I saw and listened to Bosi yesterday. Top value.

BTW, I think the controlled opposition label is waved around too easily, too frequently, and in my view, often incorrectly.

Controlled opposition means an operation that is run by intelligence in order to hold truth seekers, awakened or active members of the community from progressing too much in terms of learning truth, in terms of getting too close to sensitive information, etc.

If a politician, or an activist, avoids the topic because they do not know about it, or because they do not know how to handle it, or because they think its 'too controversial' or not politically expedient, etc, that doesn't make them controlled opposition. It means they are ill-informed, lack moral courage, don't understand the big picture, or are simply less than perfect, etc.

Example, you get a lot of nuffnuffs in the Australian freedom movement who are egotistical, opinionated, unbalanced or immature, and whose influence might be seen as generally unproductive or even damaging, but it doesn't mean they are controlled opposition operatives. It means they are human.

Does controlled opposition exist? Are there operatives out there, whose mission is to muddy the waters, mislead, misdirect, or basically exert influence over the narrative? I don't have direct evidence, but I'm pretty darn certain there are.

But people throw around "controlled opposition" just because they don't like what some people are saying, doing, or because they see ruskies under every bed.

My view.

Oh, shit. I realized, in forwarding this opinion, I'm gonna get labeled "controlled opposition" Sigh. <faceplam> /sarc

I saw and listened to Bosi yesterday. Top value.

BTW, I think the controlled opposition label is waved around too easily, too frequently, and in my view, often incorrectly.

Controlled opposition means an operation that is run by intelligence in order to hold truth seekers, awakened or active members of the community from progressing too much in terms of learning truth, in terms of getting too close to sensitive information, etc.

If a politician, or an activist, avoids the topic because they do not know about it, or because they do not know how to handle it, or because they think its 'too controversial' or not politically expedient, etc, that doesn't make them controlled opposition. It means they are ill-informed, lack moral courage, don't understand the big picture, or are simply less than perfect, etc.

Example, you get a lot of nuffnuffs in the Australian freedom movement who are egotistical, opinionated, unbalanced or immature, and whose influence might be seen as generally unproductive or even damaging, but it doesn't mean they are controlled opposition operatives. It means they are human.

Does controlled opposition exist? Are there operatives out there, whose mission is to muddy the waters, mislead, misdirect, or basically exert influence over the narrative? I don't have direct evidence, but I'm pretty darn certain there are.

But people throw around "controlled opposition" just because they don't live what some people are saying, doing, or because they see ruskies under every bed.

My view.

Oh, shit. I realized, in forwarding this opinion, I'm gonna get labeled "controlled opposition" Sigh. <faceplam> /sarc