Would you recognise controlled opposition?

Is the lockdown narrative being rewritten?

In the west there seems to prevail the strange and contradictory perception that politicians are not trustworthy except on matters of the greatest importance. On these issues the damaging effects of their policies are attributed more to incompetence and coincidence than to co-ordinated malintent.

Similarly, people in the west are apparently loathe to believe in the idea that supposedly reputable journalists would deliberately mislead them for propaganda purposes. Revelations that give the lie to this belief are not widely known.

In the US it is a matter of record that the CIA performed a widespread infiltration of the news media in its Operation Mockingbird, and although this operation was declared to have been discontinued, the repeal of the Smith Mundt Act in 2012 is reported to have made it legal for the government to propagandise the American people. In Europe, German Journalist Udo Ulfkotte wrote a book in 2014 exposing how the media is used by governments and intelligence agencies as a 5th column to achieve political ends. In 2020, the UK's chief of defence staff General Sir Nick Carter admitted that the secretive 77th brigade of the British Army was employed to steer the coronavirus narrative on line.

It is widely accepted that in some nations there is state control of the news media but western governments allow their populations to assume this is the preserve of countries that are perceived to be less liberal, such as China or Russia. Yet it was public knowledge, though not widely publicised by the media it restricted, that UK communications regulator Ofcom forbade the British media from questioning its government's totalitarian measures in 2020. Social media platforms adopted censorship worldwide. Ofcom restrictions remain imposed on UK broadcasters to this day.

A portion of the British public now seems to be aware of the possibility that they were not told the whole truth in 2020, with individuals setting their own limits as to the extent of the deceit in which they wish to believe. The conclusions people draw are formed from largely censored and manipulated information.

In 2020, the UK media was heavily funded by the government -which made the state that year's biggest spending national advertiser. In addition, the vaccine-investing Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation financed publications as diverse as the Guardian, Telegraph and BBC, as well as the UK drugs regulator, the MHRA.

It is against this backdrop that we can consider the notion of controlled opposition in the media and the extent of the manipulation of news narratives. As is well known, a healthy pay cheque can often serve to curtail the extent of a man's understanding and beliefs, and many journalists take the path of least resistance. The line between witting and unwitting purveyors of propaganda is often indistinct. As Noam Chomsky once pointed out to BBC interviewer Andrew Marr, those with the inclination to question official narratives are filtered out long before they can achieve positions of journalistic influence. That being said, the obstruction of truth is often intentional and deliberate.

Noam Chomsky himself rubbished those who questioned the official narrative of 9/11 and the evidence they presented, as being neither credible or academic, after engaging in a correspondence in which he was presented with published findings and credentials that showed that they were both. Such duplicity is commonplace. One of the lessons learned from the 9/11 Truth Movement was delivered by the number of high profile and supposedly anti-establishment journalists who failed what is often referred to as the '9/11 litmus test.' Not only did these journalists not report the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition on 9/11, but the likes of George Monbiot, Tucker Carlson, Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald, and Piers Morgan, attacked those brave souls who sought the truth and the evidence they presented.

Many of those who failed the 9/11 litmus test have failed similar moral examinations since 2020.

The same media that has withheld and distorted information for the duration of the 2020s (and much longer), now holds up Isabel Oakeshott as an embodiment of journalistic professionalism and integrity. Since 2020 almost all journalists on the corporate pay roll have been notable only for their dereliction of duty. Those exceptions who strayed too far from the reservation are no longer in post (eg. Maajid Nawaz, Mark Steyn). It is in this context that we must view the 'revelations' of the 'Lockdown Files,' which were first published in the Gates Foundation funded Daily Telegraph.

Former UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock is suspected of playing a key role in the euthanasia of thousands of people in 2020 through the drugging of the elderly and the house arrest of a nation, and then later overseeing the poisoning of the majority of the British population with injections. We are now being asked to believe that he would willingly surrender his confidential messages to a journalist with a track record of betraying journalistic confidence (Oakeshott released the emails of UKIP donor Arron Banks after ghostwriting his book). This stretches credulity.

It is possible to view the situation differently. Oakeshott (whose family details are scrubbed from the internet, with the exception of her being described as a relative of Baron Oakeshott), was the first journalist to whom Matt Hancock gave an interview after he was forced to resign as health secretary (as a result of his failing to observe his own restrictions when conducting an extramarital affair in his workplace). In the light of the accusations of democide against him, Oakeshott used the opportunity to discuss cryptocurrency.

This poses questions. What truly independent or critical media voice would be granted a meeting with the former Health Secretary, let alone a recorded interview? The previous two years had been marked by Hancock's media briefings in which screened and single questions were permitted from selected corporate outlets. Did Hancock know that, when being interviewed by Oakeshott, he would be in safe hands? Apparently, he felt comfortable enough to agree to the interview and as it turned out, the experience justified his confidence. Hancock was afforded a civility neither he nor the police (or indeed some members of the public), afforded those who disagreed with his policies. This was the first step of Hancock's rehabilitation in the public eye that culminated in him appearing on the 'reality' TV show, 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here' (a show in which, in line with a propaganda drive, people are encouraged to eat insects for the greater good of the group).

Isabel Oakeshott's partner for this interview was communications consultant, James Melville. He later described the decision to engage with Hancock on the subject of cryptocurrency, as “playing the long game,” meaning it was an attempt to win the politician's confidence in order to expose him more successfully later on.

Setting aside the unfortunate description of the situation as a game, the ongoing suffering endured by so many meant that answers to a number of serious questions were required from Hancock with some urgency. Why were warnings about lockdowns and injections not heeded? Why were dangerous healthcare protocols imposed? Why were alternative treatments suppressed and credible scientific voices censored and smeared? Was there really sufficient threat to justify lockdowns and injecting the whole population? To what extent was national policy influenced by supranational organisations such as the WHO, the WEF, and the Gates Foundation? Those questions remain unasked and unanswered.

Instead, the interview was used to promote Melville's now apparently abandoned podcast and Oakeshott profited from ghostwriting Hancock's book, “The Pandemic Diaries,” which details Hancock's account of his role in causing widespread suffering. In a related article Oakeshott wrote that he “deserves credit for harnessing the full power of the state to accelerate the development of the Oxford/Astra Zeneca jab.” The AstraZeneca injection has now been discontinued due to safety problems.

Any concerns about the injections would have been silenced by what Oakeshott calls “the suppression of genuine medical misinformation – a worthy endeavour during a public health crisis,” although she concedes it went too far.

Oakeshott exonerates Hancock from “malign intent,” writing that he had an “absolute priority to preserve life.” This conflicts with her report of his comment on the monitoring of the side (or direct) effects of a nationwide rollout of a drug with no long term safety data,“ 'I was told that we were doing it, but I worry that the details will be shonky,' he told Whitty, sounding as if it was all a bit of an afterthought.”
It also contrasts with Oakeshott's comment that “I believe he would have justified any casualties as sacrifices necessary for the greater good.”

Despite the gravity of the situation it was many months before Oakeshott elected to release the Whatsapp messages that it is claimed provided source material for her book. The event was met with a few days of media attention and the British public was led to believe that the truth had come out in the wash. It appears that Oakeshott’s book and the Whatsapp messages were intended to be taken as the definitive history of Hancock's actions during the scamdemic years.

When challenged recently on twitter on the issue of alleged euthanasia by morphine and midazolam, Oakeshott summarily dismissed the subject, despite repeated attempts to present her with the evidence that is causing concern. The large purchase of midazolam and its dispensation with morphine in 2020 correlated with an increase in deaths of vulnerable people in state care which were subsequently attributed to a novel coronavirus. Oakeshott declared that she was “never going to believe that the government set out to euthanise the elderly,” thereby admitting that she had reached her conclusion prior to investigation, a method which is often described as the height of ignorance.

She points out that there is no self- incriminating mention of midazolam in the files presented to her by Hancock, as though information provided by the accused should be the final word on the subject. This unintelligent reasoning is compounded by the fact that, even if genuine, the files are, by her own admission, incomplete, as there are redactions from at least March 4th to April 5th 2020.

Oakeshott’s denial of the possibility of euthanasia overlooks both the fact that health trusts were once awarded financial incentives to hit targets for deaths under the Liverpool Care Pathway, and also reports that the protocol now continues under a different name despite being officially halted in 2013.

It is possible to draw a parallel between Oakeshott's strident comments and lack of curiosity on the midazolam issue with Chomsky's wilful blindness in relation to the evidence for the use of explosives on 9/11, about which he said jarringly “Even if it was true, what would it matter?” In 2021, MIT employee Chomsky also advocated the vilification and segregation of the unvaccinated, and like Oakeshott, promoted the covid injections.

In recent weeks, journalist Toby Young has announced that he will be hosting an event in which Oakeshott will answer questions about the so-called 'Lockdown Files.' Actor Lawrence Fox will recite from the state sanctioned disclosures, performing the role of Hancock. This follows a well established trend of actors reinforcing official narratives in theatrical performances, that is most notable in the CIA's influence over Hollywood. Young stated on his London Calling podcast that he had been inspired to stage the show by the success of similar events held by his co-host, journalist James Delingpole. The most recent of Delingpole's publicly held interviews had attracted nearly 1,000 attendees paying £25 per head.

Young, who was an outspoken critic of lockdown, had been quick to unquestioningly accept that the ‘Lockdown Files’ reveal the whole and accurate truth. On the morning of their release he had already reached the following conclusion on the 100,000 messages, in which he reinforced, for readers of the Daily Sceptic and the Spectator, the narrative of political incompetence. “I think they also confirm my own analysis of the Government’s pandemic response, which is that it wasn’t part of some grand plot long planned in advance – the plandemic – but just a series of cock-ups made by people of limited intelligence desperate to shore up their own positions. A clown show, not a conspiracy.” It is unlikely then, that when Oakeshott meets him, she will be facing a tough and critical interrogation.

Is it possible that for some journalists the financial imperative exceeds the journalistic? Is it possible that the state would place agents in strategic positions to steer and manage dissent? If the answer to either of these questions is in the affirmative then we must consider where we would find such journalists and what form their work might take. We must guard against undue suspicion but also against undue credulity. People will always hold differing views but are those who truly oppose censorious governments given the biggest platforms? We must view our media and public figures in the context of the psychological warfare to which we have been subjected since 2020. We were not told when it began, and we have not been told that it has ended.