"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views [within the allowed spectrum]. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on..."
~ 1998, Noam Chomsky 1, a world class "anti-establishment" "liberal CIA" propagandist, who nevertheless worded certain concepts extremely well.
All the details Chomsky wouldn't talk about involve the banning of all anti-Third World immigration debates, certainly based on polls, IQ and ethnic crime numbers; and replace it with white guilt wars; the contrived LGBTQ and feminism wars against (white) males and partly vice versa via the "alt right"; the Black Lives Matter wars against the (white-dominated) police; and conspiracy disinformation wars around chemtrails, vaccines, ancient aliens and flat earth against (more prestigious) rent-a-skeptics.
Intro: our managed democracy
It actually is a fact that citizens of "the West" have never lived in any kind of "full democracy". So much has been demonstrated in countless ISGP articles, the most important in this case likely being the articles:
- on the CFR, where we focus a lot on appointed cabinet members and the media;
- the managed electoral process, in which we tie 170 years of U.S. presidencies and cabinet members to a handful of big business interests;
- on the "liberal CIA" network;
- and on the "conservative CIA" network.
Time and time again we see that a tiny group of corporate-tied globalist elites, mainly through the media, manage the candidates the citizenry is able to vote for each election, with the winning candidates then appointing all the friends and proteges of those who got them in power to key cabinet positions. The term here is "managed democracy".
A key part of the managed democracy is to always - also outside of elections - to run the democracy by simulating left-right (and a bit of "center") debates through the creation of a variety of predetermined, tightly-guarded political boxes. These boxes, or "sides", are allowed to debate ad nauseam all kinds of topics that either don't matter or circumvent the facts that will lead to the undermining of the globalist agenda: relentless Third World immigration at the top. The electoral process is simply an extension of the managing of these boxes.
Boxes Model: three basic vertical tiers, from "elite" to "deep cover"
In the previous section we mention "liberal CIA" and "conservative CIA", which are terms developed and reserved by ISGP for anti-establishment controlled-opposition. In another article ISGP discusses the 'three establishment model', which is fully focused on how liberal, conservative and Zionist elites in the West have organized themselves in think tanks, conferences, social clubs and various other prestigious NGOs.
What we need is a model though, one that puts all these elements together and makes it much easier for readers to understand supranational controlled-opposition politics.
The basis of that ISGP model is three tiered:
- Openly elite/establishment: Anyone seen as "elite" by the masses due to wealth, connections, position. Generally also someone who openly embraces that role without pretending to attack any "powers that be". This class mainly involves politicians, businessmen, high level military officers, prestigeous lawyers and prestigeous media anchors and journalists.
- Anti-establishment controlled-opposition whose sources of funding are openly known: We're primarily talking here about individuals, media and action groups that are critical of "the establishment", but who at the same time are known to take money from "liberal CIA" (new left, social democrats) and "conservative CIA" (old right, new right, alt right) NGOs. On the "left" we have foundations as Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Soros. On the "right" we have a much smaller network of Bradley, Scaife, Mercer, etc. and some of the think tanks they help fund.
At this level almost everything is about the pushing of Third World immigration, white guilt, Black Lives Matter and equally extremist versions of LGBTQ and feminism. Martin Luther King was funded by this network in the 1950s and 1960s. The "alt right" voices the "anti-woke" agenda, predominently with regard to LGBTQ and feminism - but is much smaller and clearly has been set up to lose. Traditional conspiracy disinformation, apart from vaccines-will-kill-you propaganda, for the most part is not pushed at this level.
- Deep cover: Deep cover anti-establishment controlled opposition, both on the left and right, with a heavy focus on conspiracy disinformation as chemtrails, ancient aliens, 9/11-no-plane theories, etc.
The difference with the higher tier is that we don't know who is funding them, or created them. Or even why they do what they do, such as the CIA- and army special forces-tied conspiracy disinformer Alex Jones getting himself a $1.5 billion fine over his Sandy Hook manipulations without breaking (a rather obvious) cover in any way. 2
In fact, the primary and often only way to identify deep cover operatives is by knowing *all* the facts surrounding as many key conspiracy subjects as possible, so that someone *knows* - with 100% certainty - who is purposely lying about certain events to their audiences. The more conspiracy subjects you manage to know absolutely everything about, the more of these deep cover operatives you can identify in society. From there it becomes possible to spot more and more patterns. Of course, in this area ISGP is absolutely crucial.
Maybe it must be pointed out here that "deep cover" actually is an official term 3 for CIA agents that are operating in society with fake identities that have been "carefully developed and nurtured and [are] difficult to penetrate." 4 Or, per another description, also dating to the mid 1970s:
""Deep cover" agents, like the bogus businessmen, ... are the nearest thing in the American intelligence community to the [British] secret agent. ... They are generally men with little ambition for advancement, the source continued. Their only tangible reward is a 10 per cent salary bonus awarded annually for working under dangerous conditions... while he is "in place," or on assignment under cover, the source said, the agent continually presents a fabricated identity to his associates and acquaintances, fending off the ones who attempt to come too close. Even other deep‐cover agents with whom he may work off and on for years are likely to know him only by his “funny,” or cover, name." 5
Of course, "deep cover" is not fully used in the same manner here as per the officially acknowledged, more limited role in the CIA. For starters, the CIA doesn't have any official domestic role, so where would all the thousands of domestically operating conspiracy disinformers come from? The FBI? Well, having spent tens of thousands of hours researching these networks, there are surprisingly few links to be found to the FBI. But there are countless to be found to the CIA, or to businessmen known to have had an affiliation with the CIA.
Literally the latest addition to this site is the former Navy Seal Shawn Ryan, who ended up working for the CIA at a decently high level. Today his interviews with (ancient) alien whistleblowers such as Steven Greer are all over social media. Another, still waiting to be added and picked up from overlapping CIA-meets-ancient alien whistleblower podcasts as Konkrete, is CIA whistleblower John Kariakou, who at the very least lightly dabbles into psychotronic conspiracy theories. He went through hell as a high level CIA covert operations veteran-turned-whistleblower - but he actually very clearly assumed the "liberal CIA" role, while at the same time operating deep cover within U.S. society with a whole range of prominent "new left"-type journalists. And this time around he does it without the fake names. As said: CIA? You run into it all the time in conspiracy disinformation land. FBI? Very rarely.
In case of ISGP's more extended version of "deep cover", also members of the elite, or "liberal CIA" and "conservative CIA" operators, are often looked at as "deep cover", from board members of the National Endowment for Democracy to foreign and domestic prime ministers and presidents. In the end they are all actors upholding the globalist agenda. Still, in general we reserve the term "deep cover" for conspiracy disinformers and globalist-type activists without known sources of funding or steering.
In fact, the term "deep state", which originated from Turkish government circles, is a very good one, at least when it is seen as "many deep cover agents cooperating". The term was picked up though by Peter Dale Scott, considered a "deep cover" operative himself by ISGP due to inexplicable and inexcusable 9/11-no-plane support, and from there became a frequenly used term by every possible chemtrail and Planet X pusher, not to mention "conservative CIA" asset President Donald Trump. That's one of the reasons ISGP prefers to stick to its own terminology, or a term that has more universal historical support behind it.
Boxes Model for politics
If we move on from the strictly vertical tier system and towards the entire left-right-up-down boxes model, it looks as below. Study as you please:
We're all roughly familiar with most of these boxes. Just no one has put it together like this. Very much key here is that these boxes are very rigidly maintained. It's pretty much non-existent, if not fully non-existent, that a politician or political prospect is putting together his own agenda, picking and mixing together both "left" and "right" elements. We all know about the rigidness of American Republican versus Democrat politics, but also in Canada or Europe we don't see liberal-socialist parties that are very strongly, but also very rationally and scientifically based on polls, ethnic crime and IQ numbers, against Third World immigration. All of them are very hardcore pro-Third World immigration: the Socialist Party, the Labor Party, the "Party of the Animals", the Green-Left, the Christian-Democrats, etc. In the same way that absolutely none of them are interested in genuine questions of conspiracy. If that is not perfect evidence of an invisible control structure, then what is?
The above oversight actually is slightly outdated. It was created after Trump came into office, largely on an anti-immigration platform with him repeatedly referring to Third World immigrants as rapists. 6 But what did he do or discuss during his presidency on this subject? He tried to build a wall, which he would never be able to finish, pretending it would solve all immigration problems. Far worse, if we look at the small print, we find that Trump has done nothing at all to stop the white percentage from declining with 0.5% a year. He has not advocated higher birth numbers for whites and quite openly continued to sign off on increased Third World immigration. For example, during his 2019 State of the Union address, Trump said:
"Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways. I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally." 7
As Breitbart very accurately pointed out, Trump is using the usual "legal/good, illegal/bad dodge". In contrast to Europe, where people criticize Third World immigration as a whole, the debate in the United States has been manipulated into a "legal/good", "illegal/bad" argument. In other words, if the government officially approves Africans, Arabs and Latinos to enter the United States, it is "good".
In other words, that one lone red-colored TV screen on which an anti-immigration perspective could be heard, should really be colored half-green, half-red, because in the end it is just rhetoric. We've seen the same thing with "alt right" candidates in European countries, some of which still need to be added to the "conservative CIA" oversight. Fact is, if the media gives attention to them, you know they are controlled opposition.
Boxes Model for conspiracy disinformation
The same boxes model goes for conspiracy:
When it comes to genuine conspiracy, there's always an official narrative, in contrast to the facts; then there's a dominant conspiracy narrative, which *always* is riddled with disinformation. The best example of this is how 95% of historical 9/11 Truth "researchers" have promoted completely bogus 9/11-no-plane theories - immediately outing them as being representatives of, yes, "something". We don't really know, although it should be clear that the expertise of the CIA is deeply involved in the running of these deep cover networks.
Most important here is that the "no planer" box has been very carefully created as an opposite to the "official" narrative. Unless maybe one is a prominent Holocaust denier, or chemtrail pusher, it has been virtually impossible to engage prominent or less prominent 9/11 "researchers" in debate on the no-plane issue. As this author experienced, you just get the door slammed in your face, as it has always been a major "hold the line" issue. The propaganda on this issue has been so extreme that there are random, particularly simple-minded people bursting out in laughter when you express skepticism about 9/11, immediately going, "What?! Haha! You believe that no plane hit the Pentagon!" The author has experienced this as well. It's a completely manufactured debate, but it has been very effective in shutting down any genuine debates, even in people's homes.
The usual other (thought) "boxes" in society are chemtrails, ancient aliens, flat earth, vaccines-are-deadly, etc. Generally when a "researcher" comes out in favor of one of these (bogus) theories, he or she also comes out supporting a variety of other ones. But make no mistake. There is no "free will" here. These are carefully-crafted boxes. What we see in terms of "out there" theories, how clearly manipulative they are once you study them, and how systematic they are over the decades, the type of people pushing them, and the radio shows where so many of them are given a voice, and it is very clear that there's a CIA- or CIA-tied department overseeing the creation of these theories, and the recruitment of individuals perpetuating them.
Once again, 9/11 is probably the ultimate example in this. There are all kinds of legitimate areas of research that could have taken place - areas we're really not going to get into here. But none of that research, or almost none of that, has been done, certainly not in a reliable fashion. By no one. What we do have is people like Alex Jones, from the start, creating documentaries that manage to perfectly zoom in on the two or three questionable witnesses in existence (this author organized the testimony of all WTC and Pentagon witnesses) and all the spicy-sounding bogus evidence - such as seismic spikes and basement bombs.
If Alex Jones would be the only one doing that, it would be one thing. But there has been a large network of these conspiracy disinformers all latching on to these very same bogus theories, while ignoring all the important material. That's simply not normal. And it forces one to conclude that there is a secret overseeing group that is not just creating random conspiracy nonsense, but really creating all these bogus conspiracy boxes, and cramming large numbers of its "researchers" in them.
The only major mystery really is why no one has a change of heart and exposes this process. Maybe it will still happen, in time.
- 1998, Noam Chomsky, 'The Common Good', p. 64.
- Dec. 2, 2022, Reuters, 'Alex Jones files for bankruptcy following $1.5 billion Sandy Hook verdicts'.
- May 8, 1987, Washington Post, 'Excerpts from the Testimony of Richard V. Secord': "q. They were in deep cover? Correct? a. Not too deep. [Laughter]. q. Not too deep now, but you know how long it took to find [Robert] Olmstead [a pseudonym for the person in charge of an airstrip in northern Costa Rica]. a. Mr. Olmstead we did a better job on, I guess."
Also see the next two notes. There are plenty more examples to be found.
- Jan. 4, 1976, New York Times, 'Slaying of C.I.A. Officer Stirs a Debate on Identity Disclosures'.
- May 11, 1975, New York Times, 'C.I.A. Covert Activities Abroad Shielded by Major U.S. Companies'.
- April 6, 2018, CNN, 'Trump basically called Mexicans rapists again'.
- Feb. 6, 2019, Breitbart, 'Trump Reverses Wage-Boosting Campaign Commitment, Demands More Legal Immigration: 'We Need People'.