“We shall set up our own opposition. Our real opponents, at heart, will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards…. Our subjects will be convinced of the existence of full freedom fo speech.”
—Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion 12:11 (Late 19th century)
By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 3, 2021 Anno Domini
All controlled opposition are shills but not all shills are controlled opposition.
Everyone shills for their worldview to one degree or another. In general, there is nothing wrong with this. We see our worldview as the best and naturally want the rest of the world to adopt it in order to make the world a better place.
Of course, our worldview might not be what’s best for everyone, but we believe it is. This type of shilling is honest and natural, so long as the one shilling their worldview is transparent about. But what about all those shills who keep their worldview secret from others yet continue to shill for it? This is when shilling becomes highly suspect. After all, why would someone want to keep their worldview a secret from others?
Someone may have honest reasons for secrecy, especially with increasing public censorship of unpopular opinions. This is totally understandable. However, this covert kind of shilling can be exploited to install controlled opposition operatives as part of counter-intelligence operations of foreign and/or hostile groups. Therefore, it becomes necessary to be able to detect these dangerous shills so as to be able to neutralize their shilling and, hopefully, expose their true motive to the public.
The following are a list of tools you can use to hopefully detect and neutralize controlled opposition shills.
Patterns: the primary method to detect controlled opposition shills is in the patterns they exhibit or exist in their lives. No matter how clever controlled opposition is, they will always exhibit one or more patterns. It’s our job to recognize these patterns. We want to look for patterns in their narratives—which ones they promote and which ones they ignore. We want to look for patterns in the guests they use to advance their shilling message. We also want to look for patterns in the suspected shills’ associates. As the saying goes, “those of a feather, flock together” (Note: finding only scant patterns without other corroborating patterns doesn’t necessarily make one controlled opposition, so be cautious. Above all, be objective.)
Background: we want to look for patterns in the suspected controlled opposition operative’s history. This isn’t always possible, especially if they are a mysterious and secretive character, but when it is possible, dig deep in their history and look for patterns in their education, family, associates, employment, religion, etc. It shouldn’t be difficult to find patterns in a dangerous shill’s background. If the suspect has even remote connections to the intelligence world, big business, lobbyists, we should narrow in even deeper looking for patterns. Finally, the suspect’s birth could also help corroborate other patterns. For example, of the suspect is born Jewish, a red flag should go up in your mind (being Jewish alone without corroborating patterns is not indicative of controlled opposition. You need to keep digging or dismiss the subject as controlled opposition.)
Medium: This is related to popularity. If the suspected shill has easy and much access to mediums of communication, they should be held as suspect, especially today, where the thought police work around the clock trying to restrict access of truth tellers. Is the suspected shill being promoted on multiple mediums by multiple sources? This is highly suspect and should be scrutinized. One method the Judeo-masonic money power uses to neutralize truth speech is through what’s called dynamic silence. Developed by “Rabbi” Feinberg of the American Jewish Committee in 1947, with dynamic silence, according to a scrubbed Wikipedia entry, “unfavoured individuals are denied unmediated exposure to the public. In the second part, only negative aspects of the unfavoured individuals are reported.” A related method used to silence truth tellers is through enemy groups publicly criticizing their own controlled opposition (seemingly paradoxical) so as the criticized shill gets negative attention as opposed to an authentic opponent getting any attention at all. For example, when the ADL or Hillary Clinton publically named Alex Jones instead of critics who had authentic dirt on them. It’s a diversion tactic. If Jones were authentic, they would not name him at all, even if critically, because the Streissand Effect says that even negative attention will bring out the message of the one being criticized. Therefore, it’s best to completely ignore truth tellers, because criticizing them publicly will only give them more attention (to their message). So, if a suspected shill is being publicly criticized by high-profile groups, that is a major red flag. Look for corroborating patterns.
These were the methods I used to successfully call out Alex Jones in the mid 2000s. I didn’t read about it anywhere, I just had a natural aptitude for it. Unfortunately, at the time I discovered the patterns in Alex Jones and tried to warn others about it, nobody would believe me. I was using logical arguments in an attempt to show them, and it wasn’t changing anyone’s mind (so I thought. Later, several contacted me saying that I had helped them wake up to the Alex Jones deception). So, I decided that in order to convince people, I was going to have to come up with some hard data to show them that Jones was working for the bad guys. So, what I did was a key word count analysis of his video documentaries, like this one. This seemed to have more of an effect, and eventually forums and blogs were reposting the data I had collected on Jones and my thesis was starting to seem plausible to more and more people. At that time, I didn’t know about things like the Soviet Trust model, so I wasn’t very confident in my skepticism of people likes Jones, but I just knew something was fishy about him, based on the patterns I had recognized. Eventually, though, it paid off, and I feel corroborated by the passage of time and the acquisition of knowledge. Now you have the tools and the knowledge that took me years to develop.