John Hamer is a geopolitical researcher and author. His books include: ‘The Falsification of History’ (2012), ‘The Falsification of Science’ (2021) and ‘RMS Olympic’ on the Titanic disaster of 1912.
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/z26zmEN7WToE/https://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Hamer/e/B00B8X4CB6/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/https://wifi-refugee.com/
↓ ↓ ↓
Today's podcast is in association NutraHealth365 who manufacture a superb high potency Vitamin D3 supplement called ImmuneX365.
As we approach winter, your body's defences are under constant attack from flu, respiratory diseases and the common cold. So now, more than ever, is it essential that you have a robust immune system and as we all know, Vitamin D3 plays an essential role in this.
ImmuneX365 is an exclusive and unique formulation that combines effective levels of Vitamins D3, C, and K2, as well as Zinc and Quercetin.
This unique combination of nutrients ensures efficient bioavailability of D3, thereby giving your immune system an optimum boost.
Take back your health with just two capsules of ImmuneX365 every day.
For your peace of mind, all NutraHealth365 orders come with free two day tracked delivery, Go to
http://NutraHealth365.com
to get yours now."
https://nutrahealth365.com/
\ \ \ \ \ \
If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
/ / / / / /
Earn interest on Gold:
https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/
/ / / / / /
Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
Support James’ Writing at: https://delingpole.substack.com/
Support James monthly at: https://locals.com/member/JamesDelingpole?community_id=7720
Welcome to the Delling Pod with me James Dellingpole.
I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest But I really am before I introduce them a quick word about our amazing sponsors Please buy your gold from the pure gold company and silver of course silver bullion as well
The pure gold company who will either deliver to your doorstep or they will store your your bullion for you in vaults in either London or Switzerland or you can buy gold which pays interest yeah amazing but true if you go to monetary metals again the details are below in the blur below this podcast
And please remember to support our other supporters including Nutra Health who make those amazing vitamin D3, K2 immune system boosting pills which have been Going like hotcakes.
And don't forget to support Hunter and Gather.
We love Hunter and Gather because they make things like mayonnaise, which doesn't poison you, unlike the stuff you get from supermarkets.
It doesn't use seed oils.
And you can get MCT oil for your keto diet.
Really good products.
Anyway, on to our special guest, John Hamer.
Welcome back to The Deling Pod.
Thank you, James.
Good to be back.
John, how would you describe yourself?
Yeah, I guess I'm a geopolitical researcher, analyst, author, public speaker.
You know, this is what I do.
This is my job.
You know, I'm a professional.
I don't have another job.
This is what I do full-time.
So yeah, I do lots of podcasts and write books.
You write books, you do?
Remind me about the two, the one on history and the one on science, what are they called?
The falsification of history, which is my very first one, and the falsification of science, which was my seventh one.
Right.
So yeah, obviously there are others as well, but those are the, in fact, the two that you mentioned are by far the two most popular.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, I'm amazed that books like yours can even sell in any quantity, because... Yeah, they do.
They do.
It's, you know, I'm really pleased with the sales.
It exceeded my expectations, because when I first started writing them, I was just, you know, I just did it as a hobby, basically, but it's actually become, you know, a full-time income now, which is obviously great news for me.
Well, exactly.
I mean, I'm always happy when somebody outside the mainstream can earn a living from this game we're in, which is telling the truth in a world controlled by a lie machine, by people who don't want the truth to get out.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, obviously the mainstream media, they're just a mouthpiece for the powers that be, or the powers that shouldn't be, as some people call them.
So yeah, we don't get the truth from that source at all.
So the last time we spoke, You, among other things, you completely changed my understanding of the beginning of Lawrence of Arabia, which is one of my favorite films.
And there I was thinking it was an innocent motorbike accident down a country lane, but it turns out that he was bumped off on the orders of Winston Churchill.
Yes.
Who doesn't emerge very well from your narrative, I have to say, John.
I mean, I used to be, I spent most of my life as a, as a, as a Churchillian.
I mean, I, I thought he was one of our great heroes, the bulldog spirit and all that, won us the Second World War.
And when you told me that he was a, well, he was matricidal, uh, that he bumped off Lord Kitchener as well as, as well as, uh, Lawrence of Arabia.
I mean, that's crazy stuff.
Absolutely, yeah.
I mean, he was actually voted as the greatest ever Briton in a mainstream poll maybe 10 years ago or something, perhaps a bit longer ago than that.
But, you know, if he was the greatest ever Briton, then God help all of us as far as I can see.
But, you know, that's another story.
But yeah, he's definitely not what he's portrayed to be.
I mean, to me, The thing that stands out in my mind about Churchill is the fact that immediately after the war, when you think he would be the national hero, you know, basically won the war single-handedly, he was so, you know, popular.
Absolutely not true.
He lost the next general election in a landslide.
Why would that be?
There's got to be a reason for that.
But of course we never, we never But, you know, made privy to those kind of facts at all, because the powers that be want to portray the guy as some kind of a hero, which he was far from.
Well, they must have come up with some reasonably convincing excuse, because I bought it, whatever it was.
I can't remember.
It was never a great tell.
That he wasn't re-elected.
I just thought, you know, that the soldiers came back and they were... I think the excuse they've used actually, which is plausible enough, is that in peacetime people felt that they no longer needed a wartime Prime Minister.
Maybe, maybe.
But of course, that's just, that's possible.
I mean, it's possible.
But it certainly resonates with the rest of the stuff, the fact that he was, you know, discarded at the first opportunity.
And, you know, I've heard albeit not absolutely concrete facts, but certainly rumours about the fact that when he went down the East End, he was booed every time he went down there.
So in the end, he stopped going.
He went to try and meet the people and portray himself as a man of the people, but he got pelted with rotten eggs and tomatoes and booed.
And he had to flee on a couple of occasions.
I can well believe that.
It depends on how far down the rabbit hole people want to go.
Today I was looking in the papers.
I say looking in the papers, I wasn't reading them.
I happened to glance across at my wife's copy and I saw a photograph of Winnie.
with his famous V for victory sign and I thought yeah don't don't do that that's scary and I thought that is not that is not that is not a V for victory sign that is the horned beast and that is you invoking invoking the powers of the devil because you are a 33rd degree freemason yes well not me I mean you Winnie yes you man in the photograph
Yes, absolutely.
Yeah, it's 33rd Degree Freemason, a member of the, a high up member of the Order of the Druids as well, which is another very shady organisation.
Yeah, I mean the guy was, to all intents and purposes, a practising Satanist.
Yeah, well, I refer people back to the first podcast we did for more information on that, and look, as with all these podcasts, it's up for them to decide.
Whether they think that John Hamer is talking complete bollocks and he's just a random bloke from north that I know.
Because as I was accused of having done at a party the other night, I saw this bloke I hadn't seen for a few years and he said, oh yes, Dillingpole, you've gone mad.
That is one possibility.
I have gone mad.
The other is that maybe the history we're taught at schools and on TV by the BBC, that trustworthy institution, may not be as accurate as we had persuaded ourselves.
Anyway, today I thought we'd talk about something completely different.
And this is the thing, John.
It's the second most contentious topic, I find, in my social media circles.
The most contentious is who and who isn't a shill, who and who isn't controlled opposition, and so on.
That always upsets people, it causes tension.
But I think the second most divisive topic is, wait for it, Flat Earth.
That's a surprise!
You mentioned to me, because I haven't had a Flat Earther on yet, I haven't talked to... Who's the guy specialised?
Is it Eric Dubé?
Eric Dubé, yeah.
He's the big Flat Earth guy, absolutely.
I may do him, but you can be my entree into this subject.
You've looked into this, and as I understand it, you started out completely... You thought, this is just bollocks, I'm going to look into it and see what it's about.
I think, to be fair, that's how most people come into that subject.
They think, that's absolute nonsense, I'm going to prove it's wrong, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they end up, just like I did, thinking that this is probably the real truth, and we're being totally deceived.
For what reason?
People always say, well, what possible reason could they make up all this nonsense about Flat Earth?
Well, to me, The thing is that Flat Earth is just part of the deception, OK?
I actually do a standard presentation, which is quite popular, called The Three Pillars of False Science, and Flat Earth is one of those three pillars.
The other two pillars are the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution.
Oh, great!
We'll do all three.
Okay, well, in a nutshell, to answer my own question about why on earth would they lie to us about it all, well, those three things, I believe, are the essence of science today.
Why do they do it?
It's because they want us to believe that we are nothing.
They take away our power by creating this fake reality with outer space and the fact that the Big Bang happened.
First of all, there was nothing and then nothing exploded and created a vast, incomprehensible universe, which is totally inexplicable by science when you look into it within any depth.
And of course, evolution changes into a random cosmic accident along with the other two things, because without those three pillars, as I call them, their fake reality would not stand up.
They are trying to create a...
A reality where we are just tiny insignificant specks of nothingness, random cosmic chance accidents, whereas I believe we're very powerful spiritual beings in our own right, but they don't want us to believe that, so they take that power away from us.
And in fact, it makes us believe that ourselves.
We're just a cosmic nothingness, basically, that happened by chance.
But when you believe in a creator, as I do, I'm not a religious person.
I'm a spiritual person.
I believe that we were created because I just don't see any other viable alternative at all.
But they don't want us to know that.
Because if we know that, it empowers us.
The only way that 8 billion people can be controlled is by keeping them in a tiny little fake box of reality.
So that we don't know our own origins, we don't know our own power.
It's just another way of them exerting their authority over us, which is obviously what they love to do.
By the way, if that all makes sense, there are eight billion of us.
I mean, I'm even well, exactly.
Yeah, that's another question entirely.
But yes, I get where you're coming from.
That's another another podcast.
Well, I'm I think I'm with you on what is known as space is fake and gay theory.
I do.
I'm I'm very sceptical about all these all these Voyager or whatever they are they all all these these modules we are allegedly sending to To these yes far-flung planets.
I think that's probably all made up.
I mean, you know, we can't even get to the moon.
So No Yeah, I mean that's a whole other subject on its own as well, isn't it but But let's let's let's try and narrow it down for a bit.
Okay, so I I really haven't looked into Do you know why?
I'll tell you one of the reasons.
It's partly that I get really bored with the arguments between people who say, well I've sailed round the world and I can tell you that it's round.
Or people start talking about how far you can see ships' masts below the horizon or something like this.
It all feels like maths to me and I lose interest.
Is that wrong?
No, I mean, I know what you're saying.
I mean, I'm not a mathematical person myself, and it does bore me from mathematics, but there's far more to it than that, obviously.
Yeah, I mean, you get all the old arguments, some of which you've just mentioned, but the problem is, both for flat earthers and for globe earthers, is that it's possible to have uh arguments for both sides that are irrefutable and this this is the big problem but the the the we'll say irrefutable that's probably a bit of an extreme not irrefutable
but they're very hard to refute shall we say um so you you get this impasse this constant knocking of heads well you know you get debates on the internet flat earthers and and globe earthers and and yeah globe earthers have got some very valid arguments which are very difficult to disprove as a flat earth and and but the other side of the coin is that flat earth arguments are even more difficult to disprove by the globe earthers
even though they won't admit that they just dismiss it as nonsense and and And there's very few actual serious debates between the two, because the Globe Earthers are just Totally adamant that they're right and they won't listen, they won't debate it, they won't have a proper reasoned debate about it because they just think that flat earthers are imbeciles.
It's a bit like the Stratfordians in the Shakespeare debate.
Yes, yes it is.
Academe is so wedded to the idea that the man from Stratford was William Shakespeare.
They just laugh to scorn anyone who posits an alternative theory.
I can understand this.
Look, in my bathroom, I have two mini globes.
I mean, probably every household has a globe.
It's almost the most insane of all the insane conspiracy theories, isn't it?
It's the one that people have It's the final stare, I'd say.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, Globe Earth is totally ubiquitous, isn't it?
It's everywhere.
You know, you switch on the TV news and you see the globe spinning around.
The weather, even the weather maps are now based on a globe.
They don't show the flat map anymore.
It's always globular.
If you notice that, and I believe that's because the prominence now of flat-earth arguments, trying the damnedest in every way possible to create that psychological image of the globe, so it becomes more difficult to refute.
So what was your wow moment?
Because, as you said, you set out to debunk it.
Yeah, yeah.
earth is flat so what was your wow moment because you as you said you set out to debunk it yeah yeah what was the what was the thing that that turned you it's it's the visibility of objects that should be hidden behind the curve That was the big thing for me.
There's lots and lots of other things, but there's a lot of photographs of objects that should be, as I say, not visible behind the curve.
There is an earth curvature calculation which is established, which is used by the mainstream.
I can't remember what it is.
It's something about 8 inches blah blah blah.
Anyway, something or other.
I can't remember off the top of my head what it is because I'm getting old and I forget these things.
But whatever that Earth Curvature Calculator is, if you use that, for example, there are famous photographs of the Chicago skyline from Lake Michigan from 55 miles away and you can see the entirety of the Chicago skyline right down to the floor.
Now, if you use the Earth Curvature Calculation, those buildings should be something like 1500 feet.
Behind the curve.
In other words, as the Earth curves away, they should be 1,500 feet behind it.
And this is not just an isolated instance.
Lots and lots of things.
There's an island in the Mediterranean, just I can't remember which one it is now, but it's visible from the Italian coast and it's 100 miles away.
It's just an impossibility on a globe.
There's been lots of experiments done.
The main one in the 19th century was called the Bedford Levels Experiment, which was carried out lots and lots of times.
There's a river in, I believe it's Cambridgeshire, it might be Norfolk, it's somewhere in East Anglia, and there's a six mile stretch
And a guy called Samuel Rowbotham, he actually set up a little experiment whereby he lay down six miles from a place called Welney Bridge, and you could clearly see Welney Bridge, and he instructed a guy in a rowing boat to row along this six mile absolutely flat stretch to Welney Bridge, which is exactly six miles away.
Now he reckoned that
way before the six miles is up the mast which had a little white flag on should have disappeared behind the curvature and it never did and this has been replicated many many times and these are just only just a very few examples I mean how are these how are these people so so this this idea has been current for quite a long time how were these people treated I mean presumably these these people all became flat earth as a result
Yeah, they're just ridiculed, aren't they?
I mean, this is how the mainstream treats anyone who can offer an alternative explanation to their norms, their their set ideas that we're supposed to suck in, like, you know, vacuum cleaners.
They just treat it with ridicule.
They come up with fake arguments against it.
It's just the same old story, no matter what subject you're talking about, be it Flat Earth or be it anything else, for that matter.
What are their fake rebuttals, then?
For example, the one that they use about the Chicago skyline, is that it's called something like, I can't remember the exact term, but it's something like inverse refraction or something that creates this mirage Well, obviously that might work on water, but it certainly doesn't work on land.
There's so many examples of this, it's just too hard to ignore.
Again, that's just the one main thing for me.
But there are lots of other things as well that point towards a flat Earth.
Can I just tell you what the flat Earth model actually is, first of all?
I'd love to hear!
Because, you know, many people don't know what that is.
It's actually a circular flat plane, OK, with the Arctic in the middle and all the continents around the edge.
And people say, well, why doesn't the sea fall off the edge?
You know, the oceans fall off the edge.
That's because, and this is a fact, this is not made up, Antarctica consists of a 200 foot unbroken ice wall.
All round the edge, OK, in the Flat Earth Model, it's all round the edge like a dish.
So that's what keeps the seas in.
200 feet?
Yes, 200 feet.
There is one inlet.
It's like the wall in Game of Thrones.
I mean, that's what it's based on.
I don't know Game of Thrones, but yeah, it is like a wall.
It is a 200 foot ice wall.
OK, we're not allowed to go to Antarctica.
You're not allowed to overfly Antarctica.
You're not allowed to approach within 100 miles of Antarctica.
Otherwise, they will shoot you.
They will shoot you down.
Seriously!
There was something called the Antarctic Treaty, which was passed in the 1950s.
And, funnily enough, every single nation on Earth signed it.
And that is the only instance of every single nation on Earth agreeing to sign one specific treaty.
Why would that be, okay?
Circumstantial evidence, obviously, but not proof.
But you're not allowed to overfly it.
There's been instances where planes have been threatened with being shot down if they get too near.
Why would that be?
We've got to ask ourselves that question.
You know, what is so private, what is so secret about Antarctica?
I have heard a story about some sort of maverick, was he a Norwegian I think, who took his sailing boat.
He was determined to kind of get through the net and I think he ended up disappearing mysteriously.
I guess that is what happens.
But what about, you do occasionally get Little tourist trips to Antarctica.
I've seen them advertised How do they land if there's a sort of 200 foot ice wall?
Where do they go?
The little are the little inlets or something or how does it work?
There are there is one or maybe two inlets and that's it I mean cruise ships go to Antarctica, but obviously it's all very controlled and you're not allowed to go more than about 100 yards inland You know, it's there's wire fencing There's a post office there where you can get your tourist postcards stamped and say you sent them from the Antarctic And all that kind of stuff.
In fact, my eldest son's friend spent six months at a research station in Antarctica and he said the same.
You can't go more than 200 yards inland when you get there.
You just restrict it to this little space.
Really?
Between the coast.
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
You see, this is why my favourite of all the rabbit holes is Antarctica.
Because then you start thinking, What happens beyond the wall, beyond beyond that kind of that demilitarized zone up to the research station?
Yeah.
What?
What's that?
Do you have any theories?
No, other than the fact that, again, you know, it gets it gets more complex, it gets more strange, because in the UN building in New York, in the lobby, and I've got a picture of this, Which I'd be happy to send to anyone if they want to look at it.
And it's a picture.
It's a painting.
Not a photograph, obviously.
It's a painting that shows the Flat Earth.
Okay, so this is us.
This is our Earth as we know it.
In a circular disk like that.
But then we've got the Antarctica all around the edge of it.
And then outside that are dozens upon dozens of other continents.
And that's hanging in the lobby of the UN building.
Now, what's that all about?
They love to hide things in plain sight.
They love to show us things that they are doing.
You know, without actually telling us that that's what they're doing, because they have this belief that as long as they're open about what the facts are, then that's okay.
They won't get hit with the karma for lying.
Because this is not my belief, this is their belief, you know.
You know, again, that's just another spanner in the works, if you like.
Maybe that is an accurate map of what we have.
I don't know.
But there was an expedition in the late 1940s, early 1950s, I can't remember the exact date, by a guy called Admiral Byrd, who was an American, as the title says, an American admiral.
And he was an explorer.
And he came back and he told this story about when he flew over Antarctica.
This was in the days before there was the restrictions, of course.
And he went past the ice and he landed in a place that was totally green and he met a very strange humanoid group of people.
And this is an American admiral telling this story.
And again, I'm not making this up.
This is factual.
This is what he said.
And it's all available on the internet for anyone who wants to check out the facts.
But yeah, Admiral Robert Byrd, he said that he flew beyond the Antarctic, so again it adds a little bit of credence to that map that I mentioned.
Can you still buy his book in bookshops?
Did he elaborate on this stuff?
He did.
I mean, I think there are even YouTube presentations.
I think there are even YouTube.
He appeared on television, actually.
And I think what happened was he came back and told this story.
And it was as a result of that that the Antarctic Treaty was formulated and signed.
Um, but so yeah, I mean you can see it.
I mean, I might not be on YouTube, but it's certainly beyond some of the other video platforms because I've, you know, have seen it fairly recently again.
You say humanoid.
I mean, what, like, why the oid?
What was, what's different about them?
Well, they just said that they were different to us.
They had different characteristics, different physical characteristics.
You know, they looked reasonably human, but they were different.
So, I mean, I'm not a believer in UFOs in the sense of them coming from outer space.
But maybe they come from a different area within our own reality, within our own realm.
I don't know.
Again, it's just speculation on my part, but that's a possibility.
You know, well, I say no.
I believe that outer space doesn't exist, certainly not in the form that they tell us anyway.
So if there are these UFOs, and I'm not even sure that I believe that there are, other than the fact that all UFO means is an unidentified flying object.
So that could be anything.
It could be a bird or anything.
But yeah, if they do exist, then it's a possibility that they come from this place beyond Antarctica.
Maybe.
Yeah, there was a few years ago, wasn't there, a few of these dodgy types, the sort of associates of Hillary Clinton and stuff, were all sort of, and it was a non-pedestrian one, I can't remember, but they were all sort of boasting about how they were off to Antarctica on, you know, telling their social media feeds about this is where they were going and heavy hint, heavy hint.
I mean, it's clear that the The powers that be are very interested in Antarctica.
And there are stories that you hear that there are these tunnels, which are only accessible by submarine, these tunnel entrances, and that you have to sing a particular song.
Do you not know this one?
No, I've not heard this before.
you are not you're not in the game mate you're just so okay so um you don't you don't know you haven't got any thoughts on how far this this flat earth of ours extends um
Go on.
Well if you were to believe the map, and again it's available on the internet for anybody who Google, well don't use Google, but anybody who searches for it, it looks as though it's at least as wide again as the current earth In all directions around.
Okay, so it's a huge swathe of ocean and continents as well.
So if it's real, it could just be disinformation.
What is the boundary of that?
I mean, OK, so our oceans are held in by the 200 foot ice wall.
Yeah.
But that must mean there's another ice wall or what?
I can't remember, actually.
It's not.
It's a good question.
But I didn't look at that.
If you bear with me a second and I'll try and find the picture.
Keep on talking.
Let's keep on talking.
I'm very happy.
I finally broached this topic.
I mean, actually, apart from anything else, because it would annoy certain people.
I think some people on our side actually deserve being annoyed, because I think that they are not willing to have the
intellectual and imaginative courage of their convictions like they'll go so far and they go yeah I understand that the world is controlled by these evil illuminati figures but flat earth I won't go there and you're and you're kind of thinking well well why I mean exactly I mean I'm sort of sympathetic to the flat earth because it seems to me when I read
The Psalms, for example, they seem to outline a view of the world which is quite different from the modern one.
You know, they believe in the firmament.
They seem to believe that there is a kind of ocean of some kind above us.
Yes.
And you talk about, you know, when you read in Genesis about God's making of the world, it's not necessarily that he made, it doesn't say, and then he cupped his hands and created a A globe?
It doesn't say that, does it?
No.
I've just pulled up the picture, James, and actually, looking at it again, it looks as though they are saying it's a globe, but a much, much bigger globe than we're actually told.
I will send you this picture afterwards, actually, because I think you might be interested in it, and I'll also send you my Flat Earth article, which, again, you might be interested in.
But it looks as though it's a globe, But a much, much bigger globe than we actually believe it to be.
Or we're told that it is.
Right.
OK.
Well, doesn't that say you're not a flat earther after all?
Well, no, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying that it's a big globe.
Yeah, probably.
I do have questions.
Don't get me wrong.
Although I'm leaning towards flat earth, I do have questions.
There are certain things that are very hard to refute.
The main one being How does a solar eclipse work on a flat Earth?
It wouldn't.
What about... Oh.
Well, it doesn't.
No, on a flat Earth it doesn't, unfortunately, no.
And I've not heard a satisfactory explanation.
But that's good.
It's good that you're sort of questioning your own argument.
I mean, I'm agnostic about this, except as far as I want to believe in flat Earth, because it sounds much cooler.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean it fits in with, I always talk about, and excuse me for anyone who's heard me say this before, I don't want to bore anybody, but I always think of reality as like a 10 million or a billion piece jigsaw and You can see that the big picture, the more pieces you put in place.
And of course, the more pictures you put in place, just like an ordinary jigsaw puzzle, the more it enables you to fill the other pieces in as well.
So this is the way I look at things, everything, reality as a whole.
And it just fits.
It just fit to me.
Flat Earth just fits precisely into the right little slots and creates that, helps to create that bigger picture of everything.
So, yeah, it's not... I don't believe it 100%, but I'm tending towards it in the absence of any other explanation.
When Captain Scott said, Great God, this is an awful place, Was it him or was it one of the other ones who died?
I don't know.
I mean we've got this... do you think that was part of the sign-off as well?
The promotion of this narrative that you really don't want to go to Antarctica because you will die.
Your feet will turn black and your toes will drop off and you'll die horribly, unlike lucky Norwegians.
Yes, I did actually think about this and I did think that maybe the whole thing was a psy-op and maybe they did set off to go to the South Pole, which doesn't exist on the Flat Earth model, obviously.
They did set off to go to the South Pole, but they were either murdered on the way there or on the way back.
Because again, it's a bit like Titanic, this story about Scot of the Antarctic.
It's full of romance and tragedy and, you know, it's got all the elements of a sellable story, hasn't it?
And, you know, they were only 12 miles away from safety when they all sadly perished.
Yeah.
And I just think, you know, yeah, great.
OK, were they all actually murdered?
And they just invented this story to make it kind of, you know, sticking people's heads.
If it weren't for your what you've told us elsewhere about the Titanic, which is an extraordinary story and takes several hours to tell.
I'd be thinking, what kind of wacko theory this is?
Everyone knows, you know, and Captain Oates and Evans and so on.
And it was because they, unlike Amundsen, they didn't travel with dogs.
They tried using ponies.
We've been fed all this stuff.
We've got panes of glass in churches dedicated to their sacrifice, and we've got diaries, and we know everything about it, don't we?
Yes.
I think we should be suspicious of any historical event which has been deeply imprinted within our consciousness.
Exactly, James.
Exactly that, James.
Yes, I totally agree.
And that's what struck me about that particular incident.
I might be wrong, I might be wrong, but When I was sort of eight or nine or ten at my typical Colditz-like English prep school, there were certain stories, historical stories, that you knew above others.
And definitely, along with the Titanic, Captain Scott was one of the biggest.
It's absolutely... And if all the others are fake, I mean, if... We know this, that... What are the things we all remember?
People remember where they were when Kennedy was shot, if they were around then.
People remember where they were when they heard about 9-11.
Yes.
You do?
I remember where I was when Kennedy was shot, yeah.
I was 11 years old and, yeah, I'd just come home from school and my mum switched on the evening news and it was all splashed over.
And I remember my grandma, who was staying with us at that time, just bursting into tears because this lovely man had been shot.
So yeah, that's quite a vivid memory to me.
Did your grandma say it were a conspiracy?
Something like that, yeah.
No, she didn't.
It doesn't stack up.
She was just heartbroken, obviously.
As many people throughout the world were, of course.
Well, yeah, because that's how they play it, isn't it?
They want you to become part of the folk memory and part of your personal memory.
Exactly.
More real than anything you experienced yourself.
Yeah.
I just said 9-11, Diana, you know.
Diana, you know.
Diana, yeah.
So, John, we've changed reels.
uh, We can now, we've got another 40 minutes on.
It was really annoying that we couldn't use my usual platforms.
But anyway, I don't understand it.
It's so weird.
I just asked you off camera whether there was any more that you needed to tell me and you said there's loads but it's better reading your book which has got it all covered.
Tell us about it.
Yeah, my book The Falsification of Science.
I wrote it in 2021 and it's kind of a sister companion to
the falsification of history which was written in 2012, where obviously falsification of history talked about historical events and how they were faked and falsification of science to talk about the scientific aspects of the big picture and give my own view that's been derived from my extensive research on various different topics such as
We talked, you know, earlier in the piece, we talked about, you know, the three pillars of fake science that I believe in, and that is that the Big Bang Theory, again, you know, note the word there, theory.
It is a theory, and it's a very substantial one.
Talk about the theory of evolution, and again, it's always called the theory.
It's never called the theory, although it is taught as fact.
It is, sorry, it is always called theory, although it's never Though it's taught as fact in education establishments, it is a very insubstantial theory.
So there's that.
I talk about ancient technology, lots of ancient technology that's kind of been lost, for want of a better word.
I talk about the Royal Society and Freemasonry and how that has a massive, massive influence on science.
Because the Royal Society, which is a British institution at heart, is the controlling body of science and what we get to hear.
Royal Society is absolutely 100% controlled by Freemasonry.
It's not even up for debate, that is an absolute fact.
All the senior guys at the Royal Society are all high-ranking Freemasons and we know that Freemasonry has a very, very, shall we say, insidious hold upon us and the reality that we believe that we live in.
So there's that.
I talk about Flat Earth, obviously.
I talk about NASA.
I do a big, big... There's a massive chapter on NASA and outer space and the moon landings and all that good stuff.
Hello, James.
Where have you gone?
Yeah, I'm just fending my light, my batteries.
Okay.
It's all very high-tech.
My production assistant is me.
Yes, me too.
Yes, no, you make me want to get that book actually.
Well, both books.
Yeah, well, I'm sure I can arrange that for you.
So there's lots to cover there.
I mean... Yeah, nuclear weapons hoax.
Sorry, the nuclear weapons hoax I talk about.
Oh, you know, that's another of my favourites.
Nukes aren't real.
No.
They're not, are they?
No, absolutely not.
It's just fear-mongering.
We know that the control is partly through fear and keeping us in a state of apprehension and dysfunctionality and this is just another one to add to the list.
Shall we?
I think that we can probably cover Big Bang and evolutionary theory in one go, rather than treating them as discrete topics, do you think?
Yeah, sure.
Or does it not work that way?
I mean, I'm interested in... Here's an interesting thought, or an observation.
I am reading this amazing book at the moment, an amazing work of literary criticism, scholarship and biography, and it's called Music at Midnight, and it is a biography of George Herbert.
Who some people would argue is our greatest poet.
He was very well connected.
The Herberts were the earls of Pembroke.
He moved in court circles.
He was the orator at Cambridge.
He was fiercely learned.
He was absolutely brilliant in Latin and Greek.
But he decided to devote most of his energies to God.
He had this sort of personal relationship with God, as Christians do, and his poetry was essentially expressive of his love for the divine.
Yeah, I did study him at English Literature A-Level, but yeah, I've forgotten all of Boeing, so I can't remember them, but yeah, I remember.
He's good, but anyway, what's interesting about this utterly brilliant... I'm just going to find out the name of the author.
Give me one second.
sure now
the reason john that i had to get my copy of the book is because because of the author um i'm I mean, it really is brilliant literary analysis.
Music at Midnight.
John Drury.
And John Drury was, is, let's have a look what his background is.
Where are we?
Where would it say about the author?
Is it still alive?
OK.
John Drury is chaplain and fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.
He probably isn't now.
He began as a biblical scholar.
And while Dean of King's College, Cambridge, worked with Frank Comode, he was also, he was Dean of Christchurch, which is my college, which also happens to be Oxford's, Oxford's Cathedral.
And that is a position, certainly when he was Dean, I think they might change it.
I think they're going to make it, they're going to split the role.
So there's the ecclesiastical role and there's the kind of administrative role.
But anyway, you have to, you would have to be a clergyman to get those positions.
And although the book is brilliant, there are moments that bring you up short.
And those are the moments where he refers to Darwin and Darwin's theories.
And he refers to them in a way that, I mean, this book would have been published about 10, 20 years ago, maybe.
20 years ago, probably.
Right.
No.
10 years, only 10 years ago.
And he keeps making reference to, when he's talking about Herbert's view of the world.
It's as though, well of course, what Herbert didn't understand is our modern understanding of how we came into being and Darwinism and so on.
In other words, you've got this clergyman, very senior clergyman author, a great scholar Who is yet conceding all the territory to Darwin.
He is basically, this guy is supposed to be a God-fearing man.
He has completely accepted that Darwin's understanding of the world, the evolutionary theory one, is the correct one.
And he is sort of slightly looking down, or not looking down on, but diminishing in some way.
Herbert's worldview, because he doesn't understand that actually, you know, come on, come on, guys, God didn't actually make the world, you know, we know now, Big Bang and evolution and all that, you know, hello.
And I was, I was shocked.
I mean, yeah, I mean, had I read the book 20 years ago, 10 years ago, I would have gone, yeah, fine, because I, A, I took evolutionary theory for granted and B, I wasn't a Christian in those days.
Yeah.
We all do take it for granted, James.
That's nothing unusual, is it?
That's how it's sold to us, isn't it?
It's very, very hard to read an article on any aspect of science, or certainly any aspect of biology or zoology or anything like that, which doesn't make at least some passing reference to evolutionary theory.
It's so embedded in our culture.
So what I want to know is, first of all, this is the interesting stuff, who funded it?
Was it funded by the Rothschilds?
Free Mercenary.
It was Free Mercenary again.
I've got lots of quotes.
I'll dig them out, actually, but could I, before I do that, could I just offer a very quick, I'm talking of a couple of minutes, proof that evolution is false.
Yes, please.
Okay.
First of all, I'm going to start with a quote, and it's this quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica that, you know, Doyon of Truth and all the rest of it, but I think this is a fair point that they say.
They say a simple one-cell bacterium contains DNA information units that are the equivalent of 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
So just to let that sink in, a simple one-cell bacterium contains DNA information that is the equivalent of 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
And then it's important to understand that the basic functional unit of a cell is a protein.
Proteins contain or comprise of hundreds of different amino acids and to even work at all they have to be in the right order.
Now a single, a simple single cell bacterium contains thousands and thousands of different proteins.
The molecular biologist Francis Crick, who was one of the guys who with James Watson discovered the DNA double helix, He calculated the odds of a protein occurring by chance as being 1 in 10 to the power of 260.
So that is a 1 followed by 260 zeros.
Right?
260.
So that is a 1 followed by 260 zeros.
Right now, for comparison purposes, that number, the 1 followed by 260 zeros, is greater than the number of atoms.
Not the number of planets, not the number of people, not the number of organisms, but greater than the number of atoms in the known universe.
Okay?
Now, mathematicians classify as impossible, absolutely impossible, anything that has odds greater than 1 in 10 to the power of 50.
So, in a nutshell, that just proves that evolution is impossible because what I've just said has to happen for evolution to occur.
And that's not just me saying that.
This is mainstream science that says it.
So in actual fact, they're signing their own death knell.
And it means it would have been impossible to get one protein by chance, let alone the thousands upon thousands of different proteins that a simple one cell bacterium would need to function or even exist.
And a cell would need the ability to ingest nutrients, to expel waste, and to reproduce.
So, if a cell will ever develop by chance, that very first cell would have had to develop and perfect the process of cellular reproduction in the span of its own lifetime.
Because if it didn't, there wouldn't have been a second cell.
And Darwin's evolutionary process would have ended right there, which, of course, it never happened in the first place.
So, you know, I rest my case, Mullard.
That is a pretty... if people can grasp it.
Yeah, it's not easy.
I understand it.
But I mean, that's just part of it.
But there's so many other elements to it.
You know, if you want to talk about the Freemasonic aspect of it.
Now, again, I am I'm quoting here, but the 33rd degree Supreme Council of Freemasonry in Paris revealed in some of its minutes over 100 years ago its promotion of evolution as a science while they themselves actually laughed at the idea.
And I'll read you the minutes now.
The minutes read as follows.
It says, It is with this object in view that we are constantly arousing a blind confidence in these theories.
The intellectuals, without any logical verification, will put into effect all the information available from science which our agents have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.
Do not suppose for a minute that these are empty words, Think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism.
And another one.
This is from New Age Magazine of March 1922.
And it says, the kingdom of atheistic Freemasonry will be established by evolution and the development of man himself.
The false scientific ideology of evolution is a deception set in the 33rd degree atheistic Freemasonic lodges.
Freemasons openly admit that they will use the scientists and media, which are under their control, to present this deception of scientific fact, which even they find funny.
When was that Paris meeting?
The Paris meeting was in the early part of the 20th century.
I don't have a specific date.
But okay, so who was running Charles Darwin?
Well, Thomas Henry Huxley, who was the grandfather of Aldous Huxley and Julian Huxley, He was known as Darwin's bulldog.
He was the guy who, he was his handler in effect.
He promoted him heavily.
He shouted down anyone who tried to go against Darwin's theories, which of course they weren't Darwin's theories at all.
I mean, the theory of evolution was first propounded by Erasmus Darwin, who was Darwin's grandfather in the very early 19th century, you know, way before Charles was born.
So yeah, it was his ideas that were taken up by the Huxley dynasty and used Charles Darwin as the grandson of Erasmus to promote it.
I've got a quote from Darwin somewhere in my work, and I can't remember it verbatim, but basically Darwin said he didn't see how evolution was possible.
Yes, yes.
I think it was from the quote that I've got.
It was from his life and letters.
I'll just very quickly see if I can find it.
Well, no, I won't take any more time on that.
No, people can always get your book.
That doesn't matter.
Let's talk about the gen writers.
So Huxley, he sounds a bit of a bruiser.
He sounds a bit like Peter Grant in Led Zeppelin's Manager.
Yes, yes.
He was quite, shall we say, a forceful character.
Presumably he was a 33rd degree Freemason?
He was indeed.
And what about Darwin?
And Darwin was a 33rd degree Freemason, also.
Oh, he was 33rd degree?
Okay.
Yes, he was.
Right.
Yeah.
So why... you're saying it's purely because of his... he was the grandson of the guy who originated the... Yeah, it's not about purely because, but it was certainly a factor in it.
Yeah, I'm sure.
Erasmus Darwin was the guy, and there was also another guy around at the time, a guy called Alfred Wallace, who actually came up with a similar idea at the same time, but he kind of got consigned to the dustbin of history, as I like to say.
We don't know of Alfred Wallace anymore, do we?
Well, except in stories about how it was that he was the real... Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, maybe, maybe that's the case.
But that again is, of course, that again is how they do things.
They'll create a So we know about the rivalry and about Darwin stealing Wallace's crown, but what that does is embed in our imaginations, it distracts us from questioning the nature of the theory itself.
Yes.
Because the theory is accepted as a good thing and we've all benefited from it.
So it becomes an argument about who had this great idea first, rather than was the idea any good?
Yeah, that's a very valid point, actually.
Yes, indeed.
And this is how they work, isn't it?
We know this.
So, yeah.
So, but I'd love to know when it was decided and by whom?
I mean, okay, so 33rd Degree Freemasons.
There must have been a sort of, this idea must have been bandied about for some time.
We need a theory that's going to make humans feel small and going to reject God.
Yes, exactly.
I don't know.
I don't know how it all came about, because that's obviously a secret within Freemasonry, and it's never been revealed as far as I'm aware.
It may well have been by someone somewhere, but I'm not aware of it, James.
Right.
And how much resistance was there from the Church?
Massive.
I mean, Darwin was absolutely pilloried.
And this is where, of course, Huxley came in, because he was very, very forceful, very quick to shout anyone down who spoke out against the theory.
You know, we called it, you know, religious nonsense.
That creationism was a thing.
And yeah, you know, the usual MO to discredit anyone who tries to speak the truth when You know, when they're propounding their lies.
So, yeah, it took years for the church to accept evolution.
Years and years and years.
But we've just seen in that example I gave earlier that they do now.
I mean, I imagine most clergymen, most Christians I'd say probably, Oh, definitely.
Yeah, you know, they very cleverly actually welded the two ideas together, didn't they?
Because, you know, you have religious creationism and you have evolution on the other side of the fence, but somehow they've managed to actually weld them together so that both are acceptable.
Yes, you've got God.
God created life forms, but evolution took over, and evolution made us into the people that we are, and that seems to have been accepted for some strange reason.
and seems to be accepted by religious groups now as well, which is, again, it just seems really odd to me, but there you go, that's just me.
Well, I think that I really don't buy this line, which you see promoted by some people, or supposedly on our side, that the enemy, that the powers that be are somehow stupid.
I don't get that at all.
I mean, they've been very, very successful in pulling the wool over the eyes of the massive humanity.
Yeah, I wouldn't say that.
Yeah, I wouldn't say that they're stupid, but I do think they have like internal squabbles.
um which result in kind of um well a information becoming available and b uh a kind of a uh a dysfunctionality within within the the the theories or the the ideas that they propound and want us to believe so i do think there is that element to it but you're right i don't think they're stupid but you know i think of them as like a a gang of bank robbers arguing about how to divide up the spoils you know it's that kind of a
situation.
So yeah.
Did the Big Bang thing come after evolution?
Yes the Big Bang theory was formulated in 1931 by a Jesuit priest by the name of a Belgian by the name of Georges Lemaître And I believe, again, the Jesuits are up to their scrawny necks in all this stuff, as well as Freemasons.
And I think that was done deliberately to try and weld the two ideas together of the Big Bang Theory, and to create something that's acceptable to both religion and science, which obviously the Big Bang Theory is.
It's had a very suspect beginning.
And again, it's just a theory.
For a start, it contradicts Newton's second law of motion, or second law of something or other, my brain, which says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Well, I mean, you know, big bang, an explosion from nothing, you know.
Yeah.
Newton is a Roman as well, isn't he?
Oh, yeah, Newton's... I'm not sure he was actually a Freemason.
I'm not sure Freemasonry existed.
It's certainly not in the form that we know it today.
But he was certainly one of the founding members of the Royal Society, which eventually embraced Freemasonry, or the other way around, whichever way you look at it.
So, yeah, I mean, he was a big, big player in the Royal Society and these people.
As we know are the people who control science and what science consists of and what science wants us to believe.
So yeah, Newton wrote a book called Principia Mathematica in the late 17th century and that was to explain gravity or one of the things about it was to explain gravity.
Now that entire treatise began with one word, a two-letter word, And that two-letter word was if.
And that book is about that thick.
So we're basing an insubstantial theory like gravity, and it is insubstantial, on this Principia Mathematica, which is that thick, which begins with the word if.
That rings alarm bells in my head.
I don't know about yours and the people out there.
But again, you know, gravity is another thing, by the way, that is one of my pet hates, because I don't think gravity exists at all in any way, shape or form.
Gravity is the glue that holds the global theory together.
Again, back to that.
Yes, that's true.
Of course it does.
Because otherwise, because if we're a globe, there has to be some explanations why we stick.
Exactly.
Exactly.
But nobody's ever been to success.
I mean, I remember, you know, the The American popular science guy, what's he called?
I've forgotten his name now.
Big chap.
Anyway, he was asked what gravity was and he just said, I don't know, next.
And this is a so-called science guy, you know.
So, they don't.
They don't know.
They bluster.
They cover it up with bluster.
Gravity, in my view, absolutely does not exist.
There's a very, very simple explanation for what we believe to be gravity, and it's called relative density.
If something is denser than air, it sinks.
If something is lighter than air, or less dense than air, more accurately, it rises up.
It floats.
If Newton's apple Which was the catalyst for the theory of gravity.
Had fallen from the tree, missed his head, and landed in the pond he was lying beside, it would have floated.
Because an apple is relatively less dense than water.
So, you know, it's a simple explanation, and it's irrefutable.
In my view, it's irrefutable, and I would debate anybody on that topic.
Absolutely anybody.
Let's just go back to Big Bang Theory before we move on.
Yeah, sorry.
Got off the topic again there.
Invented by a Jesuit called Lemaître, did you say?
Georges Lemaître.
And did people not go?
This is in the 1930s?
Early 1930s, yeah.
Did people not go?
Some random Jesuit?
A priest?
A Jesuit priest.
He was a scientist as well, to be fair, but he was primarily a Jesuit priest, but he was an amateur scientist, yeah.
So, I can't imagine circumstances in which a Jesuit priest says, hang on a second, I've solved the mystery of creation.
There was a big bang, and it came out of nothing, and suddenly the universe started expanding from that point.
It does seem rather odd, doesn't it?
I mean, unless you accept that, you know, age has a disproportionate influence upon things, you know, in the same way that Freemasons do, and also the fact that it just fitted there, you know, what they wanted.
But how was it received?
I honestly don't know.
It's not something that I've looked into in any depth.
I mean, it's a very good question.
I don't dispute that.
But, you know, as far as I'm aware, it was proposed and it just gained traction and became accepted.
But I don't know the mechanics of it.
Right.
OK, well, we'll move on then, because, you know, I don't expect you to know the answer to everything.
It's just a question that... Well, no, I don't.
We've got nine minutes left before we have to do this.
I'm not going to upgrade again.
I'm not going to do it again.
So there's the famous picture of Earth taken from the first time from space or what's it called?
Earthrise or something or some bollocks.
And we're told that this is the first thing that made us all aware of just how something or other we are and that we've only got one planet and we need to save it.
There's always narratives that have been built up around it.
Whereas I think you and I know that there's never been a picture taken from space like that.
It's a composite of lots of different images put together.
Yes, absolutely.
Do you believe in satellites?
Or are you the weather balloon?
I'm not sure.
Yeah, well, I mean, there is a school of thought and I've seen videos of them actually being launched underneath huge balloons.
You know, then these balloons are huge, you know, they're the size of a football stadium.
And I've seen a clip of somebody talking about them who actually works in a factory where they're made.
So yeah, I don't know is the answer.
I think there are satellites, but whether they are actually orbiting the Earth, I have absolutely no idea.
Again, it's not.
It's one of those things that it's difficult to prove either way, isn't it?
I suppose what I'm coming at is surely people have been up high enough to take a picture that shows whether we're the globe or the flat earth thing.
Yeah, but we never see them.
We have not seen any pictures, any genuine pictures that depict the globe.
There are none.
In fact, there are ones, you know, that are so obviously fake, all produced courtesy of NASA, of course, and I'm looking at one right now.
Unfortunately, I can't show you, but there's one taken in 2007.
of the Earth, which by the way in this picture is an absolutely perfect sphere, and we're told that it's an oblate spheroid, in other words it's slightly pear-shaped, but this is an absolute sphere as though it's been drawn on a piece of paper by someone with a compass.
Perfect sphere, taken in 2007, and another one from the same source, good old NASA, never a straight answer, taken in 2012.
And the United States of America on the second one is approximately three times the size of the United States of America on the first one.
So, you know, it's just fakery and not very elaborate fakery either.
It's just it's it's staggering how people can just fall for this stuff.
OK, we've got we've got we've got five minutes.
I think we can we can probably cover nuclear weapons and why they're fake.
I mean, I've listened to a very interesting documentary on German warfare, I mean a chat on German warfare about Hiroshima and about how that was essentially napalm.
Yes, definitely.
Absolutely wonderful.
But you're saying that the nuclear deterrent on our Polaris submarines and stuff is just complete bollocks.
How do you know that the nukes are fake?
Well, again, it's through research.
There are, again, lots of different elements to it.
There was a guy called Major Alexander Dostoevsky, who was an American major in the aftermath of the war.
And in the immediate aftermath of the war, he was tasked with going around all the different bombed areas right across the world, obviously mainly in Europe and Asia.
Japan specifically, and he was actually absolutely stunned to find out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki The bomb damage there, he learned to distinguish between all the different kinds of bombings, you know, fire bombings, you know, mega blockbuster bombs, you know, 10-tonners, and all the different, you know, smaller types of bombs.
He very quickly learned, taught himself how to distinguish between the different kinds of damage.
And he came back, made a report, it was absolutely I'm aligned for it, but he wrote a long, lengthy report, which I've read, decrying the fact that there was any difference at all in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to the rest of the firebombing in Japan, which took place.
You know, he was prepared for shock in science, in Hiroshima specifically, and yet he found it to be exactly the same as the rest of the bomb-devastated cities that he'd surveyed and studied.
For example, there was no bald spot at the centre of the blast, as we're told.
There were buildings still standing where they shouldn't have been.
For example, the hospital in Hiroshima, which was only less than a mile from the epicentre of the blast, was still standing.
It had a few broken windows.
Nobody was killed or even injured, apart from a few minor injuries from flaying glass.
Lots and lots of different things.
John, I think we're just going to have to do another podcast sometime because you're too interesting and you've got too much to say about all manner of stuff that we haven't covered.
Maybe we can, we did history in one, we did science in other ones, maybe we'll do a history science one, just do all your best bits that we haven't done before.
So tell us where, you've got a website, where can people find out more about you?
I do have a website.
It's called falsificationofhistory.co.uk.
Unfortunately, at the moment, you can't buy my books from there.
You'd have to buy them from Amazon.
But again, you just go onto amazon.com, wherever you are, and key in my name into the search bar, and it should bring up my author page with all my books on.
Alternatively, if you're in the UK, you can actually email me directly.
And by the way, gents, feel free to broadcast my email address, and I will provide signed copies um because i know there's a lot of people out there who don't like using amazon for one thing as well so you know that's that's quite useful what would not what's what's not to like about um a giant conglomerate that's destroying independent bookshops and selling everything to the point where we are enslaved i can't think of you know yeah i know it's i know it's crazy but yeah
i just thought it's right out there you know okay um john john lemur thank you so much for coming on the pod again um i'm sorry about our technical glitches which yes me too james they don't want us to happen do they um no but we beat them in the end didn't we so that's the main thing Thank you everyone, my lovely, lovely audience, viewers and listeners for watching this podcast and listening to this podcast.
Please continue supporting me by buying me a coffee, by supporting our sponsors.
And really, I would love it if you could join the Delingpole community by sponsoring my, becoming a patron of my substat.
You get early access.
You get, if you become a sort of an extra special donor, you get to come to my annual And your patron's lunch, which is really good.
And what else?
I've got a great website, jamesdellingpole.co.uk, designed by my good friend Andrew Warwick.
You'd find out all about me there, you know, where I'm coming from, who I am, where I'm going.
