Controlled opposition is such a highly strategic move on the part of the corrupt elites, and especially with the U.S. government giving itself legal authority to spread propaganda to U.S. citizens (which works for both MSM material but also with controlled opposition material, they can tap both angles), that people would have to be pants-on-head to not be vigilant about the possibility with anyone who has achieved significant popularity/attention and thus has the power to influence the opinions of many thousands to several millions of followers.
So in that regard, the question I ask is, is this person/group's participation helping or harming the cause of raising awareness and/or gaining credibility? With David Icke, his most famous conspiracy theory content is the reptilian stuff, and that is what people are going to see/read/watch when they look him up. So having him become prominent on the topic of pizzagate is more harmful than helpful.
And then the best defense anyone has for the guy, is that he had to use reptilian talk to keep himself from being murdered. So in other words, that he allows himself to be used as a prominent figure for discrediting topics, is excusable because ultimately he did it for himself. And we are supposed to feel.. okay with that? Personally, I don't.
I also reject the fallacy that you can't criticize someone unless you have done everything they have done. I see that fallacy all the time, and it's bogus no matter who is using it or for what. I'm not a dentist, but if a dentist screwed up my teeth, I could sure as hell notice it and I could sure as hell criticize them for it. That I haven't been making conspiracy theorists look bad for years allegedly in order to cover my own ass, is a moot point.
view the rest of the comments →
SheSaidDestroy ago
Controlled opposition is such a highly strategic move on the part of the corrupt elites, and especially with the U.S. government giving itself legal authority to spread propaganda to U.S. citizens (which works for both MSM material but also with controlled opposition material, they can tap both angles), that people would have to be pants-on-head to not be vigilant about the possibility with anyone who has achieved significant popularity/attention and thus has the power to influence the opinions of many thousands to several millions of followers.
So in that regard, the question I ask is, is this person/group's participation helping or harming the cause of raising awareness and/or gaining credibility? With David Icke, his most famous conspiracy theory content is the reptilian stuff, and that is what people are going to see/read/watch when they look him up. So having him become prominent on the topic of pizzagate is more harmful than helpful.
And then the best defense anyone has for the guy, is that he had to use reptilian talk to keep himself from being murdered. So in other words, that he allows himself to be used as a prominent figure for discrediting topics, is excusable because ultimately he did it for himself. And we are supposed to feel.. okay with that? Personally, I don't.
I also reject the fallacy that you can't criticize someone unless you have done everything they have done. I see that fallacy all the time, and it's bogus no matter who is using it or for what. I'm not a dentist, but if a dentist screwed up my teeth, I could sure as hell notice it and I could sure as hell criticize them for it. That I haven't been making conspiracy theorists look bad for years allegedly in order to cover my own ass, is a moot point.