Conspiracy Researchers and Robert Malone

journalist Fintan Dunne interviews me regarding Malone v. Breggins

After posting my video on Who is Robert Malone, Really? I was contacted for an interview by journalist and conspiracy researcher (in my words) Fintan Dunne, which is posted at the end. In this essay, I add links and quotes to my answers from the interview. Since it aired, Robert has posted Controlled Opposition, Black Propaganda, in which he and a colleague categorize types of each. His colleague raises three points regarding the debate over Robert being controlled op, including a question that I’ll address at the end.

In reference to the term I’m coining of ‘conspiracy researcher’, I suspect we all know that the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was developed by the CIA as a psy-ops to discredit those presenting evidence contradicting the official narrative of the JFK assassination. Awhile ago I watched a very long documentary giving evidence that the ‘grassy knoll’ and Oliver Stone’s film (intentionally or not) were both part of the psy-ops to focus the attention of skeptics on a decoy. The real plot, according to the documentary, involved a bungled job including a man in the sewer, a stunt double as the dead body (not a voluntary role), and Woody Harrelson’s dad. If I remember the name of the film, I’ll link it.

To decide whether or not you believe this, without seeing the evidence, would be gullible in either direction. To ‘believe’ is to make up your mind in advance of the facts. It has no place in scientific, political, philosophical or spiritual thinking, as I explain in videos ranging from geopolitics in Ukraine to ultimate reality. Instead, in videos like The Reality Puzzle & the Propaganda Playbook, I develop systematic ways to decide how much weight to give alleged facts and the logic to sort out conclusions. I never judge a person’s character, which would contradict my only dogma that I’m no better than anyone else.

Everyone has been dealt a role to play in the resurrection of our true Self as One, something that I think is inevitable and coming sooner than we might suspect. Every role is equally essential. Every person in the quiet truth of their mind is separate from the figure they play in the noisy dream. Blaming anyone for their role is a way of distinguishing myself as separate from and better than them, violating my sole dogma. I’m concerned with what we’re being distracted from, because one of my rules of thumb is that whatever we can’t talk about is the place to look. Is this lawsuit about insults to Robert or something bigger?

I think that what is at stake in this lawsuit is whether someone can be a conspiracy researcher—the vocation or avocation formerly known as journalism. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a consummate conspiracy researcher in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, as I’ve talked about in Infodemic: RFK & the RAF and Conspiracy Theorist as the New Heretic. In their book, Covid19 & the Global Predators, the Breggins are certainly conspiracy researchers. Having not yet received their book, I can’t judge if they’re credible researchers on that topic or not.

On Robert Malone, the evidence they present are things that he’s said himself or that are in the public record. The implications they draw or their conclusions may not be the same as yours. But we should all defend the right to present facts about other people, draw implications from them, and come to conclusions we can’t prove. That’s journalism and I think that’s what Robert Malone attacks with his $25M defamation suit against the Breggins.

---

Here are the questions that I proposed for the interview:

1. When Robert, in his interview with Joe Mercola, says that whether he’s controlled opposition is a valid question, why does he then consider it defamation when the Breggins ask it and come to the ‘wrong’ conclusion?

2. Is it, as Robert says, irrelevant whether he’s controlled opposition?

3. What does it mean to be controlled opposition?

4. What does it mean to be opposition that’s controlled?

5. Is he, as he says, useful controlled opposition?

6. If he is controlled opposition, what are the clues to the agenda of his handlers, based on the triggers for this lawsuit?

---

In regards to #4, Air Lift Underground has an excellent post on this topic:

All Opposition is Controlled

They write about ‘flashpoint figures’:

We’ve been celebrating the progress and what has been said, about the inefficacy and danger of bioware psyops, but what isn’t being said is vastly greater than what is. If truth is the goal, we’re probably farther away than ever, because the shiny new narrator beckoning us from under the Christmas tree is quite possibly rigged with explosives.

By virtue of this possibility, all opposition is hobbled by uncertainty. “Can we really trust this government scientist turncoat?” Once we ask that question, the moment is awkward; the factions fractionate, and the flashpoint fizzles. If we never ask it, we look around and ask, sheepishly, how come all the prominent voices representing our views are people who never really agreed with them to begin with?

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether they’re trying to cudgel nickels from the discontented, or accepting some sort of pay day from a dark corner of Pharma. All leaders are suspect. Leadership is suspect. Groupthink is suspect. Why are we debating whether we should listen to this or that so-and-so? Isn’t that what got us into this mess?

---

Here is the advice that Robert received and passed on from his colleague:

1. If someone is accusing you of being controlled opposition, they are either just being intellectually lazy … or they are actually thinking. If they are really thinking for themselves, rather than just regurgitating someone else’s accusation, then that is a good thing!

2. When the claim is made, ask the person what they imagine the end game, the objective of the accused is. In my case, do my accusers imagine that I am suddenly going to flip and try to entice those that follow me to take the mRNA jabs?

3. In his opinion, at this phase, when we are seeing such clear evidence of infiltration, disruption, chaos, and the COINTELPRO strategies being deployed, each of us needs to ask ourselves—in every new interaction (physical or virtual) involving resistors to the COVIDcrisis narrative—is this person controlled opposition?

If I were to speculate answer #2 for the Breggins, I would not see Robert’s end game as flipping and promoting the mRNA vaccines. That would be a very naive understanding of the role of controlled op. The Breggins’ perspective, from their book title, is that the vaccines are one part of a global agenda of control and depopulation. The predators, as they call them, would certainly know that the rise in vaccine mortality would be noticed eventually and spark an uprising. How the problem was defined would need to be shaped by someone who’s trusted within the opposition. Ideally, someone who’s an expert so the means can be condemned without extrapolating further to the ultimate ends or back to the initial instigators.

The problem may be political: solved by a return of Trump, as Robert supports (his defamation claims against the Breggins include saying he voted for Obama and Hilary, although this seems odd and like it could only be known if he’d once said it).

The problem may be government corruption: replace Fauci and it’s fixed.

The problem may be pharmaceutical corruption. Someone who won billions in grants seems like a good candidate to tackle this.

The problem may be gullible, fearful people, ala Desmet. We need people who think for themselves in the ways we want them to think for themselves. Unzip your brains and leave them on our altar.

What the problem would not be is a global agenda of control and depopulation. In evaluating an accusation of controlled op, Robert suggests, we first look at those throwing the bomb: “Are the person(s) making the accusation prone to wild conspiracy theories and paranoid thinking?”

Like thinking the vaccine’s out to kill us? Et tu, Brute, pointing the finger at crazy conspiracy theorists?

---

I’d like to end by answering Robert’s question in the Mercola interview, “Even if I am controlled opposition, the question is, am I useful?” My answer is “Absolutely!” Whether this is a role that Robert has chosen on his own or not, it’s a role that he’s playing with honesty and integrity. The person who appeared on Joe Rogan is not the same person posting today—he’s been influenced and changed by the community he’s gathered around him. Those people are thoughtful, informed and respectful paid subscribers, who’ve all put their money where their mouth is.

But those subscribers are not followers. They’re dissidents, some of whom have paid a higher price than a subscription fee to have the right to speak freely. When they disagree, they post, as I did recently on Bertrand Russell or someone else did on the Jesuits. There was a lively debate on the guest post by Mattias Desmet when this controversy started, and someone recently linked to a critique of it from Unlimited Hangout called Covid 19—Mass Formation or Mass Atrocity? None of these were censored by Robert.

Robert’s censorship started on his post Just the Facts that published the legal filing where the paid subscriber(s) most critical of the lawsuit were banned from posting. He’s now invoked the No Assholes rule and said that he’ll ban any paid subscriber on the third infraction. He states that paid subscribers, who are a small fraction of his total 250,000, are where he and Jill get almost all their income but that doesn’t make him dependent on any one. Certainly not if he has $25M to make up the difference.

Whether he is controlled opposition or not, it must be clear to Robert Malone that the lawsuit is backfiring badly and bringing more criticism and skepticism than the Breggins ever did. My friend, who is a conspiracy researcher published in several languages, sent this to me:

Saw your RM episode—have no doubt RM watched it as well

he outlines black op propaganda to 'vaccinate' himself from that type of scrutiny 

bear in mind that the Lifetime Actor can give straight info for years to build up the trust he or she will need when they deliver the hammer blow

Malone could be real but he needs to be under a magnifying glass and if he is real he shouldn't mind this at all

thus, can't understand why he sued

he should have welcomed their critique

his suit has the effect of scaring away critics 

is this what he wants?

Here is the interview with Fintan Dunne:

---

Here are the videos mentioned in this episode:

The Reality Puzzle & Propaganda Playbook

I look at reality as a jigsaw puzzle that requires both the masculine and feminine sides of the brain to solve--the masculine-analytical "does it fit?" and the feminine-intuitive big picture. I apply this to my poster of Mesoamerica Resiste! from the Beehive Collective that uses wind-up chattering teeth to represent tourism and vampire bats for indigenous midwifery. Kennedy's book gives historical context to the 1910 puzzle piece that changed medicine from strengthening the immune system to germ warfare. I examine the mechanisms of manipulation and list three rules of the propaganda playbook: 1) name things the opposite of what they are, 2) it's easier to lie big than lie small, and 3) the best defense is a good offense.

Infodemic: RFK & the RAF:

Asks why the spread of information is the virus that most worries them. Examines Robert F. Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci as metajournalism that puts the virus as the "March madness champion" of many attempted pandemics. Looks at The United States of Fear by Mark McDonald and why it says we're not in a data war but a psychological war. Analyzes the instability of a tightly organized delusion system and why sacrifice increases the loyalty to it.

and Conspiracy Theorist as the New Heretic:

Responding to Russell Brand's interview of Brad Evans, I examine obedience to the "technotheocracy" by looking at guilt as a more potent form of fear. I look at the 1987 defunding of Peter Duesberg as the replacement of science and empirical data with the religion of profit-friendly woke-speak. I define conspiracy theory as what investigative journalism used to be before it was replaced with infotainment. I propose propaganda as the interweaving of truth and lies, and Trump as a double-agent who turned truth into heresy by association and made villains into heroes by opposition. I cite Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi on the victim as sacred object, as Brad puts it. I applaud the diabolical cleverness of the strategy to term all power as privilege and make us give it up willingly.