Fed, Controlled opposition, containment and allowed opposition
How to keep yourself safe
These four terms get thrown around a lot in a way that isn’t necessarily wrong, as infiltration by feds and controlled opposition has brought down many a movement in the past. Although fed, controlled opposition, containment, and allowed opposition are regularly thrown around and used interchangeably. This is a mistake because the above-mentioned terms have very different meanings. Overusing terms like fed has the same effect of the boy crying wolf, it makes a term and those who use it seems silly and unreliable. Allowing this to happen is a mistake because sensible centrists must deal with bad actors. If this is to be done in a way that is effective, persons must be able to distinguish between different types of bad actors, as well as distinguishing between a good actor and a bad actor. Knowing what type of bad actor you are dealing with will help an informed decision to be made. If the situation ever arises that would require some degree of cooperation with bad actors, it is important to know what type of bad actor they are. Cooperation with Fed is advisable under no circumstances. Whereas interacting with controlled opposition or allowed opposition may bear fruit.
Feds
The term fed in this context does not exclusively refer to employees of intelligence agencies. Although, it is still important to use this phrase in a way that is exclusive to people who engage in activities that are like ones regularly undertaken by intelligence services. In this context a Fed includes but is not limited to undercover journalists, police officers and paid informants. The purpose of the Fed will depend on the type of Fed that they are. Normally a Fed will be looking out for information either to sell to the police, press or intelligence services. This type of Fed can be unassuming and agreeable. Such people will often be very good at extracting information from others by making people feel valued. This is normally done by active listening and in some cases, sexual or flirtatious behaviour. The police will often send a hot female officer under cover to flirt with drug dealers, in the hope that they will say something incriminating, name locations of product or revenue, and in some cases, admit to an offence. Simple methods of loosening someone’s lips are also available such as intoxication. Encouraging someone to voluntarily become intoxicated is an excellent way of causing someone to say something they should not. Journalists will regularly get sources drunk in the hope that sources will embellish their account of events. More sophisticated Feds who are normally fewer in number, will seek to take a leadership role in organisation and destroy them from within. This can take the form of infiltrators encouraging members of organisations to commit crimes so that the organisation can be crushed by the law. Alternatively, organisations can be wound down in a way that is unlikely to cause harm. Often large criminal organisations are wound down to reduce the risk of a similar organisation filling the vacuum.
Reducing the risks of Feds infiltrating organisation can be difficult especially if the Feds are working for intelligence services. Even so reasonable actions can be taken to reduce the risk of organisations being infiltrated. Firstly, keeping an organisation small can be an excellent way of reducing the risk of infiltration. It is very hard to infiltrate a group that is close nit, this is because there will not be opportunities for infiltrators take part in it. When recruitment is necessary, doing basic due diligence on prospective members can be enough to spot infiltrators. Different types of Feds can have different warning signs. Paid informants are normally vulnerable people who have financial or other problems. Spotting these people is relatively simple because general behaviour is normally a sign that should not be ignored, whereas undercover journalists and other professional infiltrators will behave in a way that is inconspicuous. This means that anybody who is given a senior position within an organisation should be subject to a thorough background check. Many of these remedies are expensive or time-consuming. However, not saying or doing stupid things can generally keep individuals and organisations safe from Feds.
Controlled Opposition
Controlled opposition often refers to a person who purports to be opposed to a particular viewpoint but is instead a controlled by advocate of that viewpoint. Normally for this to be an accurate description of a person’s position, there must be a clear and visible relationship between the above mentioned that would suggest that a person holds disingenuous views publicly. People often change their political views over time. So, it is important that the term-controlled opposition is only used when there is a high degree of evidence that would suggest a person is controlled opposition. For controlled opposition to be an appropriate descriptor, there must be proof the person is being controlled or otherwise has relationships that would make their views disingenuous. A practical example of this would be Matt Goodwin. Recently Matt Goodwin has been doing the centre right podcast circuit and even venturing into spheres that would be considered further right than centre-right. Matt has been claiming to be a dissident academic agreeing with people who are perhaps unfairly called the far right on issues such as immigration. The reason someone like Matt is disingenuous is because he spent much of his career discussing methods of subverting the populist right. In his book The Right Response, he discusses wearing the skin suits of the populist right as a method of draining their resources and energy, making it impossible for them to set up rival institutions1. This practice has been highly affected for the Conservative party in the UK. This practice, as used by the Conservative party, predates Matt Goodwin’s book on the topic. It is likely that Matt was inspired by the Conservative party.
Mitigating the risks of controlled opposition can be quite difficult, not least because it is difficult to ascertain whether someone is controlled. Although, in instances where people seem to be controlled opposition, and there is a reasonable degree of evidence to suggest this, no-platforming such individuals would be a reasonable response because for controlled opposition to work as a strategy, attention is required. Not all media organisations are controlled by sensible centrists so, in instances where media is controlled by sensible centrists, people who are likely to be controlled opposition should not be platformed. Any interviews these people do, especially in sensible circles, will further legitimise these people, when the only reasonable cause of action should be to ignore these people. It is argued that the Reactionary Feminists serve a useful function in making young women more profamily. It is unclear to what extent this is true, but the appeal to young women by Reactionary Feminists is precisely why they are so dangerous. Women have a natural in group preference towards one another. So, women who disingenuously hold conservative positions can easily capture the hearts and minds of right-leaning women. Thus, controlling their energy and redirecting it in a way that is counter-productive for the sensible centre. Many reactionary feminists are quite dishonest about their backgrounds. Most of them purporting not have the background that they do. Implying that they are political insiders.
Containment
Unlike controlled opposition, containment as a term is broader. For someone to be the containment there does not necessarily need to be an intention on their part. A person or idea that is containment can simply be a useful idiot. Furthermore, containment figures do not necessarily have to be favoured by the regime. Containment figures can function as bad guys or using the resting time heals. An example of this would be Kanye West, Richard Spencer and Andrew Tate: all these individuals were given large amounts of media attention. The function of these individuals played in the discourse was different. Kanye West improved the public perception of the antidefamation league during a time when they were unpopular. Whereas Andrew Tate has had the effect of justifying the online harms bill and feminist indoctrination in schools.
Preventing these people from having these kinds of effects is quite difficult for the sensible centrist as they cannot control who does get media attention. The only solution is to not engage with people who are clearly being pushed by the media.
Allowed opposition
Allowed opposition can be fairly defined as opposition that is someone that is not outside of the Overton window. Meaning that the key assumptions of liberalism are accepted by these individuals. A practical example of this would be a person who is against illegal immigration but espouses that Britain is a nation of immigrants. Or a person who is pro-choice but opposed to DIY or late term abortions. Engaging with these people in some instances can be fruitful, if they are not allowed to dominate the discourse. This type of alliance is done extremely badly with the trans issue. The mistake being that too many resources are spent arguing about who uses what toilet. While other more important issues such as immigration fall by the wayside because people don’t know what a woman is. Allowed opposition in containment can often have many attributes that are common to one another. The most significant of which is a lack of specificity: it is rare for these figures to discuss issues in depth. An aspect of this is that people naturally have short attention spans meaning the lowest common denominator will receive the most attention. However, another aspect of this is discussions of problems without an in-depth understanding of problems means that the reasons for problems will never get redressed. It is common for lots of male sympathetic feminists to discuss the plight of men and boys in the vague as possible terms. Without discussing the legal and policy reasons that are partly to blame for the plight of men and boys.
(1) Matthew Goodwin, Right Response, Understanding and Countering Populist Extremism in Europe (A Chatham House Report 2011) 24