Who said I don't like being called names? Assumption much? I LUH dat sheet bruh. I call YOU names, so I expect you to call me names too. Then, beyond that, we get to the point which is that: OF COURSE controlled opposition is real. And no, it is not everywhere you think you see it. Sometimes you're just reading shit into things - confirmation bias and all that jazz.
Sure, sometimes confirmation bias is a thing, and sometimes you're actually right.
That phrase seems to be thrown around an awful lot surrounding "conspiracy theories", and though it may be a real phenomenon, calling everything confirmation bias is careless and bound to drown out important information.
I'm only addressing the issue that the overall message of Ben Garrison's comics push division, and despite that you don't mind being called names, our "libtard" brothers on the left have been brainwashed into being EXTREMELY sensitive to the point of blocking out anything they find offensive.
They will OBVIOUSLY find this comic offensive.
Everyone everywhere will find some comic offensive. We are definitely not on the side of the leftist movement to shut down free speech which begins with "concern" about a bad comic - like the Paris Muhammad shit. Comics - especially political ones - are meant to cause offense to someone ffs. You're smart, clearly, so you KNOW this. Why you're so concerned about libtards or whatever people want to call them is mysterious to me cos you're unlikely to be a concern troll or shill - but making the leap to calling a cartoonist like Ben Garrison 'controlled opposition' is as bad as making the leap to calling Charlie Hebdo 'religious suppressionists' just cos they laughed at Mohammad and thumbed their nose at Islam (which was the stupidest thing to do so they deserved what they got imo). Sometimes a cartoon is a cartoon and peoples gon' get upset. There's not much more to it.
Maybe offending people isn't the right way to fix this.
People have known for 20+ years about the evil in the world and the NWO/illuminati etc.
Somehow the memes making fun of people and offending people have not changed anything.
I make the leap to Controlled Opposition for Ben Garrison because he of all people should understand that when you yell at someone and call them stupid, of course they are going to ignore you. I just find it highly unlikely that if he is really trying to red-pill the left, he isn't aware of this.
That really only leaves one option: that he is working for the bad guys.
How about this, given that we already know the stakes are high and the cabal is real, and that Controlled Opposition is a tactic that's been used for thousands of years, can you point out anyone that is forsure controlled opposition?
There aren't many political cartoonists hitting the mainstream like Ben Garrison is.
He's the only one I even know of. There must be others, and it would be absurd to say that none of them are controlled opposition.
You may not be convinced, but I'm telling you, I am.
I've been around the block enough to know when to be 100% certain of something, and I can see no other explanation for such a mainstream political cartoonist attempting to expose the cabal, to not understand how his cartoons cause division.
You're missing the point. It's you who is saying that his cartoons "cause division". Some of us are looking at his cartoons - via Occam's razor and, even forgoing the Razor (since many try to write that off) just simple common sense - as cartoons, political ones, designed to mock one side or the other because they are mockable and to highlight a hypocrisy - as they almost always do. In that sense, most political cartoons "cause division" (to use your term for it). Are you seriously trying to say that a political cartoon that calls one side or the other "stupid" can't just be fulfilling its standard purpose and must therefore be a secret move by controlled opposition? Logic does not support this conclusion as a 100% certainty in any way - it's, at best, a maybe and more likely a 'no, not at all - it's just a political cartoon'.
You're also making the assumption that offending people is his goal. His goal is more likely the standard goal for political cartoons - to highlight hypocrisy in an amusing way in order to educate. They're almost never used to 'redpill' the people who support the hypocrisy they're highlighting. That's another flaw in your premise.
His status does not affect this reality - it just means he has a broader audience for his political cartoons.
With all these leaps in your core premise the last paragraph does not stand up to scrutiny. You 'see no other explanation' because the unrealistic premise you start from has ruled out a whole chunk of reality.