You have penned one of the best examples of clear, concise, critical thinking and discernment that I have read in many years. Thank you very much for this very important contribution. I hope that the independent media outlets that you mentioned will give your content the attention it richly deserves.
You should get a real job that's of benefit to your fellow man. Posting insults is not productive work, although I can imagine it's quite an easy way to earn a living.
Your grammar and sentence structure tells me that it is indeed you who's in desperate need of an enema and that you were definitely not recruited from Oxbridge. LOL.
Blue Sky Maiden’s English is far superior to your Japanese.
If you feel compelled to revert to bullying, insulting and critiquing women from the safety of a screen, that demonstrates and diminishes *your*, character, intellect, education, manners and manhood, or lack thereof.
Have you returned from the dead in parody of a maggoty jesus Dave?
Wandering the internet in stinky shroud of desperate gaslight glow.
When you kiss the cross (symbol of a phallus ) do you find it hard to remove from your eager moth & flickering tongue tainted with bullshit ?
I encounter you before & you were pathetic then & more pathetic now, so it looks like you nearing bottom of slide & getting speed burns scarring anus ?
I get a strong feeling you are subject to severe demonic influence or possibly even possessed. There can be no other reason as to why you feel comfortable spewing out such abominable malevolence.
While the effect of your presence here does what exactly ?🙄😆😂
I think you are de-sensitised by heavy weight of own self importance, & fantasy that anyone give a shit about your petty anal anxieties here David Carper.
Maybe Carr = you relate to famous psycho Maxine ?
I doubt you can control a car, maybe perambulator is safer place for you & these endlessly pitiful indignancy outcries ?
It is true that the state sets up fake opposition to justify new laws, but it is also true that the state recognises opportunities presented by real opposition to justify such new laws/precedent.
For those of us who have followed Richard D. Hall for many years know (as well as we ever can) that he is an honest broker. He might be wrong on some things but he is honest.
Some of the new "alternative" voices are obsessed with their own soundbites - "If you know his name..." etc - and cannot see beyond their pet theory that is getting them traction.
I still trust what Richard D. Hall has to say beyond any Mainstream or "alternative" voice.
I will take his body of work (on a myriad of subjects) over many years, above some flashy newcomer with no body of investigative work.
Excellent piece Iain! The Light covered Richard's ongoing court cases in Issue 44 p5 and Issue 46 p9 (free PDFs - https://thelightpaper.co.uk) - we had to be careful with contempt of court issues at the time.
We will re-publish an edited version of your article if that's okay, and hopefully spur people on to ask the questions we need them to ask and check the evidence for themselves.
This is an excellent piece. However, the Manchester hoax is not "the most significant UK political scandal ever". Nobody died. The state only pretended that people were murdered. The state really did murder people on 7/7, which is why that event and not Manchester deserves your superlative.
I agree to the extent that the UK State has committed many worse crimes. But my point here is that we have never been able to prove it so clearly and with such relative ease before. Though there was nothing easy about putting the evidence together.
The difference is that there is video evidence of the Manchester hoax. It is therefore much easier to prove to the public. On 7/7 what happened in the tunnel stayed in the tunnel and I’m not aware of lots of video evidence.
Why do you think 7/7 was any different from Manchester ... or Westminster Bridge or London Bridge ... or any number of terror events? As Francis Richard Conolly said in his film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick, which was my wakeup call, "All terror is fake." 9/11 was a demolition job. What normally happens in demolition jobs?
Larry Silverstein " Dummies Guide to Making it Big in New York Real Estate: Forget Trump, how to get a major office tower built for free " gets published?
There are only three things that matter, when it comes to considering whether the state perpetrates manufactured terror attacks - real or hoaxed - against its own people:
EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE!
Any argument that fails to engage with the evidence is no argument at all. And a court of law that shamelessly rules out relevant evidence is an affront to justice.
Thank goodness we have Iain, putting in such tireless efforts on behalf of us all - and I mean all, conspiracists and 'normies' alike.
As for Miri AF, she should take a few classes in elementary critical thinking, before asking us to take her assertions about RDH seriously.
To be quite honest, I'm not sure any of it really matters.
We already have gladio, we already know that the CIA hired Nazis to conduct mind control experiments on unsuspecting members of the public by kidnapping them using prostitutes that were themselves tortured and brainwashed with drugs.
We have that NATO created an enormous international human and drug trafficking operation to fund covert activites using stay behind armies. Including assassination and military coups. Not to mention conduct terror attacks and blame on others as per gladio.
We have that the government is extorting money from civilians in a protection racket that they call taxes.
They infiltrated the media to spread disinformation in mockingbird.
They are arresting people for protesting against violent attacks, for protesting against lockdowns, and for questioning components of the official narrative.
They are also sending arms to a country conducting a genocide, and carrying out mass bombing campaigns of their own for profit.
They trained Osama bin laden, armed and funded the mujahideen to fight in Afghanistan. Had him fight for NATO all over the place.
Funded him through the BCCI which later turned out to be one of the largest money laundering operations in history.
All of this is admitted, in some cases proudly declared as a good thing.
I don't think there's a need to know anything more than this. This is surely enough to begin questioning the idea of a benevolent government and to begin realising they are a crime syndicate.
People who control money creation hold the power. Commercial banks create 97% of all new money, but they only do so with the permission of the Central Banks.
Oh, yeah and Delingpole is really not doing his credibility any favours by having nutjobs on, like "every celebrity and politician and politician's spouse is a tranny." Oh, puh-lease. Just go away.
Excellent as ever Iain. I made sure I downloaded all videos (incl the Manchester false flag and the pdf) from RDH’s website before that evidence was removed.
I listened to a Delingpod the other day with Miri AF - on of the people who I presume you allude to as casting Richard D Hall as a controlled opposition. She is frankly a nut-job trying to make herself important. Delingpod seems to attract any number of people with an agenda of calling out people as ‘controlled opposition’ when they appear to be honest questioners of the authorized narrative - and thereby try to question their motives or integrity.
I think we should ask ourselves whether Delingpole himself is something of a pied piper for disaffected wannabe normies.
His constant refrain, "everything's a lie" is hardly the sign of a genuinely rational enquirer. Of course, apart from anything else, the statement "everything's a lie" is, itself, self-contradictory.
I listen to Delingpole, but classify him strictly as 'conspiratainment', not authentic investigative journalism, such as Iain conducts.
There are some cases that leading lights in the alternative media firmament - such as mentioned by Iain - won’t touch.
They see these cases - such as Manchester - as beyond the pale & coverage will lose them subscribers, break some kind of unspoken consensus. They fear being seen as flakey, unsound.
The state & their behavioural scientists have done a good job in erecting metaphorical electric fences around these subjects that keep most of the mainstream alternative media away.
In short certain subjects are off limits. The powers that be have successfully created acceptable areas of discourse for the mainstream alternative media. Manchester is evidence of that.
If I had a £1 for every evidence free accusation of "Controlled Opposition" I've heard over the last 15 years in "alternative" circles, I'd be able to buy a round for everyone in crowded London pub. As we're only ever likely to find this information in a Stasi-like collapse of the British Intelligence Services, I'm more inclined to think those accusing are the actual controlled opposition. Especially if they've only gained prominence with the last 18 months or so.
The world is actually really simple. People relying on the masses being confused to rule them make it seem everything is really complex and only supersmart politicans can see how it all works.
Im not telling you about how subspace connects A/c generators, meditation and the insatiable need for the powers that are but should not be to use symbols everywhere without them rreally understanding whats going on.
The state, for whatever ultimate reason, decided to resurrect the Manchester hoax using the BBC’s very own Mariana Spring to do the confrontational legwork. Had they let sleeping dogs lie Richard D Hall could have shouted from the rooftops and still attracted zero interest because the mainstream media is totally controlled. They have used it now to pave the way for draconian censorship legislation and it therefore offers the opportunity of the ‘ Streisand Effect’ to revisit it in the cold light of day without the baying media frenzy of 2017
A recent change in D-notices may explain the lack of media interest that [as reported by Guido Fawkes 27.11.24]:
"The government has now incorporated counter-terrorism policing into the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee notice system. A D-Notice instructs news outlets not to print details considered sensitive for national security reasons.
The system’s extension was “unanimously agreed” and effectively restricts newspapers or broadcasters from providing details to the public on matters of counter-terror policing deemed sensitive by the government. ......D-Notices are usually for things like protecting the identity of intelligence officials or very specific ongoing military operations…"
Now they also cover public order concerns due to possible terrorist activities.
To answer your question about why would the establishment support an operation that is opposed to it, there are four main reasons to do this.
Number one, in the event of a revolutionary movement, they will have their own agents placed inside the top echelons allowing them to lead the revolution against themselves and restore their rule immediately following the war, regardless of which side wins.
Number two, it is a means of probing the population to discover how fertile the landscape is for particular ideas.
Number three, it is a means of poisoning the well by distributing additional false information to discredit the organisation and independent research as a whole.
Number four, there are divisions among the powerful groups, they don't all agree with eachother, so they occasionally derail eachothers operations. So what many perceive as pure state opposition is actually being supported by members of the establishment to humiliate or punish someone else in the establishment.
By controlling both sides of a conflict it is possible to direct attention where you want it to go, allowing for the punishment of wayward subordinates.
Julian Assange's wikileaks, Russia, Iran, Hamas, Taliban are perfect examples.
One mistake is to assume that just because someone is playing such a role that they are aware of their position. Most of these people are chosen for their stupidity and groomed to perform with no clue they were manipulated.
They can't reveal what they don't know.
Another mistake is to assume that they are a willing partner rather than a coerced slave. And to assume that they can't be useful even if they are being controlled.
They at least have to pretend to be what they claim, and that means that they have to make token gestures that look like something is being achieved.
The people who follow them will delusionally believe that these actions are effective, and, like the "5d chess" you mentioned, will imagine that progress has been made.
Eventually, if enough people believe something, even if it's false, the sheer weight of their massed opinion and financial resources will create a bubble where it looks like it's true.
In this bubble it won't be possible to do things which counteract the narrative without deconstructing the operation. So their beliefs will be protected as long as they continue to perform their function.
Example, if everyone believes the law applies equally to everyone, even though it doesn't, the state will try to maintain the illusion.
And so if the public becomes aware of a powerful person's crimes, they must make it seem like they are pursuing justice.
Which also prevents the public from trying to organise it themselves.
Very well said. Was thinking the same thing when Iain was asking "what could be the possible value of running controlled opposition if it actually serves as your genuine nemesis?"
It is kind of obvious to me that there would be a lot of value in playing your own nemesis. Like you mention, it is mostly about surveillance and control. They can surveil the opposition's landscape more easily if they control a huge gravity well within the opposition, they can guard rail said opposition, they can divert them, plant ideas, censor, etc. It's pretty obvious tbh
There are also examples of how wars and societal conflict can be gamed to produce maximum profits, or to achieve a social engineering outcome.
Often times the people in charge of censoring particular ideas are fanatics who will actually be purged later on. So sometimes it can appear that the authorities have a certain view, but secretly hold the opposite view and covertly support those groups.
I believe the communist revolution originally had a strong anarchist presence, but they were purged after the bolsheviks took power.
America, the CIA and NATO hired many nazis as scientists, spies, and strategists.
In fact, the Nazi party itself came straight out of a British espionage operation. The freemasons created theosophy and the thule society which spawned the whole war.
The reason British intelligence was so strongly embedded in the German war machine was that they literally put the whole thing together. It was even funded by British and zionist bankers.
Hitler, it should be noted, was groomed for command by Eckart and promoted by ludendorff.
Ludendorff was also involved in training lenin and sending him to Russia.
Yet, even though freemasonry originated the Nazi party, the organisation was then banned. But then despite banning it, they still accepted loans and capital from freemason connected financiers.
And despite claiming to hate communism, they worked with the soviet union to develop tanks.
Once we look at these connections honestly, it becomes clear that it is actually very unclear who really believes what.
And note that the elite really does believe in racial supremacy as they have in one form or another for thousands of years. The practice of intermarriage and incest among nobility is essentially eugenics.
Yet they promote the complete opposite of that to the people.
They don't believe what they are paying people to say, it's crazy.
That's a good point - I'm planning a cool article about Philby in my head right now, suggesting he was actually a triple agent and working for 6 the whole time, as the NKVD's analyst concluded (which led to Moscow breaking off contact with him for a while). It's either that or, if he was a genuine double agent for Moscow, that 6 was inconceivably stupid and incompetent.
What if his boss at "6" was also secretly working for Moscow? Victor Rothschild wasn't averse to passing on info to the Soviets either, from what I can glean. Of course his surname made him rather untouchable:).
Yep again. VR was definitely one of the key figures in the whole saga. I think this was the real point about Spycatcher, which reveals sufficient info about VR whilst almost misdirecting the reader into thinking about the (other) Cambridge lot.
We should also remember that at that time there was little difference between the Soviets (i.e. Bolsheviks) and what became Mossad. So when we cite VR as a Mossad agent that also means NKVD.
The crucial bit in Spycatcher is when Peter Wright is kind of duped into giving VR the K7 dossier, which, when handed to Mossad, provides them with a comprehensive knowledge of MI5's counter-espionage capabilities, which in turn allows for Mossad to initiate a concerted infiltration programme. I think in later life Peter came to understand this, which is the real reason he wrote the book.
As for Philby - your idea of him being a quadruple is intriguing. If 6 thought he was their man, but at some point he genuinely turned (perhaps by Litzi, possibly because of the sex lol!) then this explains the ensuing course of events. There are some glaring bits in his biography of course, like telling the NKVD that 6 don't have any spies in Russia, which is absurd. And 6 putting him into head of the Russian section is likewise absurd unless they knew, or thought, that he was 'their man'. So then this crucial question becomes was he playing them the whole time and ended up betraying them, so to speak.
Fascinating stuff. Lots of food for thought there. I will definitely have to do my article.
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere about a classic espionage trick. Which is vitally important for everyone to understand when it comes to 'controlled opposition'.
Take 3 agents, 1 2 and 3. Agent 1 makes a name for themselves (with the help of bots and minor assets bigging them up online - notice how these people have thousands of followers), then Agent 2 comes along and accuses 1 of being an agent. Allow agent 2 to start winning the narrative (this is Act Two, if you understand the 3 act structure). It starts to look bad for Agent 1, as the forces of antagonism build up against him (as they usually do in Act Two). Then the turning point to Act Three comes along, in the form of Agent 3, who exposes Agent 2 as an agent, thus rehabilitating Agent 1, along with anything and everything Agent 1 ever said. Everything Agent 2 ever said is likewise discredited.
Where you hide 'the truth', or plant the lies, depends on how convoluted you want to make this narrative. Agent 2, after all, by exposing Agent 1, was ironically telling the truth. But no one believes him now, especially about all the other Agents he was accusing. They're all in the clear too now! So all the lies propagated by Agents 1 and 3 are believed.
Naturally, you have a kind of hierarchy of agents as well - some of them are pawns to be sacrificed, in order to get your top, accomplished agents into the prime positions (usually the Agent 1s of the world).
This classic strategy works just as well with subversion and online cognitive infiltration as it has always done in the annals of classic real world espionage.
I thought of a good reply, without giving too much away. Here we go.
First, I should probably say that part of my point is that when we see people accusing each other of being agents/controlled opposition, we shouldn’t automatically assume that one of them is an agent and the other is innocent. It’s more likely that both are innocent or both are agents.
There’s also the issue of ‘influence’ and ‘reach’. I myself, for example, only have 79 subscribers, so I could throw around accusation of agency to people like Miri, or even Iain, and especially the likes of Off-G, Miles Mathis, CJ Hopkins, RDH et al and it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. One of the good pointers towards agency is indeed the amount of ‘reach’ they have. With regards to Miri, for example, I would say there’s at least a 70-80% chance (on a classic intel services traffic light 1-100 suspicion scale) that she’s an agent. People who come from seemingly nowhere with little history behind them to suddenly being bigged up with several thousand subscribers etc. is an automatic +20 on the suspicion scale. I only heard of her earlier this year. I may have to subscribe to her actually, just to keep tabs and get more psych info for the profile.
People who have been ‘in the game’ so to speak (as a researcher) for much longer are more likely to be either innocent, or at some point given the ‘offer you can’t refuse’ and ‘turned’ (in espionage jargon). That’s one of the serious nuances that demands and deserves a lot more consideration, and I’ve come across very suspicious examples of this. When some researchers do develop an influence the deep state do need to consider what to do about them. This requires a good psych profile, of course. Yeah - I feel an article coming on!
As for Iain, if he is an agent then he would be one of the highest level agents, because he’s so exceptionally intelligent and such a brilliant researcher. However, I have my doubts because of the emotional aspect of a lot of his writing - that’s to say he is justifiably angry about this that and the other and you can see this in the style of writing - this is a very astute point when we think about detection of agency.
However - this is why I would love it if Iain really did concentrate more on the hidden hand (as I outlined in my other reply) rather than getting caught up in all these fabricated talking points. People do need to be educated about history and the big picture.
In particular, I get seriously tired about all this ‘fake binary’ stuff. That’s not how the world really works on a psychological level. There’s far too much cultural difference in identity between nations and countries etc. for them to be ‘all in it together’. People definitely need to better understand cultural and social psychology issues.
Anyway - this was a long reply. I shall definitely put these ideas for articles on my list - thanks for prompting me there. I really do need to get my shit together.
I like Ian, but he is too close with James Corbett-an obvious agent. So this leaves questions how it would fit into agent paradigms.
Corbett is associated with crystal clear agent Broze. They both avoid dangers of 5g and that no virus has been found like the plague but shout how much they are for the common people.
I don’t know enough about Corbett (or Broze, for that matter) to say whether I think either of them are controlled opposition, but I decided some months back that it would be unwise for me to engage in debate with people who don’t believe in the existence of viruses (or ‘germ theory’ even), as it’s impossible to change their minds on the subject. I don’t know whether it’s because they are ‘controlled opposition’ or just got sucked into it somehow, and don’t have the intellectual honesty or courage to listen to a different view. But you’d think someone who maybe doesn’t know much about science or biochemistry but merely got convinced by the no-virus people would still have a sufficient level of open-mindedness left to be able to respond to some basic science. Specifically biochemistry, if we’re talking about medical science, immunology, viruses, isolation and various other lab tests that get performed a million times every day at independent labs across the world with a clear reproducibility of results.
If I am reading this correctly (correct me if I’m wrong as you seem to know), the no-virus people say the usual techniques of viral isolation just produce ‘junk proteins’. If this is the case, are you aware of how they account for the reproducibility within these tens of thousands of labs every day? If it’s just random junk, after all, the test results and analyses would be different every time, surely?
I know a lot about biochemistry you see so this entire ‘viruses don’t exist’ stuff, which only seemed to emerge during ‘covid’, seems so bizarre to me that it can only be explained by cognitive infiltration. If viruses really didn’t exist then tens of thousands of lab technicians across the world would’ve talked about it decades before ‘Covid’ - in fact, viruses not existing would’ve become known to everyone such that the bad guys could never have inflicted a ‘pandemic’ on people. They’d have to invent some entirely new category of pathogen hitherto unknown to every lab that ever existed in the world throughout history. And none of that is remotely psychologically believable.
Good question. I imagine some scenarios operate in this way, but it doesn’t account for the element of surprise. As in, the discovery of something one didn’t expect to discover. Not everything is pre-planned or, if it is pre-planned, goes the way the planners intend it to. For example, there’s been a couple of major spanners in the globalist agenda in Australia and NZ in the past few weeks, and 100% the planners did not expect these. So a door for an unexpected outcome has opened and, as Iain says, we need to jump on these opportunities so another door down the hallway doesn’t get slammed shut.
But how can we capitalise on such opportunities if even the alt media can't present a united front?
This is precisely what makes characters like Miri AF and Aisling Thingamabob so toxic. They have nothing of substance to contribute to the cause of exposing the MA hoax, so they prefer to snipe cynically at those who do, steering attention away from where it's most needed. How do they differ from the MSM, in that regard?
Whatever anyone thinks of David Ray Griffin, he at least championed the need for those in the 9/11 truth 'movement' (apologies, Iain) to set aside trivial differences and fight on the vast amount of common ground they all shared.
At the end of the day, a murder is a murder, whether it was executed with a rifle or a handgun.
I’ve been having a longer look at Miri today and read some of her articles. Consequently, I’ve upped her on the suspicion scale to a level which makes it almost certain she’s an Agent 3 type. I’m actually feeling a Witchfinder article coming on.
She’s very good indeed with the sleight of hand technique. That’s to say, take an idea you don’t want people to think about, you want people to dismiss.
Example: the Madeleine issue. Throwaway comment about MK-Ultra and child abuse dismissed in the same/immediate next sentence. Then move on to a different focus and keep going on that for at least 500 words, preferably more. This means that your throwaway comment immediately goes into the unconscious, and prevents the reader from questioning it. Repeat this 3 times and the content of that throwaway dismissal will take on the substance of a belief or opinion, in neuroscience terms. (You may notice politicians do this all the time on those panel discussion programmes).
So it’s essentially inserting an idea into someone’s mind, immediately pushing it into the unconscious, then repeating it until it becomes a belief.
There are also a lot of ideas/theories Miri is pushing which are highly suspicious. Too long for a comment, though. I’ll have to tackle them later.
But the other thing is that she only allows paid subscribers to comment. Thus, people like me can’t point all this stuff out or analyse the flaws in her arguments.
So yeah, she now gets a +80 on my 0-100 suspicion scale. What I would really need, though, is to know about her biography, which I don’t unfortunately. She has over 6k subscribers though (how?), so she’s right up there on that primary watch list. Which - ironically - don’t laugh - is why I subscribed to her earlier today (free version - I can’t afford paid subs). Info gathering, you know… tbc…
That’s another great question - I’ll get back to you on it. Might be best not to say too much in these comments though lol. Agents often podcast each other though, I’m sure.
You mentioned a "manual" that this "classic espionage trick" is taken from. Do you mind mentioning what manual are you referring to and where can we read it?
To be completely honest, I don't "know how it is" and am not clear on why you cannot share this information with us.
But anyway, if you insist that for some reason we are not allowed to have access to the secret "espionage manual" that only you have access to apparently, then please put yourself in the shoes of everyone else on this forum and please tell me what would you do if you were in our shoes and did not have access to the information (manual) upon which you seem to base the above comment on?
Would you simply take the other person's word for it (that they have access to a secret manual that you are not allowed to have access to and therefore they know better than you how the ruling class' deception techniques work)?
Would you not seek to verify it for yourself?
What would you do if you were in the shoes of all other memebers of the forum?
You have penned one of the best examples of clear, concise, critical thinking and discernment that I have read in many years. Thank you very much for this very important contribution. I hope that the independent media outlets that you mentioned will give your content the attention it richly deserves.
Thank you again.
Are you in the same dream as Davis ?
The essay is a repetitive mess & full of infantile delusions!
I've read your poorly written gibberish - shut up.
Heh! ....Any poorly written gibberish is better than no poorly written gibberish.
...It's essential for attention seeking, Stockton Punts.
You should get a real job that's of benefit to your fellow man. Posting insults is not productive work, although I can imagine it's quite an easy way to earn a living.
Who are you to be telling me what to do Dave ?
😂😂😂
🦇💩🤡🐛👻
Oh I am sorry Dub. Did you think I was giving you a positive instruction? I was in fact just offering advice.
OK Dave, but why would you want me to work now after I'm happy in retirement ?
Also I have spent my life benefiting others beyond the call of duty, so why do I need to continue that in your peculiar imagination ?
Can I also inquire what you have done to aid humanity & what has molded this sanctimonious outlook you display?
🙄😂
I don't believe you and no, you can't inquire.
Keep niggling Iain.... I am right beside you with the sleeves rolled up.
Strange in other posts u seemed to be aware of staged theater trials... but here not?
Maybe the staged style of this particular trial is a little more sinister than usual?
Is that so you are instantly ready for emergency enema ?
Your grammar and sentence structure tells me that it is indeed you who's in desperate need of an enema and that you were definitely not recruited from Oxbridge. LOL.
Blue Sky Maiden’s English is far superior to your Japanese.
If you feel compelled to revert to bullying, insulting and critiquing women from the safety of a screen, that demonstrates and diminishes *your*, character, intellect, education, manners and manhood, or lack thereof.
Perhaps you might review the seven virtues.
🙄😂😆😂 What an idiot!
Have you returned from the dead in parody of a maggoty jesus Dave?
Wandering the internet in stinky shroud of desperate gaslight glow.
When you kiss the cross (symbol of a phallus ) do you find it hard to remove from your eager moth & flickering tongue tainted with bullshit ?
I encounter you before & you were pathetic then & more pathetic now, so it looks like you nearing bottom of slide & getting speed burns scarring anus ?
I get a strong feeling you are subject to severe demonic influence or possibly even possessed. There can be no other reason as to why you feel comfortable spewing out such abominable malevolence.
While the effect of your presence here does what exactly ?🙄😆😂
I think you are de-sensitised by heavy weight of own self importance, & fantasy that anyone give a shit about your petty anal anxieties here David Carper.
Maybe Carr = you relate to famous psycho Maxine ?
I doubt you can control a car, maybe perambulator is safer place for you & these endlessly pitiful indignancy outcries ?
Exactly, the effect of my presence here has been to bruise your infantile and delicate ego with a somewhat benign critique of your literacy.
The fact you responded with such a disgusting and repulsive abomination to a minor critique betrays much more than simply your emotional immaturity.
Therefore, another effect of my presence here has been to elicit this self betrayal.
Thankyou for this.
It is true that the state sets up fake opposition to justify new laws, but it is also true that the state recognises opportunities presented by real opposition to justify such new laws/precedent.
For those of us who have followed Richard D. Hall for many years know (as well as we ever can) that he is an honest broker. He might be wrong on some things but he is honest.
Some of the new "alternative" voices are obsessed with their own soundbites - "If you know his name..." etc - and cannot see beyond their pet theory that is getting them traction.
I still trust what Richard D. Hall has to say beyond any Mainstream or "alternative" voice.
I will take his body of work (on a myriad of subjects) over many years, above some flashy newcomer with no body of investigative work.
100%
Well put.
Excellent piece Iain! The Light covered Richard's ongoing court cases in Issue 44 p5 and Issue 46 p9 (free PDFs - https://thelightpaper.co.uk) - we had to be careful with contempt of court issues at the time.
We will re-publish an edited version of your article if that's okay, and hopefully spur people on to ask the questions we need them to ask and check the evidence for themselves.
This is an excellent piece. However, the Manchester hoax is not "the most significant UK political scandal ever". Nobody died. The state only pretended that people were murdered. The state really did murder people on 7/7, which is why that event and not Manchester deserves your superlative.
I agree to the extent that the UK State has committed many worse crimes. But my point here is that we have never been able to prove it so clearly and with such relative ease before. Though there was nothing easy about putting the evidence together.
The difference is that there is video evidence of the Manchester hoax. It is therefore much easier to prove to the public. On 7/7 what happened in the tunnel stayed in the tunnel and I’m not aware of lots of video evidence.
If the only video evidence of Manchester came from the hoaxers then...
Interesting point 🤔
Why do you think 7/7 was any different from Manchester ... or Westminster Bridge or London Bridge ... or any number of terror events? As Francis Richard Conolly said in his film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick, which was my wakeup call, "All terror is fake." 9/11 was a demolition job. What normally happens in demolition jobs?
The difference is corpses.
Manchester: a hoax orchestrated by the state, with crisis actors. No deaths.
7/7: four bombs, planted by the state, killed more than 50 people.
What corpses?
You know what a corpse is?
On 7 July 2005, with four bombs the state killed 56 people in the UK capital. Those corpses.
(Manchester: no corpses.)
They said 22 dead for Manchester and 56 for 7/7.
What makes the dead fake for Manchester but real for 7/7?
Four bombs and a few marksmen.
What normally happens in demolition job ?
Let me guess, you have to reapply make up ?
You run away from serious questions that point out how you obviously lie like twittering territorial outcry of Lyre bird
Things get.... demolished?
In the case of buildings, what happens before they're demolished?
Larry Silverstein " Dummies Guide to Making it Big in New York Real Estate: Forget Trump, how to get a major office tower built for free " gets published?
Yes, but what happens in buildings prior to their demolition?
You got me. Israeli “art students” practice their dance moves? 😀
There are only three things that matter, when it comes to considering whether the state perpetrates manufactured terror attacks - real or hoaxed - against its own people:
EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE!
Any argument that fails to engage with the evidence is no argument at all. And a court of law that shamelessly rules out relevant evidence is an affront to justice.
Thank goodness we have Iain, putting in such tireless efforts on behalf of us all - and I mean all, conspiracists and 'normies' alike.
As for Miri AF, she should take a few classes in elementary critical thinking, before asking us to take her assertions about RDH seriously.
Same goes for Aisling Do-dah.
What a pair of ninnies those two make!
To be quite honest, I'm not sure any of it really matters.
We already have gladio, we already know that the CIA hired Nazis to conduct mind control experiments on unsuspecting members of the public by kidnapping them using prostitutes that were themselves tortured and brainwashed with drugs.
We have that NATO created an enormous international human and drug trafficking operation to fund covert activites using stay behind armies. Including assassination and military coups. Not to mention conduct terror attacks and blame on others as per gladio.
We have that the government is extorting money from civilians in a protection racket that they call taxes.
They infiltrated the media to spread disinformation in mockingbird.
They are arresting people for protesting against violent attacks, for protesting against lockdowns, and for questioning components of the official narrative.
They are also sending arms to a country conducting a genocide, and carrying out mass bombing campaigns of their own for profit.
They trained Osama bin laden, armed and funded the mujahideen to fight in Afghanistan. Had him fight for NATO all over the place.
Funded him through the BCCI which later turned out to be one of the largest money laundering operations in history.
All of this is admitted, in some cases proudly declared as a good thing.
I don't think there's a need to know anything more than this. This is surely enough to begin questioning the idea of a benevolent government and to begin realising they are a crime syndicate.
The governments work for the real controllers. Whoever "they" are.
People who control money creation hold the power. Commercial banks create 97% of all new money, but they only do so with the permission of the Central Banks.
Then there's the trillionaire clans like our Rockefellers & Rothschilds who own real assets and get richer as time goes on.
Yes indeed, being the major shareholder and head of the Central Banking Cabal, they have acquired more real wealth than any other family on earth.
The Rockefellers are one of their deputy partners in the Cabal but extremely wealthy and powerful in their own right.
For sure.
Www.Targetedjustice.com
If there's anyone who comes across as a state asset it's Aisling "I am a truly professional journalist" O'Loughlin.
I think Miri ran ahead of herself by getting caught up in Aisling "real, professional journalist y'know" gobbledegook. She needs to take a step back.
Oh, yeah and Delingpole is really not doing his credibility any favours by having nutjobs on, like "every celebrity and politician and politician's spouse is a tranny." Oh, puh-lease. Just go away.
Yes, it's tiresome and pointless, I agree.
Brilliant post, wow 👌 thank you for this, it helps to see through all the bullshit and be reminded there is a sane world somewhere in all this mess
Excellent as ever Iain. I made sure I downloaded all videos (incl the Manchester false flag and the pdf) from RDH’s website before that evidence was removed.
I listened to a Delingpod the other day with Miri AF - on of the people who I presume you allude to as casting Richard D Hall as a controlled opposition. She is frankly a nut-job trying to make herself important. Delingpod seems to attract any number of people with an agenda of calling out people as ‘controlled opposition’ when they appear to be honest questioners of the authorized narrative - and thereby try to question their motives or integrity.
I think we should ask ourselves whether Delingpole himself is something of a pied piper for disaffected wannabe normies.
His constant refrain, "everything's a lie" is hardly the sign of a genuinely rational enquirer. Of course, apart from anything else, the statement "everything's a lie" is, itself, self-contradictory.
I listen to Delingpole, but classify him strictly as 'conspiratainment', not authentic investigative journalism, such as Iain conducts.
Haha, brilliant.. "Conspiratainment" - Word Of The Day.
Not my own, I should confess.
There are some cases that leading lights in the alternative media firmament - such as mentioned by Iain - won’t touch.
They see these cases - such as Manchester - as beyond the pale & coverage will lose them subscribers, break some kind of unspoken consensus. They fear being seen as flakey, unsound.
The state & their behavioural scientists have done a good job in erecting metaphorical electric fences around these subjects that keep most of the mainstream alternative media away.
In short certain subjects are off limits. The powers that be have successfully created acceptable areas of discourse for the mainstream alternative media. Manchester is evidence of that.
If I had a £1 for every evidence free accusation of "Controlled Opposition" I've heard over the last 15 years in "alternative" circles, I'd be able to buy a round for everyone in crowded London pub. As we're only ever likely to find this information in a Stasi-like collapse of the British Intelligence Services, I'm more inclined to think those accusing are the actual controlled opposition. Especially if they've only gained prominence with the last 18 months or so.
Everyone allowed an audience is controlled, duh. People not controlled get a heart attack, not an audience.
I think that's rather too simplistic. Does your claim make Iain 'controlled'?
You're also getting an audience - at least, from me.
Better watch your back!
The world is actually really simple. People relying on the masses being confused to rule them make it seem everything is really complex and only supersmart politicans can see how it all works.
Im not telling you about how subspace connects A/c generators, meditation and the insatiable need for the powers that are but should not be to use symbols everywhere without them rreally understanding whats going on.
Sounds like a very reasonable assumption to me Grissle. In fact, I'd say you've hit the nail on the head!
The state, for whatever ultimate reason, decided to resurrect the Manchester hoax using the BBC’s very own Mariana Spring to do the confrontational legwork. Had they let sleeping dogs lie Richard D Hall could have shouted from the rooftops and still attracted zero interest because the mainstream media is totally controlled. They have used it now to pave the way for draconian censorship legislation and it therefore offers the opportunity of the ‘ Streisand Effect’ to revisit it in the cold light of day without the baying media frenzy of 2017
A recent change in D-notices may explain the lack of media interest that [as reported by Guido Fawkes 27.11.24]:
"The government has now incorporated counter-terrorism policing into the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee notice system. A D-Notice instructs news outlets not to print details considered sensitive for national security reasons.
The system’s extension was “unanimously agreed” and effectively restricts newspapers or broadcasters from providing details to the public on matters of counter-terror policing deemed sensitive by the government. ......D-Notices are usually for things like protecting the identity of intelligence officials or very specific ongoing military operations…"
Now they also cover public order concerns due to possible terrorist activities.
Wow, that’s interesting. They make laws that make it a crime to report the criminals.
Yes and it's only going to get worse.
Happened to pick it up from a YTber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3loUnFpA5KA&t=1s
Very good.
To answer your question about why would the establishment support an operation that is opposed to it, there are four main reasons to do this.
Number one, in the event of a revolutionary movement, they will have their own agents placed inside the top echelons allowing them to lead the revolution against themselves and restore their rule immediately following the war, regardless of which side wins.
Number two, it is a means of probing the population to discover how fertile the landscape is for particular ideas.
Number three, it is a means of poisoning the well by distributing additional false information to discredit the organisation and independent research as a whole.
Number four, there are divisions among the powerful groups, they don't all agree with eachother, so they occasionally derail eachothers operations. So what many perceive as pure state opposition is actually being supported by members of the establishment to humiliate or punish someone else in the establishment.
By controlling both sides of a conflict it is possible to direct attention where you want it to go, allowing for the punishment of wayward subordinates.
Julian Assange's wikileaks, Russia, Iran, Hamas, Taliban are perfect examples.
One mistake is to assume that just because someone is playing such a role that they are aware of their position. Most of these people are chosen for their stupidity and groomed to perform with no clue they were manipulated.
They can't reveal what they don't know.
Another mistake is to assume that they are a willing partner rather than a coerced slave. And to assume that they can't be useful even if they are being controlled.
They at least have to pretend to be what they claim, and that means that they have to make token gestures that look like something is being achieved.
The people who follow them will delusionally believe that these actions are effective, and, like the "5d chess" you mentioned, will imagine that progress has been made.
Eventually, if enough people believe something, even if it's false, the sheer weight of their massed opinion and financial resources will create a bubble where it looks like it's true.
In this bubble it won't be possible to do things which counteract the narrative without deconstructing the operation. So their beliefs will be protected as long as they continue to perform their function.
Example, if everyone believes the law applies equally to everyone, even though it doesn't, the state will try to maintain the illusion.
And so if the public becomes aware of a powerful person's crimes, they must make it seem like they are pursuing justice.
Which also prevents the public from trying to organise it themselves.
Very well said. Was thinking the same thing when Iain was asking "what could be the possible value of running controlled opposition if it actually serves as your genuine nemesis?"
It is kind of obvious to me that there would be a lot of value in playing your own nemesis. Like you mention, it is mostly about surveillance and control. They can surveil the opposition's landscape more easily if they control a huge gravity well within the opposition, they can guard rail said opposition, they can divert them, plant ideas, censor, etc. It's pretty obvious tbh
Exactly.
There are also examples of how wars and societal conflict can be gamed to produce maximum profits, or to achieve a social engineering outcome.
Often times the people in charge of censoring particular ideas are fanatics who will actually be purged later on. So sometimes it can appear that the authorities have a certain view, but secretly hold the opposite view and covertly support those groups.
I believe the communist revolution originally had a strong anarchist presence, but they were purged after the bolsheviks took power.
America, the CIA and NATO hired many nazis as scientists, spies, and strategists.
In fact, the Nazi party itself came straight out of a British espionage operation. The freemasons created theosophy and the thule society which spawned the whole war.
The reason British intelligence was so strongly embedded in the German war machine was that they literally put the whole thing together. It was even funded by British and zionist bankers.
Hitler, it should be noted, was groomed for command by Eckart and promoted by ludendorff.
Ludendorff was also involved in training lenin and sending him to Russia.
Yet, even though freemasonry originated the Nazi party, the organisation was then banned. But then despite banning it, they still accepted loans and capital from freemason connected financiers.
And despite claiming to hate communism, they worked with the soviet union to develop tanks.
Once we look at these connections honestly, it becomes clear that it is actually very unclear who really believes what.
And note that the elite really does believe in racial supremacy as they have in one form or another for thousands of years. The practice of intermarriage and incest among nobility is essentially eugenics.
Yet they promote the complete opposite of that to the people.
They don't believe what they are paying people to say, it's crazy.
Cards on the table, Charles: is RDH an agent/controlled opposition or not?
Ditto, re Iain.
Yes, a few days ago I was reading something about Kim Philby suggesting he may have been a quadruple agent in effect:).
I heard he got so confused he ended up informing on himself, without even realising it!
I think what flummoxed the KGB was that perhaps he actually believed in Communism. They certainly didn't:).
lol
That's a good point - I'm planning a cool article about Philby in my head right now, suggesting he was actually a triple agent and working for 6 the whole time, as the NKVD's analyst concluded (which led to Moscow breaking off contact with him for a while). It's either that or, if he was a genuine double agent for Moscow, that 6 was inconceivably stupid and incompetent.
What if his boss at "6" was also secretly working for Moscow? Victor Rothschild wasn't averse to passing on info to the Soviets either, from what I can glean. Of course his surname made him rather untouchable:).
Yep again. VR was definitely one of the key figures in the whole saga. I think this was the real point about Spycatcher, which reveals sufficient info about VR whilst almost misdirecting the reader into thinking about the (other) Cambridge lot.
We should also remember that at that time there was little difference between the Soviets (i.e. Bolsheviks) and what became Mossad. So when we cite VR as a Mossad agent that also means NKVD.
The crucial bit in Spycatcher is when Peter Wright is kind of duped into giving VR the K7 dossier, which, when handed to Mossad, provides them with a comprehensive knowledge of MI5's counter-espionage capabilities, which in turn allows for Mossad to initiate a concerted infiltration programme. I think in later life Peter came to understand this, which is the real reason he wrote the book.
As for Philby - your idea of him being a quadruple is intriguing. If 6 thought he was their man, but at some point he genuinely turned (perhaps by Litzi, possibly because of the sex lol!) then this explains the ensuing course of events. There are some glaring bits in his biography of course, like telling the NKVD that 6 don't have any spies in Russia, which is absurd. And 6 putting him into head of the Russian section is likewise absurd unless they knew, or thought, that he was 'their man'. So then this crucial question becomes was he playing them the whole time and ended up betraying them, so to speak.
Fascinating stuff. Lots of food for thought there. I will definitely have to do my article.
After he defected to Moscow I don't think Philby could really gather much fresh intelligence to pass on to anyone. I could be wrong:).
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere about a classic espionage trick. Which is vitally important for everyone to understand when it comes to 'controlled opposition'.
Take 3 agents, 1 2 and 3. Agent 1 makes a name for themselves (with the help of bots and minor assets bigging them up online - notice how these people have thousands of followers), then Agent 2 comes along and accuses 1 of being an agent. Allow agent 2 to start winning the narrative (this is Act Two, if you understand the 3 act structure). It starts to look bad for Agent 1, as the forces of antagonism build up against him (as they usually do in Act Two). Then the turning point to Act Three comes along, in the form of Agent 3, who exposes Agent 2 as an agent, thus rehabilitating Agent 1, along with anything and everything Agent 1 ever said. Everything Agent 2 ever said is likewise discredited.
Where you hide 'the truth', or plant the lies, depends on how convoluted you want to make this narrative. Agent 2, after all, by exposing Agent 1, was ironically telling the truth. But no one believes him now, especially about all the other Agents he was accusing. They're all in the clear too now! So all the lies propagated by Agents 1 and 3 are believed.
Naturally, you have a kind of hierarchy of agents as well - some of them are pawns to be sacrificed, in order to get your top, accomplished agents into the prime positions (usually the Agent 1s of the world).
This classic strategy works just as well with subversion and online cognitive infiltration as it has always done in the annals of classic real world espionage.
Trust me, it's in the manual.
So, in this model, is RDH an agent or not?
What about Iain?
And Miri?
(And X,Y and Z?)
I thought of a good reply, without giving too much away. Here we go.
First, I should probably say that part of my point is that when we see people accusing each other of being agents/controlled opposition, we shouldn’t automatically assume that one of them is an agent and the other is innocent. It’s more likely that both are innocent or both are agents.
There’s also the issue of ‘influence’ and ‘reach’. I myself, for example, only have 79 subscribers, so I could throw around accusation of agency to people like Miri, or even Iain, and especially the likes of Off-G, Miles Mathis, CJ Hopkins, RDH et al and it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. One of the good pointers towards agency is indeed the amount of ‘reach’ they have. With regards to Miri, for example, I would say there’s at least a 70-80% chance (on a classic intel services traffic light 1-100 suspicion scale) that she’s an agent. People who come from seemingly nowhere with little history behind them to suddenly being bigged up with several thousand subscribers etc. is an automatic +20 on the suspicion scale. I only heard of her earlier this year. I may have to subscribe to her actually, just to keep tabs and get more psych info for the profile.
People who have been ‘in the game’ so to speak (as a researcher) for much longer are more likely to be either innocent, or at some point given the ‘offer you can’t refuse’ and ‘turned’ (in espionage jargon). That’s one of the serious nuances that demands and deserves a lot more consideration, and I’ve come across very suspicious examples of this. When some researchers do develop an influence the deep state do need to consider what to do about them. This requires a good psych profile, of course. Yeah - I feel an article coming on!
As for Iain, if he is an agent then he would be one of the highest level agents, because he’s so exceptionally intelligent and such a brilliant researcher. However, I have my doubts because of the emotional aspect of a lot of his writing - that’s to say he is justifiably angry about this that and the other and you can see this in the style of writing - this is a very astute point when we think about detection of agency.
However - this is why I would love it if Iain really did concentrate more on the hidden hand (as I outlined in my other reply) rather than getting caught up in all these fabricated talking points. People do need to be educated about history and the big picture.
In particular, I get seriously tired about all this ‘fake binary’ stuff. That’s not how the world really works on a psychological level. There’s far too much cultural difference in identity between nations and countries etc. for them to be ‘all in it together’. People definitely need to better understand cultural and social psychology issues.
Anyway - this was a long reply. I shall definitely put these ideas for articles on my list - thanks for prompting me there. I really do need to get my shit together.
I like Ian, but he is too close with James Corbett-an obvious agent. So this leaves questions how it would fit into agent paradigms.
Corbett is associated with crystal clear agent Broze. They both avoid dangers of 5g and that no virus has been found like the plague but shout how much they are for the common people.
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/isolated-terrain
I don’t know enough about Corbett (or Broze, for that matter) to say whether I think either of them are controlled opposition, but I decided some months back that it would be unwise for me to engage in debate with people who don’t believe in the existence of viruses (or ‘germ theory’ even), as it’s impossible to change their minds on the subject. I don’t know whether it’s because they are ‘controlled opposition’ or just got sucked into it somehow, and don’t have the intellectual honesty or courage to listen to a different view. But you’d think someone who maybe doesn’t know much about science or biochemistry but merely got convinced by the no-virus people would still have a sufficient level of open-mindedness left to be able to respond to some basic science. Specifically biochemistry, if we’re talking about medical science, immunology, viruses, isolation and various other lab tests that get performed a million times every day at independent labs across the world with a clear reproducibility of results.
If I am reading this correctly (correct me if I’m wrong as you seem to know), the no-virus people say the usual techniques of viral isolation just produce ‘junk proteins’. If this is the case, are you aware of how they account for the reproducibility within these tens of thousands of labs every day? If it’s just random junk, after all, the test results and analyses would be different every time, surely?
I know a lot about biochemistry you see so this entire ‘viruses don’t exist’ stuff, which only seemed to emerge during ‘covid’, seems so bizarre to me that it can only be explained by cognitive infiltration. If viruses really didn’t exist then tens of thousands of lab technicians across the world would’ve talked about it decades before ‘Covid’ - in fact, viruses not existing would’ve become known to everyone such that the bad guys could never have inflicted a ‘pandemic’ on people. They’d have to invent some entirely new category of pathogen hitherto unknown to every lab that ever existed in the world throughout history. And none of that is remotely psychologically believable.
You now have 80 followers!
About biochemistry, Mike Yeadon knows a lot and I have a very strong suspicion that he'd say that you know very little!
Perhaps you could ask him on my behalf?
The two of you must know everything about me! Hmm...
Good question. I imagine some scenarios operate in this way, but it doesn’t account for the element of surprise. As in, the discovery of something one didn’t expect to discover. Not everything is pre-planned or, if it is pre-planned, goes the way the planners intend it to. For example, there’s been a couple of major spanners in the globalist agenda in Australia and NZ in the past few weeks, and 100% the planners did not expect these. So a door for an unexpected outcome has opened and, as Iain says, we need to jump on these opportunities so another door down the hallway doesn’t get slammed shut.
But how can we capitalise on such opportunities if even the alt media can't present a united front?
This is precisely what makes characters like Miri AF and Aisling Thingamabob so toxic. They have nothing of substance to contribute to the cause of exposing the MA hoax, so they prefer to snipe cynically at those who do, steering attention away from where it's most needed. How do they differ from the MSM, in that regard?
Whatever anyone thinks of David Ray Griffin, he at least championed the need for those in the 9/11 truth 'movement' (apologies, Iain) to set aside trivial differences and fight on the vast amount of common ground they all shared.
At the end of the day, a murder is a murder, whether it was executed with a rifle or a handgun.
Exceptional point.
I’ve been having a longer look at Miri today and read some of her articles. Consequently, I’ve upped her on the suspicion scale to a level which makes it almost certain she’s an Agent 3 type. I’m actually feeling a Witchfinder article coming on.
She’s very good indeed with the sleight of hand technique. That’s to say, take an idea you don’t want people to think about, you want people to dismiss.
Example: the Madeleine issue. Throwaway comment about MK-Ultra and child abuse dismissed in the same/immediate next sentence. Then move on to a different focus and keep going on that for at least 500 words, preferably more. This means that your throwaway comment immediately goes into the unconscious, and prevents the reader from questioning it. Repeat this 3 times and the content of that throwaway dismissal will take on the substance of a belief or opinion, in neuroscience terms. (You may notice politicians do this all the time on those panel discussion programmes).
So it’s essentially inserting an idea into someone’s mind, immediately pushing it into the unconscious, then repeating it until it becomes a belief.
There are also a lot of ideas/theories Miri is pushing which are highly suspicious. Too long for a comment, though. I’ll have to tackle them later.
But the other thing is that she only allows paid subscribers to comment. Thus, people like me can’t point all this stuff out or analyse the flaws in her arguments.
So yeah, she now gets a +80 on my 0-100 suspicion scale. What I would really need, though, is to know about her biography, which I don’t unfortunately. She has over 6k subscribers though (how?), so she’s right up there on that primary watch list. Which - ironically - don’t laugh - is why I subscribed to her earlier today (free version - I can’t afford paid subs). Info gathering, you know… tbc…
That’s another great question - I’ll get back to you on it. Might be best not to say too much in these comments though lol. Agents often podcast each other though, I’m sure.
Finally someone is talking about propaganda strategy. Good going! Here's mine:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-information-jungle
I shall check out your link in due course. (other half hogging computer right now)
You mentioned a "manual" that this "classic espionage trick" is taken from. Do you mind mentioning what manual are you referring to and where can we read it?
I couldn’t possibly answer that question, darling. You know how it is.
To be completely honest, I don't "know how it is" and am not clear on why you cannot share this information with us.
But anyway, if you insist that for some reason we are not allowed to have access to the secret "espionage manual" that only you have access to apparently, then please put yourself in the shoes of everyone else on this forum and please tell me what would you do if you were in our shoes and did not have access to the information (manual) upon which you seem to base the above comment on?
Would you simply take the other person's word for it (that they have access to a secret manual that you are not allowed to have access to and therefore they know better than you how the ruling class' deception techniques work)?
Would you not seek to verify it for yourself?
What would you do if you were in the shoes of all other memebers of the forum?
If I were one of the other members of the forum I would be having a nice chuckle.
Very, very good as always Iain thank you