All Opposition is Controlled

Flashpoint Figures are Time Bombs

It all began innocently enough. We saw through the propaganda.

We decide to resist. We know things. We must disrupt the narrative.

Power structures have abused the truth, violated our rights, and…something must be done! It’s getting out of hand!

Yes, but who’s dealing this hand?

Who wanted to be an “anti-vaxxer” when they grew up?

Who wanted to be a “conspiracy theorist”? To pore over charts and graphs and critically shred press releases disguised as scientific literature? To alienate friends and family with crazy talk?

To fill our days and nights with evidence of treatment suppression and “vaccine failure”?

None of this was any of our idea. To be opposition is to be controlled. Tyrannical governments (is there any other kind?) know that their programs will frequently be unpopular, because their designs are generally harmful to the population. This is accounted for.

All opposition is controlled, because we are reacting to events. We are not choosing the subject of controversy. We are responding to our perception that things which are, ought not be.

We see the iron fist of censorship clamping down, and forget what the other hand is up to. While the plutocratic state is enacting outrageous policies and flooding the zone with flimsy propaganda to buttress it, they are also seeding the framework of opposition, subtly guiding dissenters down garden paths that will ultimately nullify their effectiveness.

The first instrument is the “flashpoint figure”. This is some breakthrough release of information that clears the censors and crystallizes a counter-narrative. It centers on particular personalities, and takes the form of some media unit like an interview or documentary.

These can arise organically, or through behind-the-scenes manipulation. It isn’t really important which it is; the debate about the flashpoint figure has already begun to replace whatever information is being put forth. Since the primary narrative is a lie, it is inevitable that someone will pop up with the truth, or some version of it, sooner or later.

A few early flashpoint figures in the lockdown phase of Covert-19 were the urgent care doctors from Bakersfield, who gave an interview to the local media indicating that the severity of the “pandemic” was grossly exaggerated. Media reaction was swift and merciless.

Shortly thereafter, the first Plandemic film was released, to a similar reception in the mainstream. Judy Mikovits became the flashpoint figure here, and we were suddenly debating the merits of her complicated criminal case, instead of the core substance about whether the current “emergency” was actually a premeditated controlled demolition of society.

As primordial info-activists, we tended to dislike the effect this had on our huddled discussions around censored topics. We’d get drawn into these endless personality wars. Factionalism reigned.

This is the first stage of controlled opposition. We think we’re forming a coherent truth estimate, a more valid model that can overthrow the propaganda paradigm. Yet, along the way, we’re reliant on information sources, often some charismatic doctor or some other establishment turncoat, and while the information we’re getting may be more reliable, the framing that comes along with it may not be.

Again, it doesn’t really matter what the motives of these individuals are, or even what they think their motives are. Maybe they are filled with the fire of truth. Maybe they are out to avenge their unsuccessful careers. Maybe they are out to make a buck. Maybe they are sponsored by the other side.

Who cares, as long as the info holds up? We can cross-reference our way to the truth.

Along the way, though, there are framing premises that get carried along with this information. They come along with a certain emotional allegiance. We start listening because they say things which make sense, and eventually come to reference sensibility in terms of what we’ve been hearing.

The danger is not that these flashpoint figures will deliver tainted goods, but that the basket itself becomes the symbol for truth, both in the minds of pro- and counter- narrative cognitive forces.

On the opposition side, groups fracture and eventually factionate over these flashpoint figures, as they become increasingly common. Instead of developing strategies or organizing effectively, the fledgling movement becomes endlessly mired in personality politics and dies on the vine.

Lately, we’ve become gruesomely captivated by the Sage Hana “not-a-movement” paradigm, mostly because the current situation is making this view unavoidable. Where is this “movement” going, and, more importantly, where is it coming from?

Why are so many of the “leading voices” jabbed goobers who never put on their thinking caps until it was too late? Why are the early adopters who understood that it was a psyop from lockdown on fading into the woodwork?

The allure of celebrity is like gravity; attention fixates on any sufficiently dense mass of recognition. This is as true for the hero droolers as it is for the curtain pullers. We’re all controlled.

For reasons we’d rather only allude to, the Hero Ball Mass Formation has lately become as untenable as the original “two weeks to flatten the curve”. These dashing dissidents are falling rapidly, whether to controversy or greed or untethered egoism. It’s all too clear, as JP Barlow wrote, we’re on our own.

We’re not a movement because we don’t have a common philosophy, goals, or even a coherent policy ideology. What do we want? When do we want it? And why? What’s the destination?

In order to have a movement, we have to move toward something. What? The overthrow of the NWO? Reforming global totalitarianism? It’s good to have goals, but we’re playing defense here and we’re down a million to one. Many of us would settle for just not ever having to think about this shit.

That’s a choice, of course. That’s the choice that led to a lamentable decline in human rights, to the point that segregation became fashionable, censorship became standard, and industrial-scale genocide implemented.

So we’re stuck. It’s our problem. They have made it ours. Somehow, the propaganda hydra must be slain, where are our heroes?

Cue the flashpoint figure. Paging Erickson, no, paging Mikovits, no, hey, let’s get Malone.

He’ll be perfect. The most interesting man in the world. A farmer and a scientist. Salt of the Earth.

Is there a director, auditioning and casting these flashpoint figures, or do they wander on to the stage organically, perhaps believing that the television set is merely an annex to the real world?

Well, that’s the great mystery, and in order to approach it, we’d have to define our terms, which, it will turn out, is not really all that simple. We’re decoding motivation through reverse engineering. There are layers of psychological insulation around any given individual’s motivation. There’s what they tell themselves, and what they tell the world. On the output side, there’s what people make of their motives, and what people make of the motives of those who question their motives.

Then, a needle in the haystack of wires, is the self-advancing arrow which points to what time it really is in the clockwork of the mind. Some wear this on their sleeve, but even they have reason to adjust the angle and tilt toward the Sun sometimes.

The best communicators artfully display and conceal their wristwatch when it suits, and generally won’t give the time of day even to themselves. So, speculating on motive is a fun parlor game, but the pieces have to be kept in separate caveats.

What does it mean to be “controlled”? Must there be a direct motive, a paycheck from the Pharma cartel, or is it enough to be controlled by your biases, expectations, and future ambitions, in or out of the “movement”? Even with the greatest sincerity, the idea of an image to maintain, an urge to be assassination-resistant, a utilitarian caution which nurtures self-censorship…are these not also mechanisms of control?

If a particular scientist with a key resumé point of interest emerges on the war-path to soothe his jilted professional ambitions…does that make him controlled opposition? If he denounces the McRNA and treatment suppression shenanigans, does it matter? He got behind the megaphone and told the world.

A year down the road, as we drown in popcorn and confront the full implications of a devastatingly divisive legal action against the free criticism of establishment resumés, we find that, perhaps, it does matter a little bit who was behind that megaphone.

The loose coalition between dissident doctors and Covert-19 resistors was always provisional. It was always ad hoc. Those were all-hands-on-deck days. We had no choice but to open arms and welcome anyone who could drop a few letters behind their names and add their veneer of credibility to the “medical freedom movement.” Those who stubbornly looked the gift horse in the mouth left on foot.

“Medical Freedom” is a nice soundbite, but what does it mean? What can it mean? More authority for doctors? For patients? Why are we pretending that “vaccines” have anything to do with medicine, anyway? What sort of medical product is this, dispensed without any sort of prescription, for no presentation of illness by the current patient, counter-indicated for no one and injected in parking lots?

We’ve been celebrating the progress and what has been said, about the inefficacy and danger of bioware psyops, but what isn’t being said is vastly greater than what is. If truth is the goal, we’re probably farther away than ever, because the shiny new narrator beckoning us from under the Christmas tree is quite possibly rigged with explosives.

By virtue of this possibility, all opposition is hobbled by uncertainty. “Can we really trust this government scientist turncoat?” Once we ask that question, the moment is awkward; the factions fractionate, and the flashpoint fizzles. If we never ask it, we look around and ask, sheepishly, how come all the prominent voices representing our views are people who never really agreed with them to begin with?

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether they’re trying to cudgel nickels from the discontented, or accepting some sort of pay day from a dark corner of Pharma. All leaders are suspect. Leadership is suspect. Groupthink is suspect. Why are we debating whether we should listen to this or that so-and-so? Isn’t that what got us into this mess?

We’ve arrived at the central paradox of not-a-movement. We can’t be a movement (or even a “we”) because cognitive liberty is not a collective right. It is an individual one. If we conform our thoughts, even to the point of thinking, “well, that scientist has some conflicts in his background, but he’s on our side now, let’s just focus on the positive” we’ve fallen for it. If we react with paranoid rejection, we’ve succumbed to that isolating impulse.

All opposition is controlled, internally, externally, it makes very little difference. We don’t really know anyone’s motives, we can only infer them. Most people, really, don’t know their own motivations; they only know their rationalizations about their motives, and their projections about them. So when we debate whether someone is “controlled opposition”, all we’re doing is comparing our rationalizations about their motivations with our own, and computing an answer through the logic gate of trust or not.

Then we can drown in the popcorn. That’s all the hero ball really is, a movie with popcorn. And we can all comment on the livestream.

There are perfectly sincere scientists who are giving the best they can, and they can shoot us in the foot by getting a detail out of place. If the validity of what we are standing for is bound up in the reliability of this or that dissident, we have already become too dogmatic to resist, or to have any meaningful reason to resist at all.

Our opinions about this, our loyalties to various personages, how much we’re willing to forgive before we take our eyeballs elsewhere…none of this is advancing any movement. What we need are ideas, not people with ideas.

How do we resist in a time of global totalitarianism? Should we get our blank papers ready?

The power of the NWO resides in their control of propaganda mechanisms. They are all controlled, loosely, or tightly. Is a flashpoint figure “controlled opposition” if, without their realizing it, they get an anonymous boost, because their opposition is more “reasonable”? Are they controlled if they pass through the gates of censorship because the main narrative approves of the limits of this “whistleblower” hangout?

We can debate the guilt or innocence of any such figure, and surely will continue to do so, but none of this is helping to alter either globalist policies or public receptivity toward them. Whether or not these goals are attainable, the window to pursue them is narrowing at an unknown pace. When the ability to freely transit information has been structurally denied, it will be already too late.

Censorship is the greatest risk to individual autonomy, because all other injustices ride in its wake. If one cannot speak freely, then one cannot evaluate freely, and cannot be, freely. Censorship means thoughtcrime. The horrors of 1984 are focusing in the foreground, and, it’s not really a metaphor anymore.

The purpose of resistance is not to win, but to survive. Resisting vax genocide and the other malevolent designs of global plutocracy is not optional. Those who allow technocracy to wash over them will cease to exist. It is Borg.

Is resistance futile? It doesn’t matter if it is, or not. If we decide that resistance is futile, we fall in that instant. Therefore, the only chance is to resist, and hope that some structural weakness in the global totalitarianism can bring the machine to a grinding halt.

Having said all this, this is a time for great optimism, not because the horizons look sunny, but because they are grey. If we make up our minds that it is too late, then it must be. The only hope is with the hopeful. Look at you, looking on the bright side.