts”, the whole concept of fact and truth is mired in the manure.

Welcome to January 2022.

4 Likes
#4

Well, I do not see in what sense “president” Joe Biden could be considered in any way any kind of opposition to whatsoever?

So I think I have an issue with your answer because of the word “opposition” :wink:
But the question about who controls whom in the upper layers of the Deep State and how many layers there are, is of course important …

1 Like
#5

Wait, I’m not in January 2022 yet ! Or maybe are we already in 2122 and all the 21st
century is a “false narrative” ? :rofl:

These “social media” are big companies, and when they create or participate in the creation of a false narrative, they are no opposition at all and completely part of the system, right?

But yes, important point, since I think all kind of false, toxic, useless or doubtful narratives acculumate and spread over the decades and centuries.

Here is another question: those DS layers, do they control all their narratives, or do they get out of control some day and somehow?

Trying to explain that not everything is under control, I found following picture today:
suppose we compare them to a gardener; now if those “farmers of Humanity” create social & economical mono-cultures like industrial farming, should’nt they expect all kind of problems? And aren’t these problems here right now, with all kinds of things getting more and more out of control?

#6

Thinking it is not about a single interview or news event or a writing. It is about a bit here and an impression there; something not said; a question not answered; a seemingly random item that suddenly fits. It is about discerning and putting things together. Even mis-information can contain a dot toward the reality. It is the very thing God created in humans that which the shots are killing. Seek and you shall find; ask and it shall be answered.

The Caveat: you may not like what you learn because you will have to …

3 Likes
#7

You could get so paranoid that everyone and everything could be twisted into an OP. I find it better to approach the subject matter. Analyze what is being discussed rather than go after people in character assassination. So when I hear someone attack for instance Joe Rogan after he is poignantly asking reasonable questions. I tend to think the attackers are more likely to be part of an OP.

2 Likes
#8

Yes! I agree, that’s probably the best approach!

We could somehow consider people or shows as vectors for information, and now see if they bring good or bad quality information and forget the rest. Sometimes, we can even find interesting information coming from Goverment, Deep State, MSM or what ever…

1 Like
#9

Don’t forget, Alot of us Gizers don’t claim to know everything and are constantly searching for truth. The filtering process can involve getting played from time to time which is why logical speculation from others is a good thing.

3 Likes
#10

We just have to question everything, no exceptions.

2 Likes
#11

Well that might take an infinite amount of time, or at least I am afraid it would longer than the lifetime of the Universe. So I agree with radical sceptism only to a certain degree :wink:

I think it’s the philosopher Wittgenstein who said, an illimited radical doubt is no doubt at all: and that’s because if you doubt the meaning of every word, you can’t even phrase half a sentence.
Or if you start to question the continuity of space and the linear progress of time, then there are no more facts that we could rely on for any historical investigation. Every document could be fake or introduced (or removed) by a breach in space-time.

I think also it is a kind of excess of doubt that blocs some conspiracy deniers to accept the information, they will say “this is just one testimony, you know how all science is cheating, I don’t know. Maybe the rules of physics are different sometimes and the buildings did collapse because of a fire. What do you mean by the missing trillions?” etc

#12

A human psyche is still pretty much a mystery IMO, though we have numerous noted professionals exclaiming how we all think and come up with our ideas and beliefs.
Each human has to approach their validation in their own way, usually relying upon those who came before them for guidance. However their worldview becomes theirs alone, maybe shared by others and maybe not.
Sifting through the influencers crap is a tedious and complicated process. Most don’t care to take the time or have the resources (including critical thinking and intelligence) to pull back the curtain and look. Many criticize those who do.

3 Likes