21 Comments

I think the most dangerous controlled opposition are those that are obviously well-funded and professional, pump out factual information, but never touch the nerves that need touching. Typically, they present righteously and fearlessly but take readers in harmless and time-wasting directions. Also typically, they will ban those who ask awkward questions. I consider this last aspect to be the dead giveaway. Some may disagree with my logic and I would be keen to hear other opinions before naming names.

Expand full comment
Jan 13, 2023Liked by The Underdog

These ConOps are just like the KGB and Stasi in the former USSR and E. Germany. The KGB/Stasi ops were embedded in every sphere of life; in culture and arts, Uni and schools, hospitals and every health agency, unions, media, etc. They stifled life of their fellow citizens! People lived in terror. The could not trust their neighbours or even some members of their family! This is how grave people had become. This is what the West has become by the hand of a few elite financers and thier globalist organisations. It's mind boggling to think about their "penetration" all around the world, including the NGOs like the UN, WHO, and the print and media conglomerates, secret services, government institutions and their quangos! Who can escape their tentacles? History repeats itself! Where is Ceausescu? Where is E. Germany and USSR? The same fate awaits those that think they are invincible! The God of the universe is watching this whole nasty game!

Expand full comment

Lovely. Thank you.

Now we need someone skilled in the arts to make a browsable web tool that will let people tag public figures and those with power over others. Have a list of FACTS as shown by evidence and every person can decide which facts are important to them. This chosen list of facts is then filtered against people who have uttered statements for or against the facts.

Include a browser plug in (phone app) that will highlight the name of a person in bloody warning red or glowing sunny yellow depending on if they have the same take on facts that are important to you.

Using the guidelines here in the Beagle should let the utterances of politicians, officials, sports people, preachers, educators, media personalities and such to be categorised as speaking facts or not.

Expand full comment
author

Such tools require mammoth amounts of effort. In the US, the closest might be Open Secrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/), which tracks who receives finances from whom.

In the UK, the closest is 'TheyWorkForYou' (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/) who track how MPs vote on various bills.

These by themselves aren't sufficient coverage and only deals with the really obvious financial and voting records of politicians

ConOps are typically private individuals, and are classically more insidious, as it tends to be more reputation damage and words, rather than concrete financial connections. It's very easy for them to escape scrutiny by withdrawing a statement after being exposed.

Expand full comment

If there was a simple tool that defaulted to selecting all those statements known to be ONLY FACTS then people who are not interested or able to sift through mountains of data could determine if a person or their organisation was spouting propaganda or facts.

Expand full comment
author

Collating every sentence someone says is, as said, a mammoth task, especially when you consider how many people there might be and how often they might write or speak. By the time you've checked what they've said, they will have written a hundred more.

Instead, it's easier to ignore everything until proof is provided, and simply focus on collecting evidence.

It's why in articles I try to highlight evidence, excerpts, quotes, datasets, statistics, and disclaim any limitations, and do things like collate studies (For example: https://gitlab.com/TheUnderdog/general-research/-/blob/main/COVID-19-Shot-Questions/Part2/StudiesDatabase.csv).

Expand full comment

The enemy already has such a tool and will then use it to silence us. Fact checkers. I can't see passed the proselytised opinions of those we are already familiar with. Fellow readers who have been accurate and outspoken for years, might be a good start.

Expand full comment

If every resistance fighter was shown how to use the tool they could be used as a crowd to manage this.

Sure it would be nearly impossible to collect data on everything that people say but that is not important. There are millions of people fed up with this and if each person uploaded a link to one utterance that was counter to known facts it would help thousands. Like Tony says the enemy has Fact Checkers but they are corrupt. They would be the first to discredit. Find one falsehood and take down the person. Find a few more and fag the entire fact checking organisation. Take down Associated Press when they provide images to Rolling Stones that are falsely attributed to ivermectin harm caused treatment delays.

Using those other sites as material via API or something would prevent duplication of work..

They have platform side fact checking, we need to have client side Real Fact Verification for people who may try to influence us. Adding then as they lie would add the worst of the lot first.

The reason I think this would be valuable and worth the effort, at least consideration i the upper circles even if some paid opposition tried to sink it is that it could MULTIPLY the knowledge of who is trustworthy. Imagine if a paid opposition gets caught out in lies and get a red flag on the system, they would loose credibility fast and no longer be a problem. Letting people decide on which fact matter to them would be checking against things we care about and prevent more fringe ideas from causing red flags.

If I don't care about a politicians believe on flat earth I can not select it even though I know it is rubbish. But if I care about existence of early home treatment and a politician is vocally against the facts as they stand then I WANT TO KNOW.

The resistance fighters are many and they do not have the time or skill to vet every source, they don't even have the patience to read much of what is available. They need help and filtering out who not to trust and see how bad the situation really is.

Thank you for responding, I will check out your links and see if there is some way it can be used to help.

I have collected a lot (for me 100+ is a lot) of studies and stored them in a wiki. It would be great if they could somehow be imported (some grep magic perhaps) into a database others can search as well. They relate to Vitamin-D3 and covid mostly but include some other tangential studies too.

https://cholecalciferol.miraheze.org/wiki/DOI

Expand full comment
author

I think you overestimate people's willingness to volunteer free time to a cause.

I can't even get people to pay sufficient money for the work I'm doing.

Expand full comment

Make it a game with bragging points.

Expand full comment
author

You have interesting ideas Kalle. There's nothing stopping you from building them, or perhaps either finding volunteers or hiring gig economy workers to implement. I'm overcommitted in terms of the corruption I'm fighting, and I'm too impoverished to finance anything external.

Personally I think the database submission idea Sarah had for the peer reviewed studies showing harms for the shots where people could submit links to be reviewed (to prevent malicious insertions) and then added to a growing list that was public/downloadable/searchable might be another starting point.

That sort of system would be a pretty simple PHP webhost server front-end pushing data through a series of sanity and anti-SQL-injection attack filters, plus some 'no duplicates' checks and removal of any 'bloat metadata', into an SQLite database table utilising ZLIB compression, with a review table and a completed review table. Costs would be a webhost, finding volunteers to search for studies and push in, and finding trusted reviewers who can check the supplied links to ensure they're good quality/not misleading/not garbage/not spam/not malware etc.

In terms of ConOps they're a dime a dozen. You'll whack one and ten more hired goons will appear.

There's two things they loathe:

1) High quality, well laid out, easy-to-understand evidence, that is

2) Widely spread

It's the second part I classically have difficulty with.

Expand full comment

Your explanation of Con-ops sounds exactly what the WHO has become since Bill Gates bought his way into the once trusted but now corrupt organisation.

'Do NO Harm' and 'Informed Consent' were both removed from the Doctors Hippocratic Oath when Covid was invented. The medical profession nosedived into deceit and dishonesty by allowing Big Brother to dictate their medical actions and moral decisions.

A bit like altering the dictionary meaning of VACCINE twice in a decade to suit the DEADLY but USELESS Covid injection.

World Health Organisation is now redundant , CORRUPT and cannot be trusted since Bill Gates became their biggest benefactor (influencer). They are now being encouraged to take over the whole planets Health systems. Starting with obtaining the Authority to proclaim the next artificial Scamdemic, and then impose all the worst Controls and Disciplines that we experienced during the Covid Scamdemic.

With their Newly obtained powers they will be able to MANDATE INJECTIONS (called 'Vaccines') that will have little to do with human health - more like Total Control and Slavery!

What are we going to watch when all sportsmen & women have died from the Covid Injections? Apparently, there were 5 with heart issues in one University on the same day?

Some of us sceptics believed from the unbelievably speedy 'invention' of the DEADY COVID VAX they were at best 'SUSPECT'. ("Speed of Science" = My arse!) Now we all know they can be DEADLY!

The 'System' has allowed Flu to re-emerge and are trying to justify even more profit making injections (called vaccines).I suspect all injections might now be 'doctored' with unwanted dangerous additives!

More 'boosters that don't work? Just to sell more injectable crap into, our already devastated bodies.

If we continue to refuse the DEADLY COVID INJECTION, can Doctors still prescribe 'Sudden Early Death Syndrome (SADS) for us?

Do any Doctors still remember "Do no harm" as part of their oath to provide professional conduct?

Heart DAMAGE from Covid Vax is permanent!

What about 'Informed Consent'? That was formally terminated as a Patient courtesy or requirement the same Date Covid Vax cheated it's way into the market with an unjustified (EUA) Emergency Use Authorisation - because they got the FDA to agree that IVERMECTIN & several other proven pre-existing Safe & Effective anti-viral medicines did not exist, or, if they did, "They're only for animals."!

Big Pharma Covid injections (called "vaccines"???) = NO 'LIABILITY' = LICENCE TO KILL with impunity!

Why do the CDC refer to DEADLY VAX 'DANGER SIGNALS' as "Safety Signals"? This Poison is made with NO GUARANTEE of SAFETY or EFFICACY by unethical and massively profitable organisations that accept NO RESPONSIBILITY for any/all ADVERSE REACTIONS or/and DEATHS that follow their supposed DEPOPULATING 'cures'. The word 'MIOCARDITIS' is now part of our daily vocabulary!

The crap is so unreliable, that now NEW AILMENTS are being (invented) discovered like SUDDEN EARLY DEATH SYNDROME (SADS)! High functioning athletes are dropping like flies!

Why would anybody play RUSSIAN ROULETTE with their otherwise healthy bodies, and those of their innocent children! Apparently there are now 770 different adverse reactions recorded that relate to Covid injections (ridiculously referred to as "VACCINES").

LIABILITY MUST BE REINTRODUCED for these Bio-weapons designed for depopulation of the planet!

Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!

Expand full comment
RemovedJan 13, 2023·edited Jan 13, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
author

"Seems to me all the accusations about controlled opposition are premature."

Why are they premature? And accusations at whom?

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment
author

"Current state of existence of the unvaccinated is still so weak that no real controlled opposition is really needed."

Controlled opposition's existence isn't determined by how weak or not weak a movement is perceived to be (and certainly you'd need to supply evidence for why they'd follow your particular standard?).

US governor Ron DeSantis is bringing a Grand Jury against Pfizer and their cohorts, vaccine mandates are being successfully challenged, they've lost narrative control on social media, and the death count on VAERS continues to skyrocket, as those who continue to support vaccines dwindle in number, either due to adverse experiences or just outright death. I would not call that weak and I reject your premise.

"There were those suggestions that Robert Malone is controlled opposition."

No-one's name is mentioned in the article, and certainly not Robert Malone's.

In-fact, the only person I've publicly called ConOp so far is Elon Musk in a dedicated, much earlier article, but the Daily Beagle has provided a landslide of evidence for him still working with mRNA manufacturing via Tesla for the CureVac shots (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/elon-is-part-of-the-vaccine-crowd), so it isn't an 'accusation' so much as a very well evidenced major conflict-of-interest in a grandstanding, popularised figure.

I don't know why you'd be objecting to any of the categories. Are you honestly suggesting we tolerate dishonest reporting and misleading claims, wasteful expenditure, weak litigation and do-nothing attitudes?

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment
author

mRNA has killed people, has not been sufficiently tested, and mass manufacturing those mRNA shots aiding this industry is not an "ethical standard", and there is no proof of your claim he has higher standards than Pfizer when it comes to the shots or the manufacturing, and sounds suspiciously like idol worship rather than evidenced justification.

To be honest your kneejerk hostility on the methodology of dishonest fraudsters and attempt to defend unethical pharmaceutical industry aiding practices seems highly questionable to me.

Why are you choosing not to hold Elon or any of the others to account?

Expand full comment

Earlier, I did not mention iconic individuals, only online publications, but I most certainly have my doubts about the former category. I'm just not sure it's a good idea, right at this moment, to "out" somebody who is a leading or even peripheral part of our movement.

For example, I have been researching vaccines since 1998 and I am now certain that all are dangerous, and all are inneffective compared to natural immunity. Yet our idolised medical heroes are all vaccine experts. This jars with me but I keep it to myself, "for the greater good", ironically LOL.

Expand full comment