The controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop - Part 1

We have a problem. Those of us who question power—as everyone should—are undoubtedly under the sustained attack of the Establishment. But recognising how we are manipulated by propaganda and agents of the state comes at a price. Our own suspicions can work against us.

The recent trial of Richard D. Hall has highlighted our affliction. The most important aspect of Hall’s investigative journalism, one we should never lose sight of, is that he broke a story of such immense gravitas that it could shake the Establishment—and the state the Establishment runs for its own benefit—like nothing before. But this will only happen if the general public are aware of it.

Yet, instead of capitalising on this moment of opportunity, the people who question power are seemingly divided and have effectively hobbled themselves. Some accuse Hall of being a state asset who has facilitated draconian rulings and opened the door for potentially dictatorial legislation. Others blame what they deem the suspicious silence of the leading UK independent media outlets, accusing them of being intelligence agency stooges who have hung a good man out to dry.

None of this is of any practical value, all of it is tantamount to irrelevant and only the Establishment and the state benefit from it. Crucially, by indulging in this internal wrangling we are all in danger of allowing the vital evidence to remain hidden from our fellow citizens. The Manchester Arena bombing was a hoaxed false flag. There was no bomb! People need to know this.

Following the alleged 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, in 2020 Richard D. Hall published a book and an accompanying documentary film where he reported the evidence which shows the purported bombing was, almost certainly, a hoaxed false flag terrorist attack. The key here is the evidence he reported. It was damning of the “official story.”

While Hall used some of the research of other pseudonymous investigators, it was Richard D. Hall who first put a cohesive and compelling narrative together and presented the critical evidence to a notably larger audience. As a direct result, Hall came under lawfare attack at the hands of the Establishment.

Hall never did anything wrong, he did not break the journalistic code of ethics and there was never any legitimate basis for the claim made against him. All speculation to the contrary is misinformed and misplaced. The basis for the litigation was fabricated out of whole cloth by the Establishment.

By analyzing the Bickerstaff Video, Hall proved that it could not have been filmed after the purported time of the bombing and was shot before the bomb was said to have detonated. This provided clear evidence of foreknowledge and of the presence of crisis actors operating in the Arena that night.

Hall’s extensive examination of the Barr Footage—video of the bomb scene shot in the immediate aftermath of the bombing—revealed there was no evidence of any structural damage nor any of injuries consistent with a large TATP shrapnel bomb exploding in a crowd of people. He demonstrated that other crisis actors were active in and around the so-called bomb scene.

Hall subsequently scrutinised the evidence presented in the official Saunders Inquiry of the Manchester Arena bombing. He showed that the described circumstances of the deaths of some of the deceased victims were false. Hall reported further evidence, including leaked police communications, clearly indicating that Salman Abedi—the alleged suicide bomber—did not kill himself.

Hall demonstrated that there was no evidence to support the states “official story” of the Manchester Attack. All the available observable physical evidence in the public domain currently appears to rule out the possibility that there was a bomb in the City Room of the Manchester Arena on the evening of the 22nd May 2017.

That there was “no bomb” can be said to be a “fact” because the statement is supported by all of the primary, observable evidence. Other evidence may come to light which accounts for this evidence and somehow supports the Establishment’s story about a bombing. For example, there may be a rational explanation, conducive to the state’s account, which explains why there is no observable physical evidence of any structural damage in the City Room of the Manchester Arena four minutes after the large TATP shrapnel bomb is said to have exploded in it. At the time of writing, no such rational explanation has been offered.

Based upon the currently available evidence, we can say that there was no bomb and that the Establishment’s account of the Manchester Arena bombing is entirely false. It is up to those who contend there was a bomb to provide some evidence to support their claim. The only way anyone can do this is to address the evidence reported by Hall and account for what it clearly shows.

It should be glaringly obvious to anyone who has followed Hall’s subsequent trial, conducted in both the legacy media and the High Court, that the Establishment has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to avoid addressing any of the evidence Hall reported. It is abundantly clear that the Establishment is desperately suppressing that evidence and it should not be beyond the wit of independent journalists to figure out why.

The Manchester Arena bombing was a state orchestrated hoaxed false flag event. This, above all else, is the fact we all need to scream from the rooftops.

A significant number of people are aware of the many unresolved questions that hang over major terror attacks, such as 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK. Academic research shows that 28% of the British public are sceptical about the “official story” of the Manchester Arena bombing. There is certainly a potentially large audience open to considering the evidence if it is reported to them. While the balance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that 9/11 and 7/7 were also false flag attacks, the evidence Hall reported, in regard to Manchester Arena, stands apart.

Hall’s investigative journalism provided practically irrefutable evidence that Manchester was a hoaxed false flag. The observable physical evidence that Hall examined and his reported findings are conclusive. His investigative journalism provides us with a cogent analysis of hard, observable physical evidence—that still remains in the public domain—which shows, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Manchester was a hoaxed false flag.

Forget the Profumo affair, the September dossier, party-gate, etc. These UK political scandals pale into insignificance compared to the story broken by Richard D. Hall. From the British Establishment’s UK state perspectives, Hall’s journalism is the most devastating exposé it has ever been forced to confront.

Many of us know what a horrendous crime the Covid pseudopandemic was. Some understand how the state, or elements within the state, use false flag terrorism to manipulate us through the strategy of tension. Others can see the oppressive use of propaganda and deception the state commonly relies upon to coerce our behaviour and many people are justifiably concerned about the digital dictatorship and the biosecurity state of exception that is currently being constructed in Britain.

For those of us who are wish to oppose these and other worrying sociopolitical developments, the investigative journalism of Richard D. Hall has presented us with an unprecedented opportunity. Perhaps for the first time, we can now virtually prove, to the wider general public, the true nature of the British Establishment and the UK state that criminally rules us all. We can demonstrate, with hard verifiable evidence, that the benevolent state is a fiction. Now is not the time to prevaricate.

If we really care about our shared society and if we are serious about exposing the self-serving rule of the Establishment, if we are genuinely willing to stand up for truth and justice, we cannot afford to passively allow this opportunity to pass us by. We must act and we can use the evidence reported by Hall to make a real difference.

Unfortunately, so entrenched have we evidently become within what I’ve disparagingly called the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop, it is apparent that many of us cannot see the wood for the trees. Too many are hesitant when we should be forthright.

At the very instance we could break the public opinion stranglehold of the Establishment and its legacy media, we are faltering. This pair of articles, and the accompanying video, are intended to encourage everyone, who wants to see humanity thrive free from subjugation, to use Hall’s journalism for its intended purpose: to expose the state crimes of the Establishment.

Specifically, this is a call to the leading UK independent media outlets to realise the potential of the weapon Hall has put in your hands and to use it against the enemy you all rage against. Please do not be cowered by the Establishment’s lawfare attack on Hall. There is nothing legitimate about any aspect of it.

The video in Part 2 is critical of the reporting of the Manchester Attack and Hall’s trial by the influential UK independent media outlet UK Column. Particularly the Column’s evident reluctance to report the Manchester Hoax evidence. But the same criticism can be made of other leading UK independent outlets. I am not suggesting any deliberate obstruction by UK Column’s nor by any other independent media platform or commentator. I am suggesting misplaced hesitancy and possible confusion. This will be more fully explained—I hope—in Part 2.

There is no truther movement, there are no conspiracy theorists and there is no identifiable community of people who spread “disinformation.” All of these concepts are the artificial constructs of state propagandists. There is only us, the people.

According to the Science™, the definition of a “conspiracy theory” is simply this:

[A] “conspiracy theory” is an explanation that conflicts with the account advanced by the relevant epistemic authorities. [. . .] A conspiracy theory that conflicts with the official story, where the official story is the explanation offered by the (relevant) epistemic authorities, is prima facie unwarranted. [. . .] The relevant epistemic authorities [are] the distributed network of knowledge claim gatherers and testers that includes engineers and politics professors, security experts and journalists.

The “epistemic authorities” comprise merely of some academics, some experts and some journalists. Their only qualification to be considered an “epistemic authority” is that they promote the “official story” or official “account.” In other words, these are the people who unquestioningly protect the interests of the Establishment and its state.

The “epistemic authorities” are the representatives of the Establishment. Succinctly, a conspiracy theorist is anyone who questions the Establishment. This is the truth according to the official Science™.

Demographic research demonstrates that the people who question authoritarian power are not separate or distinct from the general population. From every ethnicity, faith and age group, across the academic and intellectual spectrum, from all professions and encompassing all political persuasions, there are no identifying characteristics to differentiate these people. There are no conspiracy theorist leaders, no shared political goals, no organisation or even a common perspective held by the people the Establishment labels as conspiracy theorists.

At any moment, anyone could find themselves targeted as a conspiracy theorist by the Establishment and its state, just as Richard D. Hall has been targeted. Suggesting we collectively comprise some sort of “movement” is merely to echo the Establishment’s divide and conquer propaganda narrative.

Unlike their legacy media counterparts, independent journalists do not serve the Establishment. They are free to question the Establishment and have found an audience among all the other people who also reserve and exercise this right. The Internet has enabled independent journalists to monetise their work—outside of centralised editorial control—from the voluntary contributions of their audience. The independent media relays information, reports evidence, and offers opinions to a burgeoning audience. It is set within this context that we should understand the lawfare attack on Hall.

The Establishment is acutely concerned that public trust in the legacy media—which it refers to as its gatekeepers of news and information—is being eroded by independent journalism’s relatively small but lengthening reach. The Establishment is scared it could lose control of information and will not be able to manipulate mass public opinions as it once did.

The pinnacle of the global Establishment—the United Nations (UN)—discussed the Establishment’s fears in its 2022 Information Mapping Report:

As information becomes more accessible, it also becomes more open to influences from non-traditional actors in the infosphere. [. . .] As a consequence, the traditional actors and gatekeepers of information and news — established media and government institutions — are struggling to compete with this new reality.

The story of the hoaxed Manchester false flag, which could not be of greater public interest or more damaging to the Establishment, has only been reported by Hall and one other leading voice in the UK independent media—the OffGuardian. Others, such as myself, who have highlighted the Manchester evidence, do not have any kind of media presence unless amplified by the bigger platforms.

Nonetheless, the only media reporting the Manchester hoaxed false flag evidence is the independent media. The legacy media has, as usual, worked hand in hand with the Establishment to suppress it.

If the leading British independent outlets, such as Ickonic, UK Column, the Light, UNN and others, do not run this story and expose the evidence to as wide an audience as possible, they will miss an unparalleled chance to massively increase their audience share? What will be the public’s likely reaction when they realise that a story of such enormous importance was hidden by the legacy media but openly reported by the independent media?

Despite all their excellent work on the Covid crime, manufactured wars, the climate scam and more, as yet the independent media remains largely obscured from the general public’s view. Unlike the reporting of these sprawling, multifaceted investigations—each demanding prolonged audience engagement with a complex evidence base—the Manchester hoaxed false flag evidence can be packaged as a short, sharp and shocking story. Reporting it will potentially provide a piercing and invaluable audience breakthrough.

Everyone who works in the independent media space recognises we are under attack. Hall’s trial brings the onslaught of the Establishment into excruciating focus.

For the largest UK independent media outlets, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by reporting the Manchester hoax evidence. It is perhaps surprising that so many have failed to report the worst political scandal in British history.

It is true that Hall’s trial has set an appalling precedent and it is equally true that the clear intention is to use the ruling as the basis for legislation that will effectively end investigative journalism in the UK. But that is all the more reason to expose the charade, not simply go along with it.

By reporting the evidence of the Manchester hoax, the claimed foundation of the verdict against Hall is removed. That’s why the High Court barred Hall from submitting the evidence in his trial. It could not have possibly justified the verdict had it not. If the Manchester hoax is reported, and if Hall’s role as the journalist that first exposed it is emphasised, then what basis will the Establishment have for using its outrageous case precedent to further curtail free speech?

Of course, independent media reports won’t immediately deter the Establishment from pursuing its deleterious course, but if sufficient audience awareness is raised the evidence will leak into the mainstream. At that point the Establishment will have to at least address the hoaxed false flag evidence. As things currently stand, they are able proceed along their path towards the draconian censorship of investigative journalism comforted by the fact they have hidden the evidence from the general public merely by pretending there isn’t any.

The counter-argument I have heard is that the Manchester hoax evidence is not compelling, that the Bickerstaff video, the Barr footage, the CCTV evidence, the police chatter, etc., does not prove that Manchester was a hoax. Again, this is no reason not to report it.

Leaving aside that the Establishment’s courts have refused to even acknowledge the existence of this evidence, even the most ardent defender of the state cannot deny how this evidence starkly contradicts the official story. At the very least, informing the public that this evidence is real would be a good start. No media outlet has to draw a definitive conclusion if they are not convinced by it. Let the public decide for themselves once they have been made aware of the evidence.

Another argument against reporting the Manchester evidence is that Hall, the OffGuardian and others—like myself— have already reported it and, therefore, there is no need for the largest UK independent media outlets to bother. This is presumably based on the assumption that audiences don’t have their favourite outlets, that a story reported by one is automatically known by all and, most notably, that the most significant UK political scandal ever is of little or no interest to these outlets own audiences.

While some of these larger outlets, such as UK Column, have indeed highlighted Hall’s trial and have directed their audience to his website, as far as I am aware, none have informed their audience why Hall contends there was no bomb. Indeed, some have stopped short of even mentioning that he says there was no bomb.

This seeming resistance to reporting the Manchester evidence overlooks the reality of the situation we all find ourselves in. The case precedent set by Justice Karen Steyn, firmly based on the precept that there is no evidence exposing the Manchester hoaxed false flag, is undoubtedly going to be used to censor every independent media outlet and journalist, not just those who have reported the evidence of the hoax.

Similarly, the proposed “Eve’s Law”—intended to remove freedom of speech from so-called conspiracy theorists—is again based on the idea that dangerous subversives target innocent victims for no reason. Surely, the best way to expose this gibberish and undermine the push for this pernicious legislation, is to report the evidence which proves this assertion the baseless drivel it is.

The point is that everyone who exercises the right to question power is impacted by the ruling in Hall’s case and exercising that right will soon become a highly litigious affair if the envisaged “Eve’s Law” is enacted. Everyone is in this fight, even the vast swath of the general public who currently know little to nothing about any of it. The reporting of the Manchester evidence is our collective best defence and, if we don’t all get on with it, no one in the UK will be able to criticise or report anything the Establishment doesn’t approve of in the not so distant future.

Instead of engaging in the vital task of reporting the evidence, for various reasons, the independent media appears to have largely collapsed into inaction. None of us, familiar with Hall’s case or not, can afford to ignore the Manchester hoax.

Some independent media commentators seem to think Hall did something to warrant the Establishment’s attack. Others suggest he made errors of judgement that brought about the litigation. A few have gone as far as to allege he may be some sort of state asset who deliberately acted to instigate the lawfare against himself.

For example, some say Hall “spied on a disabled teenage girl” and, whether intentional or not, this invited the lawfare. We could certainly say, with the enormous benefit of hindsight, it may have been a tactical error on Hall’s part to not fully consider the potential optics when he reported his actions.

But it is holding Hall to an impossibly high standard to expect him to have conducted years of investigative journalism, bringing together, analysing and reporting a huge body of evidence, and still manage to precisely predict how propagandists and venal courts would illegitimately spin one minor aspect of his journalism years after he first published it. He’s an independent journalist, he’s not omniscient.

Of course, by saying Hall “spied on a disabled teenage girl,” rather than recognising what investigative journalism sometimes entails, these independent commentators are doing the propagandists work for them. The same is true for other commentators who attack Hall, or cast aspersions upon his character, instead hammering home the most crucial fact he reported: Manchester was a hoaxed false flag!

I am not, for one second, suggesting that people shouldn’t be free to express their opinion about Hall, or anyone else. Nor am I “telling” people what they should believe about Manchester. As ever, I maintain it is up to each and every one of us to consider the evidence presented and deduce the facts ourselves and form our own opinions.

Nonetheless, If people are going to offer no evidence to support their allegations I equally reserve the right to treat their speculative, counterproductive opinions with the disdain I think they deserve.

As the current situations stands, with the seemingly inexplicable failure of many of the UK’s leading independent media outlets to report the Manchester hoax evidence, and while other independent media pundits engage in pointless self-defeating musings, the Establishment, whose evident purpose is to permanently conceal the Manchester evidence from the general public, can sit back and watch its only genuine critics do absolutely nothing. It doesn’t necessarily need to run a controlled opposition psychological operation—psyop. At least, not while the independent media is apparently doing its bidding willingly.

One of the costs of knowing what a controlled opposition psyop is, and being aware of the prolific use of the cointel-psyop by the Establishment’s state, is that it can make us a bit paranoid. We run the risk of assuming someone is controlled opposition simply because we disagree with them or disapprove of something they have or have not done.

I suggest, to protect ourselves from this folly, we should stick firmly to analysing the evidence. Personally, I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of the larger independent media outlets I have criticised are “controlled opposition.” If they were, all the outstanding work they have done to expose the British Establishment and numerous UK state crimes would be dumbfounding.

From the Establishment’s perspective, what could be the possible value of running controlled opposition if it actually serves as your genuine nemesis. I confess, I have never quite grasped the arguments of those who see controlled opposition everywhere when they level that accusation against independent journalists or outlets who have quite clearly reported the evidence of state crimes.

Most of these outlets have been attacked by the Establishment, though perhaps not to the extent Hall has. Despite the Establishment’s alleged convoluted, multi-dimensional chess manoeuvres, as suggested by the controlled opposition narrative pushers, applying Occam’s razor suggest to me that the Establishment is opposed to these media outlets. It is evidently dead set against Hall’s journalism.

Part of the controlled opposition claims levelled against Hall proffers that the extensive legacy media coverage of Hall’s trial somehow constitutes evidence that he is controlled opposition. This is an absurd contention in my view, and shows a remarkable ignorance about both the trial and the mainstream reporting of it. I’ll cover this in Part 2.

Having said all that, there must be something to account for the almost total refusal of the major UK independent media outlets to report the biggest British political scandal ever to cross their desks. What could possibly explain this apparently woeful lack of media savvy?

These outlets are not controlled opposition in my view and I offer what I am calling the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop theory to potentially account for their oversight. With an accompanying video—focusing upon UK Column’s coverage of Manchester and Hall’s trial—I will hopefully explain and illustrate my “controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop” theory in Part 2.