"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"
Reflections on a peculiar obsession with "controlled opposition"
I woke up this morning thinking that the summer solstice is today, but then checked and saw it was yesterday. So today (Friday, June 21, 2024) is the second day of summer. I’ve always loved summer Fridays, when I feel drawn to take the afternoon off and go for a walk in the park or a swim.
Not having any important tasks today, I took the time to read a long essay titled The Truth about Controlled Opposition by fellow Substack author, Michael Ginsburg, in which the author insinuates that virtually every single notable figure in the medical freedom movement is controlled opposition.
Reading it reminded me of an old friend in Vienna who was long suspected of working for the CIA. One evening over dinner, after he’d had a few drinks, I asked him if the rumor was true.
“If it’s true, I’m still waiting for my first paycheck,” he replied.
Ginsburg’s essay also reminded me of my favorite John le Carré novel, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which marvelously creates an atmosphere of suspense and psychological pressure with the question of which of the top guys in British intelligence is a Soviet mole. As much as I loved and admired the novel, it was nevertheless easy for me to spot that Bill Haydon was the mole for the simple reason that his character resembled that of Kim Philby.
As intriguing as I found Mr. Ginsburg’s essay—and as much as I admire all of the research he has done to produce it—I doubt his conclusions.
His analysis begins with unstated and perhaps subconscious assumptions that strike me as unrealistic—namely, that in order to be a true opponent of the official pandemic response, it is necessary to fulfill the following criteria:
Already possess sufficient wealth to pay all of one’s bills without ever earning anything from one’s activities apart from independent investigative reporting.
Have nothing to do with the sale of ANY molecule that could have some medicinal or nutraceutical benefit.
Have no past associations with the U.S. government or pharmaceutical industry.
Criterion 1 strikes me as unrealistic for the vast majority of humanity. I have made a living as an investigative author, but I am single with no dependents and have lived my entire life in very bohemian circumstances.
Criterion 2 strikes me as irrational. I can’t think of a single purveyor of a product or service who is censured for selling a product because he believes it is beneficial. When my 74-year-old mother fell ill with COVID-19 in August 2020, I spent an entire day scrambling to find a doctor who would prescribe hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, and a pharmacy that would fill the prescription. I was deeply grateful to the pharmacist who sold it to me. I didn’t expect him to give it to me as his charitable contribution to my mother.
Criterion 3 strikes me as leaving little room for the possibility that a man or woman may change his job, relationships, and worldview over the course of his or her life.
I once read a book presenting the theory that Saul of Tarsus was an agent for both the Roman imperial office and the Pharisees—that is, that his apparent conversion to Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, was merely cover for his work as a spy. Though I found the book deeply intriguing, it occurred to me that—if this is indeed the case—Saul’s work as controlled opposition among the early Christians must surely be the biggest backfire in history, given that his work and letters laid the foundation for converting the Roman Empire to Christianity.
Who knows? Maybe Saul was so dedicated to serving his masters in the Sanhedrin and in Rome that he agreed to be beheaded in Rome to maintain his cover.
Could it be that Dr. McCullough agreed to being fired, sued, defamed, stripped of his professorships and editorships and subjected to interminable struggle sessions with the American Board of Internal Medicine in order to maintain his cover as a secret agent for the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex? I’ll be sure to ask him the next time I see him.
Anyone who’s spent 5 minutes talking with Dr. McCullough knows he’s the real deal, a man who never intended to be a hero but who became one anyway because he followed his conscience.
Exactly. I find the idea that every single person, or politician for that matter, is "in on it," as preposterous as "the science is settled."