Does a controlled opposition actually exist?
I don't think humans are capable of doing something to the complex level, there are usually too many variables involved so that everything comes out perfectly as it is
I think what we see at face value is usually the reality of it
>>72539807
Yeah, anything that assumes intelligence in humans I'm usually dismissive of.
If only you knew how bad things really are.
>>72539807
It's not complex.
Just pay both sides. Support their campaigns financially
>>72539807
Yea controlled oposition is totally made up. There arent manuals about how to do it. There arent entire army units devoted to it.
>>72539988
For what reason? It's basically a coin toss if you support both sides
Most business people are risk-adverse
To depend on something as basic as a coin toss would be the dumbest move imaginable
You can't possibly expect me to believe that someone is being paid to act visibly retarded to give another side the upper hand
There's too many things involved that would cause it all too fall apart considering how fragile human nature is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
>>72539807
Yes, it's called /pol/.
>>72539807
>Does a controlled opposition actually exist?
of course
>I don't think humans are capable of doing something to the complex level, there are usually too many variables involved so that everything comes out perfectly as it is
this statement is nearly incomprehensible. no insult intended. maybe you can rephrase it?
>I think what we see at face value is usually the reality of it
how wrong you are? are you actually in that small percentage, outside of the media and those who control it, who actually buys into the government explanation of, say, the Kennedy assassination?
I agree, but labeling something as controlled opposition would be the easiest way to falsely create it for the opposite effect.
>>72541791
>how wrong you are?
whoops - that was an errant question mark.
as for your second statement, i think i understand it, after re-reading it a few times. let me show you an example of where you might be wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
sometimes, the official story gets ahead of itself. either this woman is psychic, or something odd is going on here.
>>72541791
give me any sort of evidence that this controlled opposition actually exists in any form of media
>inbr they cover it all up with chem trails and the government is all knowing and all seeing
Humans are fucking stupid
They can't get simple government right, yet they have the power to create mass media sources to spread propaganda as they see fit?
I find that hard to believe
I think news sources are just as they are, they flow with the time and things that might seem absurd by todays standards were absured 20 years ago as well
>>72539807
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PStpvviPgxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A
it's all totally normal, i assure you.
>what is subversion
talk to papa Yuri (Bezmenov) for a firsthand account
also ref. cognitive diversity
>>72542582
I don't see how this is controlled opposition more like the same news source handed over to multiple stations
What does this have to do with anything?
Send me an article or something, I don't really care to watch youtube clips, or else all those
"REEL LIFE ALIENS CUGHT UN TAPE" might all be real as well
>>72542377
>give me any sort of evidence that this controlled opposition actually exists in any form of media
we have to be clear here. in order for me to do that, we must first establish that there *is* opposition, and what that opposition is opposed to. then, we can discuss some cases where that opposition may be shown to originate with the very people or groups who perpetrated whatever is now being opposed.
i do not think you are using clear language, or perhaps you are misusing terms.
>>72542582
please take a look at those videos, and tell me how you could possibly explain this, apart from these "news stories" from varying media outlets having their origin in a single source. it's obvious.
>>72542295
the video here also speaks for itself, and is inexplicable apart from prior knowledge.
>>72542672
fugg
>>72542853
again, i think we are having communication issues due to unclarified terms.
tell me precisely what it is that you are denying the existence of, and try to stay away from words you've already used.
my own notion of what "controlled opposition" means is explained here:
>>72542885
as for the two videos i posted here:
>>72542582
there's no possible way you can sincerely tell me that they have no obvious implications as to how the media and the "news" works.
>>72542885
Again, linking a couple of youtube clips that are edited to make it seem in favor of a conspiracy that the creator is trying to push really isn't any sort of proof of an """""opposition"""""'
Give me detailed doc or something along that lines because at best all of this is not even good evidence, it can barely be called evidence at all, not even circumstantial
also trying to create a """""clarified term"""" just states you want to not use the literal definition for it but instead your own arbitrated view that you can easily move goal posts with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kip2w-DceV0
any American who watches the news and doesn't recognize this hasn't been paying attention.
even in seemingly inane, pointless, inconsequential "news" stories, this happens - over and over and over again. that tells me that there's a reason for the terms being used, and the "stories" are merely a vehicle or segue for delivering them.
>>72542672
guess a link would help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
also cognitive diversity comes from Cass Sunstein, a paper called "Conspiracy Theories" where he advises the infiltration of groups questioning the 9/11 narrative
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf
he worked for the Obama administration until 2012
>>72543498
All these fucking videos are either edited clips or things taken out of context to push the viewers specific agenda, I really don't understand how you as a person can watch that and instantly believe
"Yep that makes 100% sense that the media is being controlled and not that tv stations are lazy and send out the same scripts to save money on writers"
for fucks sake this whole video is on par with some stupid shit as this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q86V-UHaw6Y
Even the fucking title reads like an add bait for clicks
>>72543935
>All these fucking videos are either edited clips or things taken out of context to push the viewers specific agenda
my only point in posting them is to demonstrate that the same exact language - words, phrases, and entire sentences - are used by many different new networks (which have no corporate relation) in presenting the same exact news stories. this is not at all possible, absent some ultimate single source writing the same verbiage that is parrotted by all of these news outlets. it is an obvious point that really warrants no further explanation on my part.
if you are saying that there's nothing unusual about this, you are lying to yourself, and you know it.
i have no "agenda," nor am i party to whatever agenda the posters of those videos may have. i am merely pointing out something that should be obviously amiss.
>>72539807
those who control stuff generally have at their disposal money, time and bright minds whichd edicate their lives to keeping things in their favor
even if they can't control everything, even fi you account for human greed that will make shills betray them, you could control most things, with money, and fear
if you don't think thats possible you're seriously lacking a trip to ther third world, specially authoritarian countries. spoiled cunt.
>>72544309
>there is a ultimate single source
Or again, maybe they just used it to save money which seems a lot more likely, Link me two different news stations that parrot the exact same story word for word instead of dumb soundclips then maybe i'll take your point a bit more seriously then this shitty conspiracy bait you've been linking
