Controlled Opposition & The False Dichotomy

If you’ve never heard of the terms “controlled opposition” or “false dichotomy” join the club. These phrases are not only uncommon in the American vernacular but absent in most of mainstream media. Fortunately, the art and print of Puck and other magazines has been preserv-ed enough to show us that the

concepts are real, the scenarios highly possible, and that they have existed years prior to the political chaos of the 21st century; before the likes of Facebook and other social media declaring them “conspiratorial.”

What is “controlled opposition”? Controlled opposition can take many forms, but it is essentially defined as a group or an entity that, on the surface, appears to represent an opposing viewpoint or political position against another position, platform, or narrative. In the United States the best example of controlled opposition may be the two major political parties. At one time the Democratic Party was known for representing the views of democracy, or the general population. The Republican Party was allegedly born out of a more republican form of government which always had a nationalistic flavor undergirded with centralized banking and planning.

These parties morphed into something different toward the end of the 19th century in what 

historians call “the Second American System.” During this period the Progressive faction took over the Democratic Party and among other things, pushed through a Federal Reserve Act that helped consolidate capital, nurture central planning, and erode, if not completely eliminate, some of our founders’ precepts on how to govern a nation keeping freedom and liberty as the ultimate objective. From that point forward both parties succumbed to the money, i.e., organized capital (the controller) administering the political narrative, agenda, and controlling the opposition.

At this point some of you may be saying, “news flash, tell me something I don’t know.” If that’s the case, then good for you. But one of the purposes of this periodical is to give readers a little more insight and detail to those facts of life. Which leads us to the other major concept covered in this issue. The resultant agenda from the controlled opposition is presented as a “false dichotomy,” in other words, a two-choice proposal when there may be multiple choices or solutions to the issue or problem. Examples of a false dichotomy are, (Democrat vs Republican); (Progressive/Liberal vs Conservative); (Left vs Right). If we drill down further, many of the issues are presented as binary when indeed there are other solutions that people outside of the party system may like to see implemented.

According to a Gallup poll, independent voters, not allied with the D’s or R’s, made up 47% of the voting population. If that’s true, then the other two parties are likely split at about 26% each: a pretty significant difference. As the party lines are drawn by the two choices as shown in the above table it may be more likely that American voters have different solutions or positions on some of the issues. The following table shows a hypothetical moderate or independent solution to some of our issues.

In the 20th century a bi-partisan solution may have been received as “fair and good.” In the 21st century bi-partisan solutions should raise the “oh %^&$ here we go again” flag. Many Americans have felt the collateral damage of bi-partisan legislation; the cognitive dissonance and conflict created by controlled opposition. They can’t always articulate it but that seems to be changing. In 2024, America threw its confidence to Donald Trump in hope that he and his administration will provide a better alternative to establishment politics. But is it all “Kabuki Theater” as proposed by other political analysts?

There is one other major false dichotomy underlying many, if not all, of the political issues. To address them we need to go directly back to the money system, specifically the Federal Reserve note as a currency. As it is now, money creation is done by the dictates (fiat currency) of the Federal Reserve or by acts of Congress that perpetuate an increase in budgets. With iterations of credit or money creation, there corresponds a proportional amount of debt. As a result, no matter what type of undertaking, public or private, the money used to finance a project is either created with more debt or has already been created by way of the debt-based currency. This was not always the case. There is way too much information to provide any substance in this issue alone. I recommend reading parts I and II of The Art of Political Finance, specifically the sections covering the Independent Treasury, the National Banking system, Greenbacks, and Silver. They are a treatise on economics; not socialism, communism, or fascism, but a flavor of capitalism that was imposed on our republic after the Civil War. If those topics interest you then you should continue on to my primer regarding the Federal Reserve.

In 1892, the banking community was aware of the threat that silver and other money posed to their control of money. An example of the bankers’ trepidation was published in 1941 by Louis Even. Louis Even was born in 1885 in Brittany, France. He left France for Canada in 1903. From there, he was sent to teach the Indians in the Rocky Mountains of Montana; he remained there until 1906. Living in Montana allowed him to acquire knowledge of the English language that would later become most useful for studying the books written on Social Credit by Major C. H. Douglas. Even returned to Canada permanently in 1906. From 1907 to 1911, he taught at Saint Francis’ school in the Immaculate Conception parish in Montreal. In August of 1936, Louis Even founded a periodical entitled The Cahiers du Crédit Social (i.e. the Social Credit Notebooks), which he wrote while working at Garden City Press. From October of 1936 to August of 1939, a total of sixteen issues of The Cahiers du Crédit Social were published and distributed to 2,400 subscribers. On June 1, 1941, Even wrote an article entitled, “An Example of Banking Philosophy,” which he attributed as the cause of worldwide poverty. The plan of the financiers was to seize the people’s wealth and the farmers’ land, which had been going on for ages. In Even’s article he referred to a piece written in an 1892 issue of The United States Banker’s Magazine:

We must go forward cautiously and consolidate each acquired position, because already the inferior social stratum of society is giving unceasing signs of agitation. Therefore, prudence dictates to us a line of conduct that seems to give in to the will of the people, until the execution of our plans be well-enough established for us to be able to declare our intentions without having to fear any organized resistance. Our confidence men shall have to closely watch the Farmers Alliance and the Knights of Work, and take steps immediately, either to control both associations in accordance with our interests, or to break them. Our men will have to attend the Convention that will be held in Omaha on the 4th of July and be in charge of all activities. Otherwise, this Convention could muster such an antagonism to our plans that we would have to resort to force to overcome it. Now, at the present time, using violence would be premature. We are not yet ready to confront such an assault. Money must first of all seek maximum protection in schemes and in legislation. Let us make use of the courts. Let us go forward as fast as possible at perceiving debts, at foreclosing (depriving of recourse to justice when a certain time limit has been transgressed) on debentures and mortgages. When, through the law’s intervention, the common people shall have lost their homes, they will be easier to control and easier to govern, and they shall not be able to resist the strong hand of the Government acting in accordance with the orders of the central power of imperial wealth, under the control of the leaders of finance. Our top leaders are perfectly aware of the truth. They are presently working at establishing an imperialism of the capital to rule the world. But while they are implementing this plan, they must keep the people busy with political antagonisms. We’ll therefore speed up the question of reform in the custom rates by the political organization called the Democratic Party; and we’ll put the spotlight on the question of protection and of the reciprocity by the Republican Party. By dividing the electorate this way, we’ll be able to have them spend their energies at struggling amongst themselves on questions that, for us, have no importance whatsoever, and on which we only touch upon as instructors of the common flock. It is thus that, through discreet acts, we can maintain what was so generously projected and executed with such a remarkable success.

In the 21st century, Americans should understand that a mixed market more accurately describes the economic environment in the United States. I've heard many people complain about the shortcomings of free markets. I'm not sure how any lay person can effectively assess what a free market is. We haven't had one for over 150 years. Many of the problems in society, at least economically, which springboard to social and other problems, are caused by the state's meddling. Here's an excerpt from an article posted by the Mises Institute: "Massive income redistribution is realized by multi-layered state bureaucracies, using tools such as inflation, taxation, transfers, credits, and subsidies. Let me be even clearer, money inflation and trickle-down theory has proven to raise the cost of living, always to the detriment of those furthest away from the gift. Subsidies, bailouts for corporations, currency creation to support the Federal Reserve's main objective for full employment are not components of free market capitalism. Currency creation demotes the existing workforce. These are all centrally commanded economic practices and are left of center, whether it be socialist, communist, or fascist. A market economy is driven by demand, not command. Be wary when the talking heads try to sell you "free rain."