Not Everything Is A "Government Controlled Psyop." Discernment In Confusing Times

"Controlled Opposition" has been used throughout history by governments for various purposes. It means taking control of a movement that opposes your own, because the best way to deal with the opposition is, of course, to lead it, influence it and ultimately, to control it. A great example are so called terrorist organizations like ISIS. Throughout history these organizations have been armed, funded and created by the western military alliance. The same group of countries that claim to be fighting terrorism and infiltrating various countries to do so are actually the ones who assist in perpetuating the phenomenon.

We saw this in 2016, when staged chemical weapons attacks took place in Syria. The United States was caught red handed in, as Congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard pointed out,

supporting allies, partners, individuals and groups who are working directly with al-Qaida, ISIS, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and other terrorists groups providing them with money, weapons and intelligence support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.

Events like these are considered "false flag attacks, " just as many considered 9/11 to be, among others. These are great examples of not only controlling the opposition, but creating it as well.

This has been happening for decades, but "controlled opposition" has taken on a new meaning today, especially in the age of COVID and other controversial topics, like vaccines for example. This label is placed on anybody or any organization that seems to be popular. It's almost as if every person or organization that gets popular is somehow working for the "other side" as a controlled opposition agent.

I find this assertion one that lacks critical thinking, which in turn makes it even more difficult to discern what is truth and what isn't.

Pointing out controlled opposition among terrorist groups is one thing, because there is actual proof and various examples can be used to connect the dots. But claiming someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for example, is somehow a controlled opposition agent, in my opinion, is baseless.

Kennedy is often a target of the controlled opposition label by many. This has at least been my experience conversing with a number of people over the years and doing the nature of work that I do here at The Pulse. Thus, I thought he'd be a great example to use.

Kennedy has spent a large portion of his life creating awareness about the harms and dangers associated with vaccines, and obviously, the COVID vaccines. There are many safety and efficacy issues with several vaccines, and the perception of them given to us via mass marketing may not be an accurate portrayal of the science. Kennedy has done an excellent job bringing this to light, and as a result he has been ridiculed by government health agencies, legacy media and more.

Kennedy has without a doubt been a major factor around the world when it come to influencing and increasing vaccine hesitancy. This is obviously a terrible thing in the eyes of many, but that's not the point. It doesn't matter what your stance on vaccines is with regards to the point I'm trying to make in this article.

My question is, how does increasing vaccine hesitancy and fighting for those who have suffered debilitating injuries (he's a lawyer) as a result of routine vaccination actually help big pharma? How does creating awareness about dangers associated with vaccines encourage more people to get vaccinated? How does it help government health agencies do what they desire to do with regards to vaccination? Where is the proof that Kennedy is some sort of agent being controlled by the global elite? And why would this group of elite not want people to get vaccinated by making Kennedy popular, and in turn influencing millions to be more cautious of routine vaccinations?

How does this activity by Kennedy provide any benefit to the government? A government that is now labelling such information as a an act of domestic terrorism?

I would suggest Kennedy has become popular for two reasons. His name, and the second being that yes, it's no secret that vaccine hesitancy continues to increase every single year across the globe. Again, he's played a significant factor in that increase.

Calling Kennedy a controlled opposition agent is almost the same thing as calling a popular person who is creating awareness about terrorist organizations being created, funded and armed by the United States, a controlled opposition agent. It just doesn't make any sense, and doesn't really benefit the government in any way. It only seems to harm them.

When a popular figure, media outlet or piece of information goes "viral" and is not in the best interests of the powers that be, that content is always subjected to enormous amounts of ridicule and censorship. We've seen this throughout the pandemic with facts that call into question actions that governments have taken to control COVID. Sentiments that get popular, criticize and call into question big government and unethical corporations don't ever seem to benefit the government in any way. It doesn't make sense that these governments and corporations would themselves create such an opposition that they can, in no way, benefit from.

We've seen the same thing happen with Joe Rogan, with many people believing he is controlled opposition. But again, there's no evidence for this. Isn't it possible that people like Rogan and Kennedy are just normal human beings that are doing what they feel in their heart is right?

The Pulse has even been subjected to such accusations over the years by a few people.

Many people even believe the Freedom Convoy to be a government psyop. But if so, it's backfired and simply created more difficulty for the Canadian government. This is obvious, but perhaps I'm not seeing something that proponents of this theory are. Don't get me wrong, crisis' are indeed created while the creators propose the solution. Then you have movements that are organic, yet capitalized on by governments to evoke more of their powers. We are seeing this with the Freedom Convoy right now.

I could be wrong, but again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, especially when these people and movements seem to be creating more difficulty for governments and 'the powers that be.'

Controlled opposition is usually difficult to spot, but when pointing to something as a controlled opposition initiative, there are usually dots to connect and a strong base for the accusations.

I am always open to evidence, and it's something I rely on when examining big claims. Based on my experience, adequate evidence of controlled opposition narratives always seem to emerge, and for the examples I used above, there are none.