Controlled opposition’s use of the strategic alibi

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 16, 2025 Anno Domini

When most people think of an alibi, they tend to think of someone who can vouch for another in defense against wrongful prosecution. Alibis can also be used to protect guilty persons as well but requires the alibi’s complicity in the deception.

But an alibi can be something other than a person.

In the popular 1992 movie Basic Instinct, actress Sharon Stone plays a killer (Catherine Tramell) who uses her novel writing as a clever alibi. She meticulously carries out a murder in the exact way one of her characters does in one of her novels. When the police question her, she uses the alibi defense.

“I’d have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing…and then kill somebody the way I described it in my book,” Tramell says scoffingly.

However, few realize that alibis are regularly used for propaganda purposes, especially today, decades after the Soviet strategists reformatted their tactics to focus on controlled opposition.

How it works is somewhat complex, but generally speaking alibis accomplish two primary objectives for controlled agents of influence conducting covert psychological warfare against targets.

The strategic alibi

1. Alibis broaden the audience of the agent of influence. Using the flip-flop method (regularly or irregularly changing positions on a given subject), the agent of influence can appeal to a wider audience than standing firm on one or more positions. For example (and this has actually happened—with Alex Jones of Infowars), one may flip flop on their stance on the Middle East conflict. One week they may support Zionism, while the following week they don’t. With this angle, the agent can appeal to both Zionists and anti-Zionists; meanwhile, obscuring the agent’s true position so that propaganda can be more effective. Being a Zionist is the agent’s alibi when being accused of anti-Zionism, and being an anti-Zionist is the agent’s alibi when accused of being a Zionist. Additionally, a simple portrayal of neutrality can also act as an alibi. The agent can toggle between pro, contra, or neutral at his/her discretion.
2. Alibis provide cover for the agent of influence. Where the alibi comes in is when a critic of an agent of influence challenges their position at the time of an apparent contradiction in the agent’s narrative, the agent, or one of his/her supporters, can point to a time in the past when the agent took the opposite or neutral position; thereby, deflecting the criticism away from the agent and maintaining the agent’s credibility. This tactic doesn’t fool everyone, but it seems to fool the majority of supporters of agents of influence. It’s a calculated risk for the agent of influence, and the odds typically are in his/her favour, especially if the agent employs a cult of personality (Stalin, Hitler, Reagan, Trump, Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes all have used cults of personality through which to propagandize their audience).

The strategic alibi relies on the docility of the target. The shorter the memory; the weaker the discernment; the deeper the cult of personality, the easier it will be to fool the mark. A discerning person with a decent memory and less susceptibility to cult of personality can initially be fooled by an agent’s strategic alibi, but in time he should be able to catch the patterns of contradiction and deception, especially if a third party points it out to him. Someone who quickly dismisses reasonable warnings of a third party is likely stuck in a cult of personality of their favourite “truther”. Don’t waste your time with these people. Their issues are more psychological. Some males get sucked into cults of personality due to unresolved parent issues and can seek out a father figure in their chosen cult leader. I suspect this is the case with many Nick Fuentes followers (this would be very ironic considering Fuentes is a suspected homosexual).

The nature of the alibi

Discerning the nature of the alibi is important, because its quantity and quality can be very deceptive. An agent may only need to provide himself with one reference point in the past with which to build his alibi. For example, the argument that “Nick Fuentes can’t be covering for [Russian] Jewry (Chabad), because he mentioned them last week on is podcast!”. In this real-world example (recently someone used this excuse with me), Fuentes mentioned Chabad one time in passing and it was nothing close to substantial, but now he has provided himself with a point to which he can refer back when a critic discerns the inconsistency in his narrative, which does indeed run cover for Russian Jewry. This brings me to the next point, the quality of the alibi. We can see that all it takes is one single reference point with which an agent can fool his audience of marks, but the quality is just as important. If Fuentes had actually spoke in depth about Chabad rather than just referring to them by name, his alibi would’ve been harder to uncover, but speaking in depth would potentially tell too much of a group he is supposed to be protecting, so these shills won’t get deep (in the example of Kremlin asset E. Michael Jones, he mentioned Chabad one time out of all his books and magazines, and it was in passing, just as Fuentes has done). A competent analyst uses both quality and quantity when assessing the legitimacy of a person of influence. How many times has the influencer referenced someone/something on a given subject? Have they spent more time referencing a counter point? If so, how deep have they gone covering the counterpoints—deeper than the initial points? Do they flip flop on their positions? These are the questions one should be asking himself when discerning influencers.

I discerned in the early days of Alex Jones’ alt media career that he did indeed talk about the Holocaust critically at times (he was suspected of shilling for the Jews) but it lacked both quality and quantity, especially when compared with the length of time and depth he spent talking about Hitler and the Nazis. So, I came up with the idea of a key-word count that I used when watching his documentaries and relayed this to my readers. The results were lopsided and revealed Jones’ bias, at least in terms of quantity. I was among the first to be skeptical of Jones in the mid 2000s and only a few thought my analysis of him as a controlled agent of influence was plausible. Most people thought I was crazy, but when I started publishing the key-word analyses, it gave much more credibility to my theory on Jones and my readers started to take it more seriously. In Invisible Empire, you can see that Jones overwhelmingly referenced Hitler and the Nazis, a clearly identifiable group, over other identifiable groups. Even if Jones had said something really critical of the Holocaust industry, next to the numerous references to Hitler and the Nazis, the memory of that Holocaust revelation would have quickly faded from the memory of his audience—yet Jones would have the alibi of being no friend to the Jews because he criticized the Holocaust (although not in any meaningful way). 

Trojan Horses:  3D-chess, anti-LGBT, and pro-life alibis

The “3D-chess” alibi has been a staple technique of Trump and his team of Soviet assets. The gist of this ingeniously deceptive tactic is that it again allows the agent to advance the agenda of his handlers whilst simultaneously appearing to oppose the agenda of said handlers. “Trump is really working at against the New World Order even though he seems to be going along with it,” the rhetoric goes. “So just sit back and wait for him to drain the swamp”. The key here is the sitting back park. This tactic is designed to get Western conservatives/anti-Communists to do nothing, because the [controlled agent of influence] will take care of everything. It’s designed to stifle organic dissident action, which is the real threat to the Communist conspiracy. Because it’s a plausible strategy—acting as a double agent, many Western conservatives fall for this tactic. But if said double agent is really just playing 3D chess, there should be a point at which one can demonstrate that the so-called dissident is covertly turning things around for the good guys, and that is not happening with Trump, Putin, or any other so called 3D-chess master. The agenda continues to advance largely or entirely unhindered. Things are not turning around, perhaps in even the slightest way. At an advanced level of this deception, the Communist might allow some smaller things to appear to be turning around, but it’s really just a temporal concession that feeds the illusion that the 3D chess masters are genuine.

Some of the concessions the Communists have allowed recently are the overturing of Roe vs. Wade, for which agent Trump Krasnov is taking credit, and concessions to traditional views on sexuality, which are happening mainly in Eastern Europe and Russia. Remember, though, that Soviet concessions are not victories for the West; they are strategic only. Controlled opposition within Christendom is also benefitting from the pro-life alibi. The strategists realize that as long as they can appeal to Western Christians from the pro-life point of view, they can use it to establish credibility with one of their controlled agents and then use the agent’s remaining narrative it to slip in the poison. This alibi acts as a sort of Trojan Horse. The Opus Dei-controlled Catholic alt media comes to mind, like the Dugin-connected, pro-Kremlin Life Site News crowd. Some people are so deceived by the pro-life alibi that it seems as if the anti-Christ himself would slip under the radar using the disguise of a pro-life warrior. The competent analyst does not discern based on concessions. Instead, he takes in the entirety of the narrative, using pattern recognition, history, popularity, and presence of alibis when discerning a person or group.

The still Soviet empire of the Russian Federation owes most of its positive credibility in Western conservative circles today to its policies in the socio-sexual realm. Make no mistake, though, Russian policy seemingly contrary to neo-Western LGBTism does not exist for moral reasons but for strategic reasons: to maintain social stability at home in preparation for a military buildup for future conflict with the West, and abroad to deceive naïve Western conservatives into supporting the camouflaged Soviet axis of evil, which is portrayed as morally and intellectually superior.

Like with Trump, many Putin apologists try to excuse his behaviour as simply playing 3-D or 5-D chess. It works on the simplest of minds. But anyone who gives an honest look at what Putin is doing can clearly see that he is not any kind of hindrance to the world Communist plan but is, instead, advancing it perhaps farther than anyone else is.