Best definition of controlled opposition I’ve heard from the ever acerbic Brianv.
Farcevalue » August 11th, 2016, 9:46 pm wrote:The “Too many people would have to be in on it”, or “There are too many conflicting and unnecessary details woven into the story” ideas that cause incredulity in those unfamiliar with fakery rest on the assumption that there is a legitimate governing body or source of factual information distribution that could be informed of the charades and would then be compelled to act on that knowledge.The definition of legitimate is circular to begin with; in reality there is no rationale for expecting the state, regardless of how compartmentalized and perhaps “rogue” certain actors may be, to prosecute itself. The whole ball of wax is a fiction to begin with; the reason there is such a thing as a “government” at all is because those who call themselves such wrote (and continue to expand upon) a story featuring themselves as authorities in the institution of their own creation.As far as the news media goes, although many make the assumption that the “news” is involved in the exercise of distributing factual information, there is no reason to accept this as a given (as the members of this forum are well aware).This being the case, the idea of exposing factual elements of a psyop that contradict the official narrative to agents of government or media would be akin to “exposing” inaccurate elements of a fictional Hollywood movie to its producer or director (or better yet, gaffers and craft services crew) and expecting a revised release that would set the fictional record straight.Brilliant. That so called critical thinkers the likes of Stephan Molyneux & Co. can’t figure this out is beyond me! Tsk tsk, silly me. They’re paid to not figure it out!