Agent provocateur...me?
Part 2 of Insider Language
Last Saturday I interviewed a history professor at the University of Montana. It was a great talk and in an upcoming post I’ll introduce you to Richard and link to the interview. We had an interesting conversation as my tech team was setting up. Though Richard is mainstream, at least in the sense he works as a tenured professor at a major university, he very much appreciates the need for dissident and alternative voices such as kla.tv, where the majority of my interviews are broadcast. Still, I was surprised that he seemed unaware of the extent of censorship that goes on in the venues that dissident voices rely on to spread their message. He was bit surprised when I told him I’d set up a Youtube channel for kla.tv/Japan and within weeks stopped uploading there because of the ‘strikes’, video bans and threats of closure.
Richard wanted to know where I go for news and information. Since we would be talking about the anti-war historian, Charles Beard, I mentioned antiwar.com. I figured that would be safe as we both were already fans of Scott Horton, editor at that site.
“Oh, yes. Horton is great. What about Scott Ritter?” asked Richard.
“Oh, I think he’s good. Treasure trove of information.”
-How about Glen Greenwald?
-Uh…Yeah, I like Greenwald. Lately he seems to be on the mark.
Richard sensed I wasn’t fully on the Greenwald train. “But you’re not completely behind him?”
-Well, I guess not completely.
-What’s wrong with him?
-I don’t know. It seems like he’s half mainstream, and I don’t trust anyone in the mainstream. He’s worked for The Guardian, which is about as bad as it gets, and other outlets that are semi-mainstream, and he’s made a ton of money with his journalism. When Snowden fed him all those documents, he sure took his blessed time getting them out. And he never released the bulk of the documents. And the government never showed much interest in going after him like they did Snowden and Assange. In fact I think James Corbett said something about possible CIA connections, and his being controlled opposition.
“Controlled opposition?”
-You haven’t heard that term?
-No, but I can pretty easily guess what it means.
Then I mentioned that I had a recollection of Corbett (or someone on our side) saying even Snowden and Assange were controlled opposition and working as limited hangouts.
“What’s a limited hangout?” asked Richard.
Of course I was using these terms to describe people ostensible on our side, or show signs of being on our side, the side of truth, who nevertheless may be working for the system, the borg. Many would argue that Elon Musk is in this category. I could list others but that is for a future post.
Anyway, here are 4 terms for this insider language series you should familiarize yourself with, if you consider yourself a righteous dissident patriot (or tin-foil hatter, depending on who’s doing the naming):
Controlled opposition: someone who appears to be on the side of light and truth, but secretly works for them. I used to spend some mental energy trying to figure out who were the imposters, but now I mostly go on what they say and do. Maybe Assange, Snowden and Greenwald are C.O., but I would call each of these three ‘free speech heroes’ judging by the effect of their sayings and doings, and if Wikileaks brings us closer to an understanding of the dark truths of our government, then I’m an Assange fan, and in any case of course I don’t believe he should be jailed for investigative journalism and exposing government malevolence, especially when he’s publishing information that someone on the inside, not he, leaked. That’s not a crime.
Caitlin Johnstone had a good article on controlled opposition a while back. Incidentally, I used to be a big fan of Johnstone, and then she became a Covidian. Unlike Scott Adams, she doesn’t seem inclined to swallow her pride on that one any time soon.
Limited Hangout: According to Rational Wiki, “a limited hangout is intelligence jargon for a form of propaganda in which a selected portion of a scandal, criminal act, sensitive or classified information, etc. is revealed or leaked, without telling the whole story.” This is a way to deflect from the most important part of the story, to not reveal the crucial truths. For example, the New York Magazine did a piece confirming the truth of the October Surprise of 1980, a conspiracy in which the release of the hostages in Iran was delayed, in order to prevent the re-election of Jimmy Carter. Well, kudos to NY Magazine for coming around to this truth, but according to Charles Burris, they (and the NY Times) carefully avoided telling you the key players. From this article https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-1980-october-surprise-scandal-proven-true/ :
Now that President Jimmy Carter is dying of Cancer the NY Times is doing a limited hangout on the 1980 October Surprise Scandal, blaming John Connolly and this guy discussed in the articles above instead of G H W Bush, William Casey, Donald Gregg for the subversion of the 1980 Presidential Election
Conspiracy Theorist: This is of course a super-popular term, but I wonder if you have a working definition. In the mind of a normie, it just means someone who believes in crazy stuff. Here’s a couple definitions I like, the first one a literal definition, the next practical:
Someone who theorizes (speculates, thinks, concludes, etc) about conspiracies, which of course are real and we have laws on the books to prosecute conspirators (as in conspiracy to commit X).
One who detects and reports the nefarious and usually illegal activities of powerful interest groups.
Next time a normie talks about conspiracy theories, just for fun ask them to define ‘conspiracy theory’.
Agent Provocateur: (French for inciting agent). From MyLawQuestions.com: An agent provocateur works on behalf of a police force or government agency to encourage members of dissident groups to engage in illegal or controversial activities.
Think black bloc, masked protestors trying to incite the crowd in the Seattle WTO protests in 1999, the Quebec police, disguised as protestors at an international summit in Montebello, Quebec in 2007, and more recently, the infamous Ray Epps goading the January 6th protestors along*. If you’re running a dissidents’ group operation, it’s prudent to assume you’ll be infiltrated by agent provocateurs, so precautions are in order. I made the mistake of attending a local patriot’s group meeting here in the Bitterroot, without first introducing myself to Clyde, the 6’6” enforcer who looks a little like a bigger, tougher version of Greg Allman, who wears giant silver rings on all his fingers. Stan Delaney and I had to slip out a little early but that attracted the attention of Clyde and his sidekick Zeke, who tracked us down in the parking lot and asked us who we were and what was our business here. I told Zeke I was a friend of his father’s, who runs the whole operation. That was our ticket out of the parking lot, but I wonder what they would have done if they concluded we were agent provocateurs. I also wonder if Stan was packing his Glock that evening. I’ll bet Clyde and Zeke were packing heat.
*This Ray Epps is a piece of work. Last night 60 minutes did a report on him, a puff-piece I assume, including an interview. Epps of course denies his organizational role in the January 6th protests, which would include goading the crowd into breaking into the Capitol. In a text to his nephew, he wrote that he organized the whole thing. Epps says he used to joke around like that with his nephew, but has thought it over and now doesn’t. Matt Christenson makes a good point- even if you can’t prove that Epps was an FBI plant or government operative of some sort, isn’t it sensible to ask why the heck the FBI and police and courts are so disinterested in him? Why are people who have done far less stewing in jail, while Epps walks free?
That’s it for dissident patriot’s vocabulary. In part C, the final post for the “inside language” series, I’ll introduce some new, handy words to describe common personalities at the worksite.