The controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop - Part 2

In Part 1 we acknowledged there is a global push to censor public opinion, curtail investigative journalism and thereby effectively end freedom of speech for everyone. The trial of Richard D. Hall signals that we are moving toward the sharp end of this process in the UK.

It is imperative to appreciate that there was never anything remotely legitimate about the claim brought against Hall. The only possible way the High Court could uphold the claim was to first rule all of the evidence Hall reported, showing that the Manchester Arena bombing was a hoaxed false flag, inadmissible. This summary so-called judgement ended any realistic prospect Hall had of defending himself against the claim. It also ensured that none of that evidence would be heard in court or be reported the legacy media.

Despite engineering the outcome before the trial began, the subsequent High Court ruling was still an incoherent jumble of self contradictions that ignored most of the evidence presented in the trial. When the claimants demonstrated there was no basis to the claim—there was no evidence presented that Hall ever caused them any alarm or distress—and then gave evidence proven to be false in the court, remarkably, the presiding Justice Karen Steyn ostensibly re-imagined that evidence to make the case on the prosecution’s behalf. Hall was subjected to lawfare of the most egregious kind.

I have already written about the trial at some length and won’t rehash the points made, but just to briefly illustrate how warped the ruling was, consider that Hall sent his initial investigative finding—his book—to the Saunders Inquiry, urging the Inquiry panel to consider the evidence he reported. Hall openly advocated the need for further investigation.

Unbelievably, the High Court managed to obliquely interpret Hall’s entirely reasonable approach as part of his supposed harassing course of conduct.

Karen Steyn ruled:

The Book expressly referred to “further investigation of the participants”, and the need for “more evidence,” intensifying the impression given by the treatment of any images and statements by victims, or family members, that had reached the public domain, that the claimants (and others) would continue to be surveilled.

Images and statements of the victims, or family members of the victims, didn’t just “reach” the public domain by floating along a meandering information stream. They were deliberately placed in the public domain by the Establishment’s legacy media. According to the evidence offered by one of the victim claimants in Hall’s trial, these images and statements were published with his full consent.

Hall was openly calling for further investigation of the victims’ public statements because he was in possession of overwhelming prima facie evidence that showed there was no bomb. He had every reason to be sceptical and this was another important fact completely removed from the trial by the heinous summary judgement.

Hall’s entirely rational and important call for further investigation of public domain information, according to the High Court, amounted to surveillance of the innocent. Frankly, if we cannot be critical of information published in the public domain—even harshly critical—because the people who published it don’t like or are offended by that criticism, then, as a society, we will have no freedom of speech.

The removal of free speech and setting a precedent for the further curtailment of investigative journalism is precisely the effect of the legal judgement in Hall’s case. Off the back of the ruling, the claimants are seemingly being encouraged and supported to lobby for legislation that will censor and silence all critics of the Establishment: the prospective “Eve’s law.”

If those of us who question power want to stand up against this unfolding tyranny then our best defence is to highlight the evidence that the High Court would not admit and the Establishment quite obviously doesn’t want anyone else to know anything about. We must tell everyone about the evidence that shows Manchester was a hoaxed false flag. There was no bomb!

Dr David Hughes is currently writing a nine part breakdown of the ruling and I strongly recommend reading his work. Similarly, for those of you not so familiar with the evidence Hall reported, please read the pseudonymous Pighooey’s guide to navigating the evidence.

None of us can afford to simply allow the British Establishment’s UK state to use the ruling in Hall’s case for its clearly intended purpose.

By exposing the Manchester hoax evidence we lay bare the illegitimacy of the state’s claim that something needs to be done about conspiracy theorists and show, instead, that there are no conspiracy theorists, just people who have every right to question the dubious conduct and claims of the state. If we don’t, then we are accepting that the Establishment’s public statements, published by the legacy media, represents the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All evidence to the contrary won’t exist and can never exist in the Establishment’s courts.

While none of us, including myself, have any option but to acknowledge that Hall has been found criminally liable for harassment, I hope it is patently obvious to anyone familiar with how this case unfolded that no aspect of the litigation against him ever had any foundation in truth. Yet this is evidently a very difficult concept for many in the independent media, including some of the leading UK independent media outlets, to grasp.

I suggest they have fallen for the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop.

The UK Column Critique Video

Watch the video on Odysee.

The video below uses UK Column’s reporting of the Manchester Attack to illustrate how the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop works, in my view.

I have used UK Column as an example precisely because they have reported Hall’s case, offering many valuable insights along the way. My criticism is intended to be constructive and made purely to encourage UK Column, and other leading UK independent media outlets, to report the Manchester hoax evidence.

UK Column, like other outlets, exercises its own editorial control and it is perfectly reasonable for them to report whatever they judge the most important news items. I recognise this is a very difficult judgement. I am frequently annoyed by criticisms I receive for not reporting issues others consider important. I recognise the UK Column team may be annoyed by my own criticism of them for essentially the same thing.

For all the reasons I gave in Part 1, like many other UK Column members, I am only highlighting what I consider the urgent need to report the Manchester hoax evidence because, in my opinion, doing so would be one of the best ways to actively oppose the emerging British dictatorship. Further, I suggest that the reason UK Column and others have not reported this hugely significant story may be attributable to the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop.

Essentially I argue, by not carefully scrutinising every aspect of Establishment narratives, baseless Establishment claims can seep unnoticed into our appreciation of events. When this is combined with our awareness of possible controlled opposition psyops, we can easily let our suspicions run riot. This leaves us floundering around, uncertain of what to make of the situation. We hedge our bets, becoming tentative about expressing what would otherwise be well-informed, legitimate opinions.

I do not suggest that doubt is unnecessary, on the contrary it is essential. But the Establishment doesn’t need to run a controlled opposition psyop of we don’t diligently exercise doubt about every component of the Establishment’s narrative and slip into accepting Establishment assertions as if they had some validity.

I cannot convey the full scope of the point I am trying to make in one video. The video and these two articles hopefully complement each other to illuminate my suggested controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop hypothesis.

The theory of the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop

The 2015 Undercover Policing Inquiry reported more than five decades of undercover British agents infiltrating a wide range of political, social and protest movements in the UK. Like most Establishment run inquiries—certainly post the 2005 Inquiries Act—the Undercover Policing Inquiry has dragged on to become an irrelevance.

While nothing will come of it, the inquiry has at least revealed—to those who care to look—that agents of the UK state often led movements to commit criminal acts. They guided and manipulated activists to achieve the Establishment’s aims and objectives by surreptitious means. In the meantime, as the inquiry, and public interest in it, petered out, the British Establishment passed the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 (CHIS Act). The Establishment has given its state agents immunity from prosecution and they are now free to commit any crime they like in pursuit of state objectives. There is no reason to think the Establishment has abandoned the controlled opposition psychological operation—psyop.

So it is not without good reason that people are concerned about potential controlled opposition psyops. But, I suggest, those healthy suspicions can become unhealthy if they lead to inaction when action is required.

The Establishment cannot dispatch its agents to infiltrate the “truther movement” nor the “conspiracy theorists” because there is no movement and the “conspiracy theorist” is a fabricated propaganda construct. But it can infiltrate and co-opt the independent media. However, it doesn’t necessarily need to do so.

The large proportion of the public—though a minority—who are familiar with the strategy of tension and state manipulation are also more likely to be aware of possible controlled opposition psyops. This awareness extends to independent media journalists and outlets. It is something all in the independent media space are mindful of and, regrettably, this alone is very useful to the Establishment.

To illustrate: during Hall’s trial, irrespective of the clear evidence presented that Hall’s visit to the home of one of the claimants caused them absolutely no alarm or distress whatsoever—in fact they knew nothing about it—the High Court described Hall’s observations of one of the claimants, recorded during that visit, as the unacceptable tracking down and furtive filming of a vulnerable person.

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that what Hall actually did is called “secret-recording” and is one of the most basic tools of investigative journalism. Legacy media organisations like the BBC do it all the time. When the BBC has prima facie evidence of wrongdoing it uses secret recording, including the filming of vulnerable people without their knowledge or consent, to expose that suspected wrongdoing.

For example, lets consider the BBC’s secret recording of vulnerable care home residents to expose institutional negligence and abuse. Note, the care home residents were not the suspected culprits but rather the possible victims of the potential culprits.

The BBC reported:

Using a hidden camera, [the BBC] filmed the resident lying in a bed with a loose guard rail.

Now, lets deploy the rhetorical tactics used by the High Court in Hall’s trial. We will completely ignore the fact that the BBC had prima facie evidence that warranted the secret recording, and we’ll use the High Court’s own vernacular to describe the same event:

Unacceptably, the BBC tracked down and furtively filmed a vulnerable older person while they were lying in their own bed.

The BBC broadcast their secret-footage—blurring out the vulnerable victims—to millions of TV viewers. Hall never showed any part of his recorded observations to anyone and only briefly mentioned his findings. He was simply gathering information from observation using a dash-cam in a vehicle he owned while it was legally parked on a public street.

Under any other circumstances, secret recordings by journalists, where justified, is called investigative journalism. The claimant was just one of around twenty people Hall was investigating and he dedicated very little of his investigation to the claimant. He did not “target” or “single out” anyone.

He initially hoped to interview the claimant’s mother but, when unable to do so, decided to gather information by other means. This is bog standard practice for any journalist. The High Court, and some of his independent media critics, would have us believe that if a journalist observes a subject this amounts to harassment or stalking, or “lurking about in bushes” as some have claimed.

It was reported by the legacy media that Hall “spied on a disabled girl” and it was this made up nonsense that seeped into lore among some of the people who are aware of the possible controlled opposition. The “optics” were bad and this, allegedly, is proof that Hall must be an asset of some kind.

So let’s first note that the optics were made to look much worse than they were by the Establishment. The Establishment described Hall’s investigative journalism as “furtive filming” but no one ever applies the same moral judgement to, for example, the BBC when they not only secretly film vulnerable people but broadcast the footage.

Mix unthinking acceptance of the Establishment’s pejorative spin on Hall’s behaviour with what appears to be prejudice against middle-aged men, and suddenly and investigative journalist is cast as some sort of pervert simply for doing his job. It is alleged that Hall should have been able to predict all of this unhinged virtue-signalling and should have recognised that what he did was supposedly unacceptable. Though it wasn’t remotely unacceptable, so how could he?

This is apparently “evidence,” for the controlled opposition obsessed, that Hall deliberately “did something” to make the Establishment ruin his life—and let’s not forget they want to ruin his nine year old son’s life too. Hall must be all for it I guess.

Then there’s the idea that because Hall was reported extensively by the legacy media he was therefore deliberately created by the Establishment and is, obviously, controlled opposition. Based on this assumption, we can further deduce that everything he has done is part of some elaborate plan to bring about dictatorship which he is fully on board with.

Can anyone who holds to this theory please explain to me what the Establishment gains from their asset putting hard, primary observable evidence of a domestic hoaxed false flag attack into the public domain? How is that useful to the almost certainly guilty state?

Of course the “ah, yeah but,” reply is that it is all a cunning ruse—orchestrated by Hall—to lead everyone who questions the Establishment to some dastardly gotcha moment. Suddenly, by magic, the Establishment will explain why crisis actors had foreknowledge of the bomb, why TATP shrapnel bombs explode in closed rooms killing many people but don’t cause any structural damage, why there weren’t enough people in the City Room, why the described circumstances of at least two of the deceased are provably wrong and so on, and so on and so on.

It’s possible I suppose, but given the overwhelming body of evidence reported by Hall that shows Manchester was a hoaxed false flag it doesn’t seem very likely does it? Of course the Establishment, who presumably wanted Hall to report all of this damning evidence, can’t possibly know that it won’t go viral. Certainly, if all of the leading UK independent media outlets report it, there’s a good chance it will.

Feasibly, the Establishment could just switch the internet off. There’s always that possibility. The story Hall reported is so bad for the Establishment they might actually do it. But I still can’t quite figure out what he’s done that is of such great benefit to the powers that shouldn’t be.

This is where the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop really kicks in. It has evidently severely scrambled the minds of some. If I understand it correctly, the theory goes something like this.

Sure, Hall exposed a horrendous state crime but the Establishment, by viciously attacking him in the legacy media and the courts, can ensure no one will ever believe him and, because he spied on a vulnerable teenager, everyone who agrees with him will be tarred with the same brush and no one will believe them either. The Establishment will have effectively covered up the horrendous state crime Hall reported and can use their half-baked strategy to ensure no one ever bothers to find out about it.

This sound like an extremely high risk plan to me. Had Hall not reported the Manchester evidence then I can see why they would use him to bring about the new censorship regime but he did, and therein lies the problem for these controlled opposition theories.

Hall published his work in 2020. If the Establishment wanted to use Hall’s journalism to bring about a dictatorship, why did they wait more than three years to “create” their super-villain? Why not capitalise on the fact that Manchester was, at the time, relatively fresh in the general public’s consciousness? Not least of all because the Saunders Inquiry was in the headlines.

Why did his handlers wait for him to report more and more damning evidence, all of it highly damaging to the Establishment, before deciding to bring him to wider public attention?

None of these tin-pot theories that Hall is “controlled-op” are vaguely plausible by virtue of one stubborn fact that no one who alleges he is COINTEL—apart from the lunatic fringe who completely ignore all the evidence he reported—has yet to account for, or even incorporate in some cases, within their various hypotheses: Hall reported the evidence of a horrendous state crime.

May I suggest that this is why Hall was publicly discredited by the Establishment’s legacy media. The Establishment was not hoping to make him famous and certainly was not directing anyone to consider the evidence he reported. Hall was subjected to a hate campaign to garner public support for a planned travesty of justice. The primary objective of the Establishment was to shut him up and, based upon made up stories, pass a judgement to hopefully shut everyone else up who points to the evidence showing Manchester was a hoax.

The Establishment could only “control” Hall by subjecting him to lawfare based on the premise that none of the evidence he reported existed. They are terrified of that evidence ever being reported to the general public and had to hide it, if they could. Hall is no ally of the Establishment.

Sadly, those among us predisposed to see controlled opposition everywhere, despite not having a scrap of evidence to back up any of these wacky theories, have consumed the Establishment’s rabid anti-Hall propaganda, found aspects of it credible, fused it with suspicions and overlooked the blatantly obvious. This is the controlled controlled opposition psyop psyop.

The Establishment has no need of controlling those who genuinely question power as long as some of these people accept just a few of the Establishment’s claims. Once the propaganda has been adopted, the Establishment can sit back and let their collective enemy implode as it descends into paranoid claim and counter-claim.

The most depressing part of this sorry affair is that it is not the Establishment’s legacy media who are obsessed with or who are promoting Richard D. Hall. He’s no longer on the front pages, they’ve got what they want, and Marianna Spring has been given new targets.

It is the independent media who argue about Hall, as the talking heads hopefully insert themselves into the Hall narrative. The saddest irony of all is that none of it matters. Richard D. Hall is not the story.

The Manchester Arena bombing was a UK domestic hoaxed false flag attack. We have Richard D. Hall to thank for putting the evidence together and pushing it out as a cohesive narrative. But our seeming preoccupation with Hall really needs to end there.

It is the evidence and nothing but the evidence that matters. If we want to stop Hall’s case being used as the basis for further oppression then it will be our collective refusal to let the evidence of the hoax fade into the historical mists that provides our best chance of doing that.

As Dr David Hughes wisely highlighted, in his recent discussion with Sonia Poulton, it is not for those of us who can show the evidence of a hoax to question any of the reported victims. It has become litigious and we simply have no need to do it:

It is sufficient to look at the primary, observable evidence, which Hall [has] presented to understand that there is something very off about what we were told. So you don’t even need to start making speculations or allegations about the alleged victims. It is not even necessary to go there. Just look at the primary empirical evidence. It’s there and it’s available. [. . .] Look at it for yourself and make your own mind up.