Controlled Opposition - Fact or Paranoia?
In the freedom movement/awake community, (call it what you will), there are people who talk of controlled opposition and gatekeepers.
What does this mean? Well, simply put, controlled opposition is a person or persons who will, for example, join a group that opposes something and pretend to espouse the beliefs of said group, when in fact they are working for the other side. A saboteur, you could say.
A gatekeeper, I think, is someone who controls access to something, or confines a discussion to certain topics, ensuring some items are not up for debate.
I think there is an argument to be made in favour of both being an actual entity. I mean, in a situation such as the ‘Covid Times’, what better way for authorities to keep tabs on the resistance, than to infiltrate their social groups and watch and listen?
Worth a mention, I feel, is the formation of the 77th Brigade in the British Army as something that, in my personal opinion, could perhaps be classed as keeping a closer eye on the public than is needed. It was set up in 2015, with one of its remits to counter ‘disinformation’ in the UK - but could it be countering dissent?
The brigade is said to be skilled in the use of social media and well-versed in psychological operations. It aims to try to control the prevailing narrative and there are claims that it monitored and recorded social media posts in the UK for alleged ‘Covid disinformation’. However, in April 2020, the then Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir Nick Carter said that this effort was not being directed at the British populace or UK organisations. So we can sleep easy then…
And yet, could the very idea of controlled opposition and gatekeepers be deemed to be a paranoid ideation? Some have posited that Dr John Campbell and Dr Aseem Malhotra have been controlled opposition, but it seems to me that they held a particular view and were, after a time, open to changing their minds. Am I being naive? Who knows?
After the trauma of the last few years, it may perhaps be helpful to put negativity aside and give people the benefit of the doubt. The person whose motives you don’t quite trust could be honest and straightforward, rather than an infiltrator and a spy. But good to retain an element of cynicism, just in case!
There is nothing to lose by maintaining an air of suspicion in some circumstances. Trust your instinct, trust your gut feeling. It has been only when I have ignored mine, that I have been bitten on the arse, figuratively speaking.
So, what I am trying to say is to keep an open mind, don’t be too paranoid and go down the nutsy-bobo route of assuming some folk are out to get you - but when the authorities tell you that something is good for you, take a step back and think long and hard about whether you should or should not comply.