Controlled Opp - or (unjustly) tainted by association?

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Controlled Opp - or (unjustly) tainted by association?

Unread post by Nefilimp »

(ADMIN NOTICE - Simon): Dear Nefilimp, as of your request I have changed the title of this thread of yours - I hope you approve of it. By "Controlled Opp" I obviously refer to the term "controlled opposition" - as defined in this blog article, since I believe the term has become fairly familiar to most people by now (if not to the general public); to be sure, the very existence of this category of "self-professed truthers" is not only unquestionable but represents the most insidious hurdle to overcome for earnest, independent truthseekers - when it comes to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'.

I think many of you know Larken Rose and his book 'The most dangerous superstition'. I have read it, and it makes sense; it is a great way of finding the blockades in your mind, to understand what many years of programming have done to your thinking. I started this topic because of two reasons, the first is that I found he was missing on this forum and in my opinion his book is good reading material, so I would like other people to read it. But, with a warning, because I am not so sure about the intentions of Larken.

The next reason is broader, it is about the topic 'guilty by association'. A recent video, he addressed to Russell Brand because he wants to sit with him to talk about the problems with statism. Now.. For the people who have looked into Russell, they know he is a member of the Fabian Society (a wolf in sheepskin), he gets a lot of mainstream media attention and more interestingly; his ideas all point towards a socialist Marxist society. As in, exactly according to plan. I knew he had a tattoo on his arm with 33 on it, but in trying to find a picture of it, I found he actually did a show called 33, and it seems he even has 33 tattoos on his body. He addressed his 33 tattoo on YouTube saying he is not in the Illuminati. This, of course, is a great way of deflection because he most probably is not a member of it (if they even exist other than in movies and books) but, in my opinion, he is an agent for the ones who control our LARP reality. He has supposedly found Christian God and the 33 is because of his love for Jesus but.. Organized religion is one of the biggest controlled ops there is because God/the creator/all that is or however you might call that spiritual force in everything.. IS NOT RACIST. It does not have a favourite organized religion, it does not have a chosen people or a special land with a special temple that must be rebuilt. But I digress.

Image

Now to be fair. All of these things are merely red flags, HUGE red flags, but still. He is just someone I stay far away from and I would never share any videos of him, even if he is saying a lot of things that make sense. So to get to the point; in the comment section the viewers of Larken Rose rightly pointed out that RB is most probably a shill, controlled opposition or however you would call these pied pipers, and that he should not associate with him. Larken then did a follow-up video basically mocking the people that pointed out these immense red flags concerning RB.

So, my question to the readers; what is your opinion about Larken Rose? Is he merely naive and gullible or do you agree with me that it is a bad idea to associate with people that carry around big red flags, a 33 tattoo on their body while being marketed by mainstream media on his socialist Marxist ideas? And, after watching this video, do you agree with the way he addresses his viewers that rightly point out all the things mentioned in this post?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkuv6kgxt9Q
antipodean
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by antipodean »

That was a very interesting video. (I never knew Russell Brand was a Fabian) I think a lot of people join these organisations with good intentions, its just down to how they act once they realise they've had the wool pulled over their eyes.
I thought mention may have been made about Putin's ex links to the WEF, making some people think the whole Russia v Ukraine war is a controlled dog and pony show.

Or will some people take their paranoia to the next level, by saying that Larken Rose is himself an apologist for shills.
Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Nefilimp »

antipodean wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:59 am Or will some people take their paranoia to the next level, by saying that Larken Rose is himself an apologist for shills.
Dear Antipodean, you talk as if you are new to the fact that a very big part of the 'truth' movement is started by TPTB and marketed by them on their mainstream outlets (either by positive or negative attention). Seeing that Larken is confronting viewers that raise valid concerns regarding RB in a way I can only describe as mocking and patronizing, not only in the video but also in the comment section, makes him clearly an apologist. This is not paranoia, I am merely stating the obvious.
antipodean
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by antipodean »

Nefilimp wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:45 am
antipodean wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:59 am Or will some people take their paranoia to the next level, by saying that Larken Rose is himself an apologist for shills.
Dear Antipodean, you talk as if you are new to the fact that a very big part of the 'truth' movement is started by TPTB and marketed by them on their mainstream outlets (either by positive or negative attention). Seeing that Larken is confronting viewers that raise valid concerns regarding RB in a way I can only describe as mocking and patronizing, not only in the video but also in the comment section, makes him clearly an apologist. This is not paranoia, I am merely stating the obvious.
Hi Nefilimp, I meant that last comment of mine to be a bit tongue in cheek. (I didn't read the comments)
Given that Larken Rose himself inferred, that those who continually accuse people of being shills suffer from paranoia.
To me he leans towards being an apologist, or maybe given the last few years with more and more people waking up we should be more tolerant.
Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Nefilimp »

He might be an apologist but for someone who has been around for such a long time and who states he does not believe the official explanation regarding events like Sandy Hook and 911 (but does not really go into detail) he MUST be aware there are many shills and paid disinfo people active on the internet. The way he reacts to his audience raises a big red flag for me personally because it is very important who you align with. Imagine Simon suddenly doing a documentary with Alex Jones, it will destroy his reputation within seconds (Simons' that is).

Besides all that, he is also a speaker at Anarchapulco, an event organized by (IMO) a shady person named Berwick. That event to me has all the hallmarks of a limited hangout, a way to collect all the people with anarchist ideas and push them in the direction favourable to TPTB.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Mansur »

Nefilimp wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 5:36 amwhat is your opinion about Larken Rose?
Perhaps you shouldn't ask about the whole man (that would require someone to spend not hours but days with the guy - which not everyone here will have); you might, however, quote a few passages to which anyone can respond, especially if your comment puts it in a definite context. (That seems to be the only way someone can directly whet one's appetite for reading a book.)

By the way kickstones quoted him and his book a few months ago on this forum.
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p ... 2#p2416452

In my very humble opinion -_- , one minute of such a man is enough, at least as far as the basic question is concerned. Once we have agreed on that (i.e. once we are all past the point of forcing ourselves to believe our own eyes and ears), we can perhaps talk about

which type does he best embodies,
what are the main features of his repertoire,
what can be considered original - if originality can exist in this 'genre',
what is his attitude/position towards the standard propaganda lies, - [*]
etc. etc. etc. etc.
How can he be instructive to us - - - - to identify propaganda and propagandists as quickly and effectively as possible.

Then:
Is there or can it be suspected there is a CGI version of him?

At this (his) level there is not and cannot be room for a question of good faith. For me, I consider the first sensible question in all such cases to be the question to ask about the target group.

In the case of Mr Rose, I think it quite appropriate to make reference here to his obvious Jewish origins, - in the case of the other gentleman, maybe not so much... I don't think the latter is a member of the 'Fabian' or any other 'society' just because of the rumours flying about, just as I don't think he has anything to do with Christianity just because he has dozens of crosses flying from his neck, ears, hands - and tattoos, obviously.

(Antipodean seems to suffer a little bit from paranoia-paranoia.)
______________

[*] He says in that book in pages 71-72 :
…Perhaps one of the most heinous examples of this was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which constituted by far the two worst individual acts of terrorism and mass murder in history. Together, they resulted in the deaths of around two hundred thousand civilians – about seventy times worse than the number of deaths from the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. The admitted goal was to inflict fear, pain and death on the population of an entire country, in order to coerce the ruling class of that country to bend to the will of another ruling class. Ironically, this fits perfectly the United States “government’s” own definition of “terrorism,” except that that definition conveniently exempts acts that are “legal” and/or committed by “governments.” If those in “government” advocate and carry out violent activities that are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” then it is considered legitimate and just. If anyone else does the exact same thing, it is “terrorism.” (See Section 2331 of Title 18 of the United States Code.)

As an aside, the existence of nuclear weapons is entirely the result of the belief in “authority.” Unlike many weapons, it is impossible to use them for purely defensive purposes. The only reason the nuclear bomb was invented and manufactured in the first place was because of the authoritarian, nationalistic, pack-mentality idea that it is possible, and righteous, to be at war with an entire country, and that therefore indiscriminately exterminating thousands of people at once can be justifiable.
In page 87 :
A testament to the power of the belief in “authority” is the well-documented (If seldom discussed) fact that the atrocities committed against the German Jews by the Nazis were often carried out with the cooperation and assistance of Jewish police, such as occurred in the Warsaw Ghetto. In their culture, just as in almost every other culture, the people had been so thoroughly convinced that obedience is a virtue that, even though someone new was “in charge,” they still felt obligated to do as they were told, even if it meant violently oppressing their own kinsmen. But what may be even more disturbing (but indisputable) is the fact that many millions of people in history have assisted in their own extermination, because “authority” told them to. For example, during the Holocaust, many hundreds of thousands of Jews, on their own power, boarded the cattle cars of the very trains that would take them away to their deaths, without trying to hide, run away, or resist. Why? Because those pretending to be “authority” told them to. While it was no doubt true that they were not all aware of exactly what lay in store for them at the other end, they still handed themselves into the custody of a machine that obviously meant them harm.
The whole philosophising about obedience to power and authority (the two are not the same thing at all! it's just that in today's dictionaries they have become so closely related) is completely false - and by now a completely chewed-up bone. The fact that people obey and will always obey power is a simple fact, and as simple as it is, it is massive and immovable, - and if one spreads the 'revolutionary spirit' at the level of journalism with the intention of entertaining, well, that's... Well, the terms 'controlled opposition' and 'conspiracy' are sometimes getting on one's nerves.
________________

125 p. :
The belief in “authority” negates and overrides nearly all of the positive effects of religious and moral beliefs. What most people call their “religion” is empty window-dressing, and what most people tout as their moral virtue is irrelevant, as long as they believe in the myth of “authority.” Christians, for example, are taught things such as “If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek,” “Love your neighbor” (and even “Love your enemy”) and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet every so-called Christian who believes in “government” constantly forsakes these principles, advocating constant aggression against everyone – friend and enemy, neighbor and stranger – via the cult of “government.” To put on a show of being pious, religious, compassionate, loving and virtuous, while “voting” for a gang that promises to use violence to control the actions of everyone you know, is the height of hypocrisy. To refrain from personally robbing one’s neighbor, while pushing for someone else to do it, is both cowardly and hypocritical. Yet almost every Christian (and every member of every other religion) does such things on a regular basis, by way of “political” advocacy.
For a moment you think, well, the guy's actually right about something. But then he goes on like this:
As mentioned before, faith in “government” is a purely religious belief. As such, the vast majority of those who wear the label “atheist” are not actually atheists, because they believe in the god called “government.” [etc.]
Which means the guy has absolutely no idea what religion is. (Others, using the same rhetoric, often parallel science with religion, with similarly revealing ignorance.)
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Farcevalue »

If everywhere else, why not here. It's like the American definition of rich: anyone who has more money than you. Or anyone with more subs/followers is a shill. Is Berwick shady? Maybe. I listen to his podcasts frequently and aside from his tiresome self-promotion of Anarchopulco, I find very little objectionable in what he says. His view is patently anti-state and anyone here who has an issue with being anti-state will have to provide their most compelling arguments in favor of statism. I look forward hearing them.

I have been following Larken Rose for years. If he is to be believed (I have done nothing to confirm this story, but it should be easy enough to do) he served time in a federal prison for distributing a DVD explaining why the federal income tax is not legitimate according to their own documents, which supposedly provide the basis of legitimacy (the first of many patent absurdities of statism).

As far as guilt by association (a form of ad hominem that avoids addressing the actual content or argument) it would be more instructive to look at Rose's association with the voice of The Quash podcast, who, incidentally, plays the part of Mr. Jones in the upcoming movie The Jones Plantation, written by Larken Rose and heavily promoted and funded by Jeff Berwick. The movie is an allegory for the transformation of chattel slavery into debt slavery. The hope is that the movie will be digestible enough for those that haven't considered such things to spark thought about alternatives to the current system of serf management.

As far as religion goes, I pulled this randomly from a variety of definitions from standard sources which are largely similar:
1 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2 a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b: the state of a religious
(a nun in her 20th year of religion)
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
4: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
I see very little divergence between statism and religion on the basis of this definition. They both subordinate the individual (an actual living, breathing man/woman) to a concept: we the people, the common good, democracy. etc. If the primary difference lies in the supernatural or "God" aspect of religion, we run into the thorny issue of providing a cogent and consistent definition for "God". Otherwise, the mechanics are the same. Ultimately, behave as prescribed by the "authorities". The fourth, archaic definition is appropriate: scrupulous conformity.

As far as whether Rose's reference to nukes or the "holocaust" are an indictment, I can forgive him if he has yet to take the time to look into them. Not everyone does. And his arguments against the state are compelling enough that I can pardon the oversight. Besides, he is using the logic provided by the state on whether they have the moral authority to commit such acts, so the point is taken whether the events were or were not fictional.
Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Nefilimp »

Firstly, thank you, Mansur and Farcevalue for your insights.

I think the name of this topic should be changed into 'tainted by association', or something in that line because just associating with someone does not automatically make you guilty. When you are paid by the same entity to do your disinfo thing, it makes you guilty, but it is not the association with the other disinfo agent that makes you guilty. That association is just a tell for people who are looking for the truth on who to be wary off/distrust. So I ask an administrator to change the name of the topic into something that is more accurate (I am sorry for not thinking it through more thoroughly before posting it).

When I read those passages in his book on the nukes/911 I read it with a bitter taste in my mouth because it is reinforcing the lies. I reasoned he either does not know, what makes him a bit ignorant on the topics, or he knows, but he wants to reach the normies and delving into the hoax aspects of those things is a bridge to far. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

As I said in my previous post; most of us here would warn Simon if he were to do an interview/project with for example Alex Jones or David Icke. Sure, we have not seen the contracts between these two and TPTB, so can we say they are disinfo agents for sure? No. But still, we would warn Simon and he (I reason based on how I see Simon) would take those warnings as advice from his readers as a positive thing and base his action on his subsequent investigation into that person and our advice. We want to prevent Simon and therefore the forum and all that it has uncovered to be free of anything that can make people say 'aaah, but Simon is here on Illuminati TV talking to Alex Jones, so he must be a shill'.

I know. This is not how it is supposed to work and people can make mistakes with regard to the people they trust, sure, I admit that. The thing that is bothering me is his reaction; the way Larken dismisses the people warning him, the way he aggressively mocks them. These are the people that have bought his book, that fell for the constant asking for money in his videos, the ones who recommend him to friends and family. They are critical thinkers, a relatively small group of people that have removed part of the brainwashing, and they are to be taken serious. To shame them into agreeing with you is, to say it mildly, a sign of bad character. I feel, however, it is sadly a bit more than that, but time will tell.
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Farcevalue »

Thank you Nefilimp, for that measured and reasoned response. Quite refreshing after recent experiences in other forums. I do not know personally any of the people I mentioned in my previous post, so cannot vouch for their character or intentions. But their ideas for the most part I consider to be sound. I am on the fence as to the level of harm the current regimen of injections is bringing to those that have had them. Vaxageddon could be part of the overall psyop, or possibly a =countermeasure to make reality seem tame by comparison. Berwick promotes this, so that could be a tell. Or crypto could be a tell. I am on the fence about that as well. That said, money is one of the biggest psyops of all, so why wouldn't people be working on an alternative? I don't like giving the controllers credit for creativity, I am of they opinion that they can only co-opt, buyout or destroy/discredit potential threats to the system, but I have no way of confirming this.

Statism is yet another psyop, working hand in hand with the media, sports, entertainment, academia, medicine, religion....it's a long list. Media fakery is just an introduction. I have been spending time as of late studying psychology to gain more insight into the mechanism at work that keeps otherwise savvy people in a state of credulity or even willful denial. I stumbled across Alice MIller and her work in analyzing what she calls "poisonous pedagogy." So, in many cases parenting can be added to the mix of psyops as well, although that would be more by custom than design. Speaking for myself, I know it is often easy to forget how far down the well of discovery I have been in the past fifteen or so years, and have to remind myself that it is almost certain that anyone I am likely to interact with has never considered the first thing about any of this. I can't say whether I would decline an invitation to be a guest on the Alex Jones show, even knowing full well what his role is, given the off chance that my comments may inspire listeners to delve further. I (yes, I will admit it) was an AJ listener once upon a time.

I get your point about weighing the cost to benefit of being associated with personalities that are known (by some, but very view in the grand scheme of things) to be covert servants of the regime. I can reserve judgment of those that decide on a course I may have rejected. There are a great many cracks in the facade of the system that I am hoping will soon be too obvious to ignore. I also understand that denial can never be underestimated. Nevertheless, nowadays a comment dropped into a conversation that may have engendered ridicule and even hostility fifteen years ago might just as likely be met with nods of assent and knowing looks today. Not a tipping point just yet, but I am cautiously optimistic.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Mansur »

Farcevalue wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:48 pm His view is patently anti-state and anyone here who has an issue with being anti-state will have to provide their most compelling arguments in favor of statism. I look forward hearing them.
It's very likely, since all modern propaganda seems to work like that, that both sides are lying. They both may have 'good points', so debates can go on as long as it seems useful. (Lying is not something that can be done with full awareness, it has to be believed in some way. What does psychology say about such things? ) Maybe it is worth a definition or two: what the hell is 'statism'? And its counterpart, 'anti-statism'? I have no idea what's nowadays going on in the US media, but: has there been happening some fundamental change in government strategy in general that required the creation of these new terms?

Well, state and government are not the same. There could be a state without a government. For a state, it is not a requirement to have a government. The state, as its name implies, is a state that persists, and the government, modern government, is the one that interferes incessantly. 'Change' (or 'progress' as they prefer to call their underground activity) is the watchword of all modern governments. Which means that, in this matter, this distinction is the most cardinal!

By comparison, this man, through an entire book as it seems, is trying to confuse these two things most effectively.

There is no way, I said, to change the obedience of the masses or peoples to power. Such a demand is a nonsense – or daydreaming. It is a matter of conscience for each individual, however, to decide to what ends he or she will apply his or her obedience. Conscience is a personal matter par excellence, which cannot be organized in any way. (This is the meaning of freedom, by the way. If you 'choose' freedom you are already in their trap. Freedom is something you have, not something you are given.) And: is it not a kind of religiosity to stand up and tell the congregation the story of your conversion ('awakening')? Let alone to give sermons of conversion with almost the same attitude? Instead, the question should here be directed towards: whom or what does power itself obey. Since power is not a 'self-existent', is it? And without a legitimate question there is no legitimate answer.

As far as religion is concerned: today's 'religious communities' are completely beyond the pale of being rightly called religious; I think everyone knows this by now, and it is this 'common knowledge' that Rose is building on in the quote. To try to manufacture concepts (and definitions) from current practice would be sheer arbitrariness and most often the product of some animosity. I would like to remind, however, of the simple fact that, first and foremost, all the great figures of history have been strongly religious beings, and that this is not one of the qualities of their being whose value can be questioned, but the very soul of their being, - and, secondly, that a whole millennium has been spent in the spirit of this something, a period which cannot and must not be in any way paralleled with the repressive regimes of today. – So you may be absolutely right with your definitions, and obviously any modern definition would confirm you, but it's a bit more complex than people would like today.
____

It's inconceivable that someone who has been in the 'conspiracy-oppositional' market or field for years or even decades and don't hear things about 9/11, the 'terrorism' stuff in general, - as well as the 'nuclear weapons' and 'space exploration' stuff etc. A public figure has the right not to talk about these things (maybe not having time researching them or for any reason), then, however, he should avoid the whole subject entirely - if he has a grain of honesty in him.

It should also be noted that Rose's mentality, his manners, is strikingly vulgar and debased, and if one accepts this as a legitimate form of 'communication', one exposes oneself to any of the insidious influences ever devised in the holy name of 'reason'. And this may have something to do with his Jewish origin... Because the real influences of 'Talmudism' today is not manifested in the field of religion so-called and related issues (which cover after all a miniscule only of the public life today) but everywhere where Jewish dominance is usually spoken of.

Lastly, although the interpretation of 'body language' may not be one of the 'exact sciences,' for those who are not necessarily a fan of the guy or the issues he represents nor that of his dialectical counterpart, the YT video above could provide a veritable introduction to this science.
_____________________________________

It may have some apropos here to paste here this short passage from one of the early books of Powys:
…It will be remarked that in my list of the primordial energies of the complex vision I do not mention religion. This is not because I do not recognize the passionate and formidable role played by religion in the history of the human race, nor because I regard the "religious instinct" as a thing outgrown and done with. I have not included it because I cannot regard it as a distinct and separate attribute, in the sense in which reason, conscience, intuition and so forth, are distinct and separate attributes, of the complex vision.

I regard it as a name given in common usage to certain premature and disproportioned efforts at co-ordination among these attributes, and I am well content to apply the word "religion" to that sacred ecstasy, at once passionate and calm, at once personal and impersonal, which suffuses our being with an unutterable happiness when the energies of the complex vision are brought into focus. I regard the word religion as a word that has drawn and attracted to itself, in its descent down the stream of time, so rich and so intricate a cargo of human feelings that it has come to mean too many things to be any longer of specific value in a philosophical analysis.

Any sort of reaction against the primeval fear with which man contemplates the unknown, is religion. The passionate craving of human beings for a love which changes not nor passes away, is religion.

The desperate longing to find an idea, a principle, a truth, a "cause," for the sake of which we can sacrifice our personal pleasure and our personal selfishness, is religion.

The craving for some unity, some synthesis, some universal meaning in the system of things, is religion. The desire for an "over-life" or an "over-world," in which the distress, disorder, misunderstandings and cruelties of our present existence are redeemed, is religion.

The desire to find something real and eternal behind the transient flow of appearance, is religion. The desire to force upon others by violence, by trickery, by fire, by sword, by persecution, by magic, by persuasion, by eloquence, by martyrdom, an idea which is more important to us than life itself, is religion.

It will be seen from this brief survey of the immense field which the word "religion" has come to cover, that I am justified in regarding it rather as a name given to the emotional thrill and ecstatic abandonment which accompanies any sort of co-ordination of the attributes of the complex vision, proportioned or disproportioned, than as a distinct and separate attribute in itself…
__________________

As to the new title of the thread: I think and have always thought that there is no and cannot be any regular presence on any media platform whatsoever of legitimate 'oppositional' view. Maybe not only the power/propaganda would close meticulously any single door to it - and this time not only for the show but I mean completely so you will never hear anymore anything about it or him - but also their public, or simply: the public, would do the same.

The small item linked by Simon assumes that there are, or have been - let's say for the last hundred years - genuine, self-organising 'opposing' groups, 'activist movements' as the blogger says, into which the agents of power could then infiltrate etc. That is what naivety is. Naivety - - or lying.

As our Uncle Lenin said: the best way to control the opposition is to LEAD it. 'Which part is not clear'? to ask the fashionable question. In modern propaganda techniques, even Lenin et al. could look back about a hundred years of development. Now, another century has passed since then.

Power/propaganda has organised all of today's modern 'opposition groups' from day one. I think this is what should be meant by 'controlled opposition'; but the term is a bit misleading, there should be better ones...
Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: Larken Rose & Russell Brand - Guilty By Association

Unread post by Nefilimp »

I agree that it is daydreaming to think the masses will give up their reliance on power ruling them; complying is very easy and when you can look away, focus on the pretty colours on your smartphone/LED TV it is perfectly doable for most of the population. Besides, everyone is doing it, so it must be normal. Of course, some need a few happy pills to be able to survive this mad house, but hey; that is also normal, right?

Your post has shed some more light on Larken his background; I, for instance, did not know he is Jewish. And you are right; when you have been part of the truth/lies movement for such a long time, it is best to steer away from subjects like 911/hoax attacks and so on if you have not investigated them. It is a tell when they do mention it and then repeat the official story. That makes you either naïve, ignorant, or helping to cement the official story.

For people new to the world of conspiracies reading this; it is almost impossible to state with 100% certainty that someone is controlled by TPTB unless you have access to signed contracts. The ones concerned won't tell you straight up, but they do, however, give us clues and these can be;
  • using occult certain symbols like the pyramid/eye in their logo/website
  • they let themselves be photographed in certain poses that are known Freemason poses
  • they let themselves be photographed doing the one eye/Baphomet/666 sign
  • associating with other 'truthers' that are also suspected to be controlled
  • repeating the official narrative or supporting proven disinfo theories like F.E.
  • reluctance to talk about certain topic and mocking people who bring them up
  • pushing the organized religion fairytale
Have I missed a clue?
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Controlled Opp - or (unjustly) tainted by association?

Unread post by Mansur »

(The new thread title only appears at the top of the page.)

That the more or less unconditional obedience of the masses, or even of peoples and nations, to power cannot be changed, I did not mean that this is because of the current situation, but that this is the state of human society at any given time - and there is no reason why it should be changed, even if it could be. 'Daydreaming' is a general characteristic of reformers at any time, not just those of today.

I didn't say 'Rose is Jewish', or I didn't say it like that. And there's absolutely no need to 'pin' someone down as 'shill' 'controlled' and all the rest, especially when we know they can't be anything else. (These are all terms cooked up in the witch's kitchen of propaganda, so if one feels an inner need to use them, let alone to incite others to do so, one is actively participating in propaganda, whether one wants to or not, whether one knows it or not.) And it adds and takes nothing away from it knowing that he has 0.666 square feet of Bahomet tattooed around his butt-hole with a single eye fixed on the beholder...
Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: Controlled Opp - or (unjustly) tainted by association?

Unread post by Nefilimp »

You must also be daydreaming;
Mansur wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:43 am I didn't say 'Rose is Jewish', or I didn't say it like that.
In the previous post you said this;
And this may have something to do with his Jewish origin...
Then in the post before;
In the case of Mr Rose, I think it quite appropriate to make reference here to his obvious Jewish origins, - in the case of the other gentleman, maybe not so much...
So what is it, Mansur.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Controlled Opp - or (unjustly) tainted by association?

Unread post by Mansur »

Being Jewish and being of Jewish descent are two very different things... The first is not what we are dealing with here, I have phrased it accordingly.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Controlled Opp - or (unjustly) tainted by association?

Unread post by simonshack »

Nefilimp wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:12 pm You must also be daydreaming;
Mansur wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:43 am I didn't say 'Rose is Jewish', or I didn't say it like that.
:lol:

Reminds me of this old track of mine...
https://septclues.com/AUDIO%20FILES/ALL ... AMLAND.mp3
Post Reply