Eric Idle's Legs

One of my favourite ever films is the nineties British comedy, 'Nuns on the Run' (my other favourite films include A Fish Called Wanda and Clockwise, and my favourite TV show has always been Fawlty Towers: bet you can't guess what surreal sketch comedy series I was brought up watching...).

The plot of Nuns on the Run centres around two London gangsters, Brian and Charlie, who decide to "go straight", which they intend to do by stealing a load of money from a rival gang, and jetting off to Rio De Janeiro to start a new life.

However, they manage to bungle the robbery, and, needing to lie low for a while whilst a group of angry Triads - and their own old bosses - are after them, they decide to hide out where no-one would ever think of looking for them... in a nunnery.

Drawing on his extensive but somewhat outdated knowledge as a lifelong Catholic, Charlie assures a dubious Brian that the nunnery will be obliged to give them refuge, so long as they can convincingly pass as nuns.

So, they steal some tunics from the convent basement, daub on some foundation in the local chemists ("erm, excuse me...," asks a clearly perplexed chemist. "But do nuns usually wear make-up?"), and rechristen themselves Sister Inviolata of the Immaculate Conception (Charlie) and Sister Euphemia of the Five Wounds (Brian - "Five Wounds for short," he cheerfully informs a deeply sceptical Mother Superior).

Despite the reservations of some of the more astute members of the convent, Brian and Charlie are nevertheless welcomed into the fold as fellow nuns, and remain there for a number of weeks, whilst they wait for an opportune moment to leave with their ill-gotten gains.

By the time they do leave, the police are onto them, and chase them to the hospital where they've gone to collect Brian's girlfriend (who was injured in the robbery), before heading to the airport.

Knowing Brian and Charlie have been disguising themselves as nuns, the police are confident they have their men when they see two individuals, with roughly similar body proportions to Brian (slim) and Charlie (larger), dressed in nuns' garb.

"Freeze!" Says one of the policemen, pointing his gun at the two "nuns".

"But Sergeant..." Begins one.

"Shut up! And take those dresses off."

"Again?!" Says one.

"You're kidding?!" Says the other.

"Undress 'em, Constable," the Sergeant orders his colleague. "They're armed and dangerous!"

"You sure about this, Sergeant?" Replies the Constable. "We're not allowed to strip-search women."

"They're NOT women!" Snaps the Sergeant, who then walks up to the slimmer of the two, and declares:

"I said, take 'em off!", and rips off the individual's tunic... only to reveal an unmistakably female body (replete with suspenders and lace underwear) underneath.

"Oh shit...." Says the Sergeant.

What the Sergeant doesn't know is that, minutes earlier, Brian and Charlie had ambushed two female nurses - women with roughly similar body proportions to their own - forced them to undress, and stolen their nurses' outfits to escape the hospital undetected, leaving the two nurses wearing their nuns' costumes.

Brian and Charlie thus safely make it to the airport (where they then dress up as air stewardesses) and fly off to Brazil to begin their new life.

It's a splendid film (although, admittedly, perhaps with a rather questionable message), and I thoroughly recommend it.

But why have I just told you about it, with reference to the fake nuns in particular?

Because it serves as a good illustration of how double-crossing and red herrings can work...

The police were right that Brian and Charlie were on the run dressed as nuns; they were right that they'd gone to the hospital; they were right that one of the two was slim, and the other larger.

So they had every reason to believe that the two individuals they accosted who were 1) dressed as nuns, 2) at the hospital, and 3) had contrasting slim and curvy body types, were their men.

Yet they were wrong.

They'd been lured into a trap by Brian and Charlie, who - knowing that's what they were looking for - set up the decoy "nuns" as bait.

Now, whilst we as conspiracists may not exactly have knife-wielding Triads and irate mobster bosses after us (although I definitely think my local council representatives don't like me much), it's important to recognise we are nevertheless dealing with a type of "gangster" operation, i.e., an organised syndicate of dishonest individuals who - like Brian and Charlie - are highly motivated to deceive, mislead, and bait us into traps.

I'm talking about (cue collective groan...) "controlled opposition" (CO), and why it always has been, and remains, such a threat.

I know a lot of people roll their eyes at the very mention of the "CO' term, and I understand why: it's become a meaningless pejorative, that gets thrown at anyone and everyone a particular individual happens to dislike or disagree with...

"So-and-so is pushing the no planes theory about 9/11. Obviously controlled."

"Such-and-such a person believes in Flat Earth. Must be controlled."

And on and on it goes.

This kind of thing is, I agree, completely unhelpful. It's just indicative of a lack of maturity and sloppy thinking: that "somebody couldn't possibly study the same evidence as I have and come to different conclusions than mine. Impossible! Only my conclusions are valid and so anyone who doesn't share them is clearly compromised!"

That's, obviously, just silly.

Yet the fact that this kind of thing goes on (relentlessly...) does not detract from the fact that controlled opposition is real, and extremely dangerous to the integrity and ultimate success of the "truth movement". As such, it's important to keep a focus on it, define exactly how to recognise it - and qualify what it's really here to do.

Let's start with the Flat Earth thing...

I know a lot of people believe that this is a CIA psy-op to "discredit the movement", since anyone who professes to believe in that theory is seen by the mainstream as stupid and crazy.

Here's the thing, though: the mainstream already sees us as stupid and crazy.

Simply questioning the safety and efficacy of experimental injections made by serial felons in a hurry is more than enough to get you labelled a raving lunatic by the mainstream.

This is because mainstream commentators do not make any meaningful distinction between one questioning the "official line" on vaccines, and the "official line" on the shape of the Earth. If you question the official narrative on anything, you're a fruitcake - indeed, to a normie, anti-vaxxer might as well be a synonym for Flat Earther.

So when people say, "Flat Earth is a psy-op to discredit the movement and therefore anyone pushing it is suspect", I disagree - because the movement was already completely discredited in the eyes of normies, and they already thought we were all whackadoodle conspiraloons. It's not like we had some credibility with them when we were "just" anti-vaxxers, far-right extremists, and deniers of various stripes, but then blew it all by entertaining the Flat Earth theory.

So I certainly reject the idea that Flat Earth is a big "tell" of controlled opposition, because it has not had the effect its critics claim it has - of "undermining the truth movement's credibility". The truth movement remains as credible as it always was to people with conspiratorial leanings (nobody's "resigned" as a result of the Flat Earth debate) - and always wasn't to those with conventional beliefs. So nothing has changed in that capacity.

However, further than that - and far more crucial, in my opinion - is the fact that people who believe in or promote Flat Earth are not endangering anybody else's safety by so-doing.

Flat Earthers are not doorstepping NASA scientists, harassing astronauts, or alleging child-murder cover-ups to support the globe model.

And this is the tell of controlled opposition: people who behave in such a way that could really discredit the movement, not by just depicting us as "stupid and crazy" (as I said, we've always been seen that way by the mainstream and always will be) - but as actively dangerous.

The ultimate aim of controlled opposition is to lure us into behaving in such a way that ultimately breaks the law, and so the state can then handle us as it sees fit (and conveniently, said state just prematurely released a lot of prisoners to free up some extra jail space...).

Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing illegal about holding and expressing any opinion (at least, not in the UK). You can deny things, label things hoaxes, reject and scorn the mainstream narrative on anything - that's all fine.

There IS something illegal, however, about harassment and violence - including of liars, crisis actors, and even known criminals. Even if the target of your ire is objectively hideous, it's still not legal to "take the law into your own hands" and start behaving aggressively towards them - and you can get into serious trouble if you do.

What controlled opposition relentlessly does, therefore, is whip people up by using their legitimate grievances to inflame them, fomenting them into a state where they then go on to break the law... whilst CO itself cynically saunters off on holiday, absolving themselves of all responsibility, because "I didn't TELL them to break the law".

Of course, agent provocateurs know all too well how human psychology works, and that if you whip a crowd up into a frenzy, stoking anger and resentment towards certain individuals or groups, it's highly likely to boil over into aggression and violence (that's why protest situations are so heavily policed), even if you have disingenuously absolved yourself by sticking on a disclaimer to your followers to "be peaceful" after you've just spent two hours ranting and raving about evil predator groomer child-murdering crisis actor scum (or whatever).

Yes, it's still the responsibility of the people who cross the line that they have behaved that way, but nevertheless, these CO Pied Pipers are strongly implicated, and that is what they are here for: to entice you away from the thoroughly legal and lawful activities of freely expressing your views, into the decidedly illegal territories of harassing and even assaulting other people.

That is a primary purpose of controlled opposition, because the state can't do anything about you whilst you remain within the law: they can only effectively neutralise you when you break it.

Yet most people are naturally peaceful and law-abiding, so it can be quite a long-game mammoth operation to convince and corral them into eventually doing something against the law.

How does CO do this?

They win your trust, and then when they have it, they bait you into a trap.

And to be maximally impactful in this regard, they have to ensure a lot of people hear their message.

How is that achieved?

Through repeat exposure in the mainstream media.

No matter how many followers you have on Twitter or Substack, you are never going to reach a significant enough number of people to be a real cultural influencer unless you also have the complicity of the mainstream media to publicise you (and note, 'to publicise' does not mean 'to be nice about').

As I've said many times, every MSM "hit piece" on a supposedly "anti-establishment" figure such as Russell Brand, increases their visibility and support exponentially, and you can easily see that for yourself by observing how their follower counts - and donations - shoot up every time the MSM criticises them.

Being criticised by the MSM is the perfect - and the essential - publicity for you if you're styling yourself as an "anti-establishment hero".

That's why the MSM won't criticise me, despite my asking them to do so in an open letter. They know what superb publicity it would be for me.

Of course, one could say, "you're not significant enough to be publicly criticised by the media" - which is fair. Yet bear in mind I was considered significant enough two years ago (and my audience has grown quite a bit since then) to be permanently banned from PayPal with no notice or warning.

Conversely, figures such as Richard D. Hall still have their PayPal accounts... yet he gets criticised in the MSM all the time.

We simply can't have it both ways: if I'm enough of a "threat" to be banned from PayPal (whilst other, much more high-profile figures don't get so-banned), then I should be enough of a threat to be "exposed" by the media...

Unless and until one realises, the media only ever "exposes" assets who are helping the agenda in some way: primarily (if not exclusively), by enticing state dissidents into breaking the law so the state can then neutralise them.

So to sum: the purpose of controlled opposition is not to "discredit the movement by making truthers look stupid and crazy" (the mainstream already thinks that about us, and furthermore, being considered stupid and crazy doesn't endanger anybody else's safety).

The purpose of controlled opposition is to entice you into illegal action such as harassment and violence so the state can use its law enforcement apparatus against you.

As a corollary of this, the purpose of controlled opposition is also to scare you into silence by making it appear they've been summoned to court because they're being "persecuted for their views" (so you get too scared to share yours) when actually they're not: if they're in court, it's because they've been credibly accused of an offence, not because they've expressed an opinion.

(And if it's a defamation trial, they are only there because they have a lot of money. Only rich people sue each other for defamation - which in any case is a civil offence, not a criminal one, so nobody is going to prison regardless of who wins.)

And as I say, the way controlled opposition ensures it has maximal reach, and that it influences as many dissidents as possible, is by serial publicity (and to repeat, 'publicity' does not mean 'praise') in the mainstream media.

The media only tells you about people it wants you to know about. It only wants you to know about them because they are part of the agenda (although it's plausible they don't always know that they are, and can simply be "useful idiots").

The reason controlled opposition is so successful at continuing to control the dissident narrative is because the mainstream media's complicity in promoting them means so many more people know about them than about any genuine activist or researcher. Even the most well-known legit 'truthers' only have a tiny fraction of the reach of a Russell Brand.

(If you want to know my tried and tested formula for discerning who's legitimate and who's not, simply do a news search for their name and see how many "hit pieces" the MSM has done on them. Whilst the occasional critical remark from a mainstream hack doesn't necessarily mark someone as "sus", repeat, serial, sensationalist exposés, most certainly do. In short, the MSM does not make you famous - much less 'notorious' - unless you are in the club.)

And to be clear, the problem with controlled opposition is not that they typically give the wrong information. On the contrary: a lot of the information they give is absolutely right - of course it has to be, or they wouldn't attract a large following.

The problem is that once they have won a base by giving accurate and insightful information, they have people's trust and confidence, and then that is weaponised against them to lead them towards actions or conclusions not in their interests.

To return to the example I gave at the start: the police chasing crossdressing gangsters Brian and Charlie had received the right information on several occasions...

They were right the men had been dressed as nuns.

They were right they were at the hospital.

They were right one was slim, one was larger.

But duplicitous deceivers Brian and Charlie used this information against them, and baited them into a trap.

This is what we've got to be constantly mindful about, where it comes to any "truther" with a significant media profile particularly: just because they've given us the right information on several occasions, doesn't mean they don't ultimately have an ulterior motive or sinister intentions, and won't use the trust they've won against us.

Anyone who:

1. Gets a lot of publicity in the MSM and/or;

2. Participates in or incites harassment or violence...

...should be regarded with extreme suspicion, because, chances are, they're not really on our side.

And finally, if you take nothing else away from this article, please do watch the tremendous Nuns on the Run (free on Channel 4 OD) - whose central message I may have wildly contorted to illustrate a point and to give me an excuse to talk about my favourite film - but where, perhaps, you will marvel, as I did, that Eric Idle really does look surprisingly good in a skirt...

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.