This topic of "Controlled Opposition" is a big can of worms and some of the videos I've been watching and posting lately have been digging into this philosophically in ways that I feel are worth articulating here...
We did our first episode of MediaPuppets on this topic so I'll embed that video on the bottom of this post.
No matter where you are in your belief system it's pretty easy to see that the mainstream narrative on Covid-19 has been falling apart for quite some time. The idea that "you should just get your vax and things will go back to normal" or at this point "get your booster and things will (finally) go back to normal" is largely being dismissed and this is even showing in the mainstream media these days.
The narrative has been falling apart for quite some time but now it's just patently obvious.
Consider this recent story...
So clearly the narrative is falling apart if pharma people are getting in serious trouble for falsifying vaccination records. Clearly the big wigs on the top are not taking these jabs but still trying to make you feel you should.
When it comes to "Controlled Opposition" I believe there are many layers to the concept.
At this point I break those down in two basic groups:
For the purpose of focus, in this post we will focus on the first two and leave blackmail for other discussions.
It's my estimation that when most people think of "Controlled Opposition" (i.e. "Is this guy controlled opposition?") think of someone who is paid to appose the narrative in a certain way. Paid opposition as a method of slowing down an inevitable collapse of a psychological narrative that is bound to fail as the truth spreads.
So "they" (globalists, etc.) know that with so many people getting sick and dying from a novel experimental injection that was never tested on animals and only fraudulently "tested" on humans where the real results were actually hidden (and are finally coming out) that they will only be able to hide this reality for so long.
They'll use censorship in big-tech, gaslighting and big media for all their power but having certain doctors steering the alternative narrative can never hurt, right?
Why not have some "alternative" doctors steer the narrative away from the topic of "bio-weapons" designed to kill and steer more towards the already accepted "side affects" of the vax such as myocarditis and other vascular conditions. This is sensible if you are an evil globalist with a penchant for depopulation and you want to delay your inevitable hanging in a Nuremberg 2.0 crimes against humanity trial.
But what about the other method of control?
After all when someone has been so indoctrinated into a particular viewpoint (case in point "the germ theory of disease") it can be very difficult to steer them away from this view. It can go so far as defending their theories regardless of a lack of evidence. So this lack of proof of their viewpoint can be waved right in front of their face and they still won't see it because they are so deeply entrenched in a particular bias.
Lately there's been some discussion going on indirectly between Dr Thomas Cowan and Dr Andrew Kaufman with Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Robert Malone. Here's an example shown in a few short video clips so please bear in mind that these were from two distinct interviews and they didn't actually engage in a direct debate.
First we have Dr Robert Malone defending the viral theory of disease in the case of Covid and calling the virus an "agent" that has been identified and isolated:
Next we have a clarification and an interesting metaphor from Dr Thomas Cowan about the actual methods used in viral "isolation" which are in reality not isolation at all:
What follows is some defense against the idea that covid was simply a rebranding of the flu by Dr Peter McCullough with a few words also from Dr Robert Malone:
Next is an explanation from Dr Andrew Kaufman explaining why it benefits the establishment to continue the narrative of a deadly and scary virus in order to spread fear to move the population towards Agenda 2030. He also explains Dr Stefan Lanka's research where he produced cytopathic results without a virus just from the toxic soup of the "isolation" process:
Of course one of the most common questions that comes up in the "Terrain Theory" debate is how other diseases that are thought to be caused by a virus actually caused?
While this seems on the face of it to be a good question there's an obvious answer which is articulated quite well right here:
Open minds in medicine are quite rare because it's hard to go against the grain in any endeavor especially in medicine when all of your peers are so indoctrinated into pharmaceutical medicine and the paradigm of pharma one medicine for every disease.
This ideological control is one that doesn't get the attention that it needs because this type of "Controlled Opposition" doesn't even know they are acting in this way. They may be so indoctrinated into their particular paradigm that they don't even know they are being manipulated with that paradigm. This is why paradigm shifts are so important.
The bias of indoctrination creates the lens that you see the world through and the danger of this type of controlled opposition is that the individual doesn't even know they are controlled by such a bias until something flips the switch and they have a paradigm switch. These days it's often referred to as a "red pill".
Of course this digs at the core of terrain theory vs germ theory and whether "virus isolation" techniques actually qualify as "isolation" at all because of the toxic soup that is added to "culture" the small amounts of so called virus that are thus being cultured.
I believe this is a very important debate and one that should involve a direct conversation between these apposing groups, that has not happened yet...
However as mentioned above, Dr Stefan Lanka has done an experiment where he performed a "control" viral isolation where no virus was added to the culture and it looked basically the same after the toxic soup was cultured. Neither McCullough or Malone have commented directly on Dr Lanka's work that I know of but please share a comment below if you know otherwise.
So who is part of the controlled opposition?
Dr Peter McCullough?
Dr Robert Malone?
Dr Ryan Cole?
As Dr Tom Cowan so astutely points out that it's a good habit to avoid questioning other peoples motives unless they expressly articulate those motives because otherwise it's basically pure speculation because we can't get inside their head.
So while anyone can speculate that one or more of these doctors are part of an effort of controlled opposition based on the history of actions of each of these doctors risking their careers in the last couple years it's more likely that they would be part of the ideological / philosophically controlled opposition than that they are being paid to oppose the narrative.
But then again, maybe others out there have additional information on this that would indicate otherwise.
What do you think?
Which, if any of these doctors do you think is controlled opposition? And which type of control do you believe they are under?
And where in this story does Monkeypox fit in?
It is pretty clear that the skin lesions of shingles and other skin conditions that are a hallmark of immune dysfunction are similar to skin lesions of monkeypox. Immune suppression in the AIDS era in the 1980's is now known to have been a result of immune-suppressive pharmaceuticals such as AZT and others. These were known to cause a skin condition called kaposi-sarcoma where the skin growths would stop when the patients were taken off the drugs.
Knowing this would you think it would be productive to question the immune-suppressive qualities of a novel (new) experimental gene-therapy injection that is being falsely promoted and advertised as a "vaccine"?
Could a condition being called "monkeypox" and blamed on skin to skin contact spread actually be a result of an adverse reaction to a gene-therapy injection?
With the proper "Controlled Opposition" could the threat of monkeypox be used as a method to continue the narrative of the vaccine agenda in order to continue to push injections despite what is obvious to some of us as blatant injection reactions?
Since this was a pretty serious post I'm going to close with a pretty funny video called "Gaslighting Me with PSYOPS" from Dr Clown at www.DrClown.com
All our videos can be found on our bitchute channel where you can also subscribe for the latest videos:
And the MediaPuppets on "Controlled Opposition":
Please share this post with your friends and spread the word. Also go ahead and subscribe below to get weekly notifications of our latest new content.
Featured Photo By DES Daughter