We need to talk about controlled opposition
If you're in the alternative space, everybody (eventually) becomes someone you should not trust. Why is that?
Controlled opposition refers to a tactic where those in power secretly create or control a fake dissenting group or figure to divert attention from real threats, manipulate public opinion, and preserve their dominance by steering narratives away from genuine resistance.
Peter McCullough: bro, I don’t trust him.
Zev Zelenko: controlled opposition (when he was alive).
Whitney Webb: totally limited hangout.
Tom Cowan: chaos agent, bro.
Alex Jones: hahahaha!
Nick Hudson: lol what a grifter.
Even I’ve been labelled a limited hangout.
The list is endless and it’s a big problem. For some reason, many individuals in the alternative/dissident media space end up attacking their own and it’s embarrassing.
The Art of War specifically recommends sowing division and conflict within the enemy so they fight amongst themselves.
And we’re doing just that to ourselves, without any help from the establishment—the real enemy.
It’s friendly fire.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
— Sun Tzu
I don’t know why this happens—I’m not sure if it’s organic, by design, or a bit of both.
It’s probably a bit of both.
Either way, it’s a tragedy.
We can’t win small battles, let alone an information war, if we’re attacking everybody on our side.
Yes, controlled opposition is real
Firstly, controlled opposition is real.
Secondly, not all opposition is controlled.
Thirdly, if it’s always the other person who is controlled (and never you), it might be you who is being controlled or you’ve fallen into a trap.
The third point is of particular interest to me.
What if “Truth Seeker” is controlled opposition?
How would we know?
After all, it’s always the other person, right? Plus, “Truth Seeker” is anonymous and couldn’t possibly be part of an intelligence operation, right?
Why would “Truth Seeker” make such a claim, anyway?
What is his goal?
What does he want to achieve by it?
And what is his evidence on which he categorically plays the man and not the ball?
Playing the man and not the ball is woke.
And it’s intellectually lazy.
My point is that just because someone has a different take doesn’t make them controlled opposition.
“Yes, but, Jerm, controlled opposition is about infusing truth with lies.”
Sure.
But there are any number of reasons why people believe certain things.
It’s thanks to Alex Jones that I questioned Sandy Hook. Almost nobody that I know dares to question Sandy Hook. He was the first broadcaster that I know of to question 9/11. I mean, he questioned it on the day it happened.
Here is the full broadcast:
Has Alex said other stuff which I consider to be nonsense?
Absolutely.
But why?
Why do people in the alternative/dissident media space attack their own?
I think there are psychological aspects worth studying:
Ego
Arrogance
Jealousy
Projection
Virtue signalling
Tribalism
For example, I suspect that ego plays a big role. We all want to be on the vanguard. We all want to be ahead of the curve. We all want to be viewed as important. We all want to appear knowledgeable.
We all want to be right.
Furthermore, jealousy is part of the human condition.
Anybody who gains any degree of success—whether financial or social—suddenly becomes a “sellout” or “grifter”.
Additionally, when you go on to social media to proudly proclaim that Peter McCullough is controlled opposition, what are you actually doing?
I’ll answer that.
You are virtue signalling.
You are looking for others who might agree with you and come to high-five you in the replies. You are standing at the street corner and shouting at everyone about the world ending. You are projecting to others that you believe you know something they don’t. You are projecting your own fears and insecurities.
And no, you are not “warning” anybody of anything. You don’t have a monopoly on truth.
Peter was on my podcast right at the beginning of the Covid era, and he offered some very valuable knowledge at the time.
What I’m trying to say is best encapsulated by Bruce Lee:
Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.
— Bruce Lee
I care more about the ideas than whether somebody gets funding from The Wellness Company.
If I find the ideas valuable, I absorb them. If I don’t find the ideas valuable, I discard them. As a result, I feel more enlightened and can confidently explain to you why I believe that contagion is a myth and, therefore, why there was no viral pandemic (whether from a lab or from a bat).
I think that Whitney Webb’s Epstein research is the best in the world. (No, she didn’t plagiarise Ryan Dawson’s work.) I also think that her Palantir research is the best in the world. At the same time, I don’t think her takes on 9/11 and Covid are particularly convincing. So, as Bruce Lee recommended, I absorb her Epstein and Palantir research and discard her 9/11 and Covid takes.
Easy.
Win-win.
In other words, I don’t care about “controlled opposition”.
After all, it wasn’t the “uncontrolled” opposition that led me to question Sandy Hook, Epstein, germ theory and more. Or it might have been here and there. I can’t remember. I don’t care. I’m just happy I questioned those things. And still question things.
These purity tests are childish.
Let’s assume that Tucker Carlson is controlled opposition.
Okay.
Cool.
Now what?
Well, what happens now is that you become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I fight in the battle of ideas, not in the battle of individuals.
There definitely is an intellectually lazy way at "attacking" people in the "truth" sphere, but also, let's remember Dr David A. Hughes' 3 camps of truth awareness...
Camp 1 - The government narrative
Camp 2 - The government approved counter narrative, filled with truth tellers, that don't tell you the full truth, it's also filled with charlatans and operatives to muddle up the truth and most truth seekers get stuck in camp two.
Camp 3 - The uncomfortable truth, where the truth gets ridiculed, censored and the algorithms make sure you don't get to camp three easily.
Remember the "freedom of speech, limited reach" on X?
A very large proportion of the alt media heads fall in camp 2.
I particularly have an issue, when you reach out to these alt media talking heads with information that counters the narrative they push and seeing that I specialize in the provable government approved counter narrative of 9/11, that is the bomb, thermite and nuke narratives, I have seen it with multiple alt media talking heads that are completely unwilling to be open to the fact that they have been deceived.
When it comes to 9/11 Jerm, you are camp 3...
Your 9/11 podcasts are what people should watch.
Link: https://www.jermwarfare.com/tag/9-11/
Alex Jones is a SOLID camp 2 and recently he even LIED in a comment to me on X, which I discuss and show in this article;
Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, Tucker Carlson & 9/11
Two Camp 2 Talking Heads and an Actor Failing at Presenting 9/11 Truth
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/alex-jones-charlie-sheen-tucker-carlson
Tucker Carlson also fell very short in his 5 part series covering 9/11, but he showed he knows more than he's letting on and especially his episode 4 was very telling on what he is hiding.
I broke it down in my coverage of that episode of his series.
The Tucker Carlson 9/11 Files | Ep 4
An Alternative Media Talking Head's Mission in Uncovering 9/11 Truth Gone Wrong
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-tucker-carlson-911-files-ep-4
A couple of alt media talking heads / influencers are waking up to the camp 3, 9/11 truth...
Dr Mike Yeadon getting stuck into 9/11 truth
The ex-Pfizer scientist is about to find the truth of the events on September 11, 2001
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-getting-stuck-into
People really need to understand how the deceit around 9/11 has played out over the last 24 years and is still playing out, as good intentioned truth seekers are funding the greater cover-up of the truth by the "trusted experts" in the 9/11 truth movement.
If you can notice those patterns, it's easier for people to see those same patterns emerging in this health freedom truth movement post cv-19 and all the other distractions that we are getting bombarded with.
Dr David A. Hughes interview with 9/11 Revisionist
Narrative vs. evidence; Morgan Reynolds; Mark Conlon; Shanksville; the Pentagon; Curt Weldon; survivors on Stairwell B; Richard Gage; Camp 2 propaganda techniques; the 9/11 Memorial Museum.
Interview: https://911revision.substack.com/p/david-hughes-on-the-importance-of
Your statement - "If I find the ideas valuable, I absorb them. If I don’t find the ideas valuable, I discard them." - Is a good way of approaching talking heads in the alt sphere.
I do have a problem with them, when they are shown their blind spots and they then refuse to change their minds. That's disingenuous and not a mark of a true truth seeker, or then maybe the alt media talking head might just have an agenda.
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Then you will be absorbing the propaganda and as we all know your "automatic brain" (AB) will register the effect the propagandist wants you to. You cannot control your AB or use logic to override it.
You can see this effect every day in advertising. The only way to avoid it is to avoid the source.
If I catch someone in a deliberate lie or misleading me I don't listen to them again.