The controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop video update

Odysee video available here:

I have recently written two articles proposing what I call the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop. Please read Part 1 and Part 2.

Essentially, my theory is that acceptance of a few Establishment allegations combines with reasonable suspicion that controlled opposition psyops are underway to lead some in the independent media, and some members of the independent media audience, to see controlled opposition everywhere, despite the lack of evidence to elicit any speculation. Thus, the Establishment does not necessarily need to run controlled opposition in order to sow discord and confusion.

I am firmly of the belief that the recent ruling in the trial of Richard D. Hall has brought us to the sharp end of the process described by Dr David Hughes as the “criminalisation of dissent.” I am also of the opinion that Hall exposed the clearest evidence we have ever seen of a UK domestic false flag.

The ruling in Hall’s case was based upon the Establishment’s refusal to even acknowledge the existence of the evidence he reported. Yet that evidence remains freely available in the public domain.

As the ruling set a precedent, effectively rendering journalist investigations of state narratives potentially litigious acts, and given the verdict’s proposed use as a basis for the prospective legislative silencing of free speech, I contend that the obvious course of action is to report the evidence exposing the Manchester hoaxed false flag as widely as possible.

Whether you find the evidence convincing or not, it is plausible evidence of a hoaxed false flag. Therefore, reporting it shows all who express doubt about the Manchester attack—including Hall—have every reason and are doing nothing other than exercising their rational right to free speech. Reporting the evidence will effectively remove the Establishment’s claimed justification for proceeding with its intended destruction of democratic principles.

I wrote the articles and made the video in an attempt to encourage the larger independent media organisations to report the Manchester evidence. I am delighted to say some have responded favourably—watch this space. I used the coverage of UK Column to illustrate my point precisely because they have extensively covered the Hall case but have not, for whatever reason, reported the Manchester evidence.

It was not my intention to attack UK Column nor any other independent media outlet. I hoped to offer a rationale to support my plea to report the evidence to a wider audience. Unfortunately, it is evident from the response of Brian Gerrish—representing UK Column—that the UK column team were angered by it.

I was disappointed by the response and I fully accept that it is not for me to dictate UK Column’s, nor any media outlets editorial decisions. I was not attempting to do so but I can understand why UK Column perceived it that way.

In a discussion with Brian Gerrish I noted that UK Column were extremely resistant to discussing the evidence. Having accepted that I failed to convince them to report it, and as UK Column informed me they found the evidence reported by myself—building on the evidence initially reported by Hall—unconvincing, I tried to understand why UK Column thought the evidence unconvincing.

I could not debate Brian Gerrish about the evidence as he was unwilling to discuss it. It was as if the evidence was immaterial to UK Column’s decision. This seemed to me to have parallels with the legacy media and High Court refusals to acknowledge the existence of the Manchester hoax evidence.

For those interested, you can read our discussion here.

I remain at a loss to understand why UK Column find the Manchester hoax evidence unconvincing, all I can do is accept that they do. I presume this is among their reasons for not reporting it, though both Dr Hughes and I have stressed our shared view that no media outlet needs to offer any conclusions with regard to the evidence. Simply report it and let the public decide for themselves.

As I have repeatedly highlighted throughout the articles and in the video which angered them so much, UK Column are among the independent media outlets to have consistently challenged state narratives and have served the public interest admirably, questioning power as only the independent media can. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that UK Column are controlled opposition as some maintain.