Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 24, 2024 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:37:29

Nick Kollerstrom

Nick Kollerstrom is historian of science, a former honorary research fellow in Science and Technology Studies at University College, London (UCL), and a former lunar gardening correspondent for the BBC. He is the author or co-author of a number of books, including Gardening and Planting by the Moon (an annual series beginning 1980), Newton's Forgotten Lunar Theory (2000), Crop Circles (2002), and Terror on the Tube (2009).↓ ↓ ↓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 — — — — Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk x

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I know I'm always saying I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our wonderful sponsors.
	James here.
	Welcome to The Delly Pod with me, James Delly Pod.
	And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
	But before we meet him, let's have a word for one of our wonderful sponsors.
	James here.
	A quick word about gold and silver.
	Now, I've been talking about two companies on my podcast for quite some time.
	The Pure Gold Company which delivers gold and silver bullion either to your doorstep or it will store it in a vault for you.
	And Monetary Metals which is a way of owning gold while being paid interest on it.
	Now, if you'd paid attention to these suggestions, let's call them, when I started talking about it, you would have made a mint, almost.
	In the case of silver, the silver price has rocketed.
	It's hovering around $30 an ounce now.
	I think it was 18 dollars when I started talking about it roughly.
	Anyway you'd have made a packet.
	I think regardless of the the fluctuations in the market gold and silver are things you should be owning.
	I'm not a financial expert but I own gold myself.
	I own silver myself because I think that it is a hedge against these crazy markets.
	So you'll find the details below the blurb on my podcast.
	The Pure Gold Company delivers gold and silver bullion to your doorstep, or it will store it in a vault for you.
	And also monetary metals, which is a way of owning physical gold again.
	You've got to own physical gold, not paper gold.
	Paper gold is a con in my view.
	And you get paid interest on it in the form of more gold.
	Check them out.
	Welcome to the Dallying Pod, Nick Collistron.
	Well, this is an awesome show, so I'm privileged and thrilled to be here, Jones.
	I'm amazed you've even heard of me.
	Lots of people, I think, over the years have said you've got to get Nick Collister on.
	And you were on The List.
	In fact, I expect you're on lots of The Lists.
	Belonging to the intelligence services and stuff.
	I'm generally regarded as fairly disreputable, you know.
	Unfortunately.
	Tell me a bit about yourself before we start delving into the craziness of the world.
	You're a Cambridge graduate.
	How is that against you?
	I'm a science historian.
	I've got a couple of degrees in history of science.
	I wanted to see a science-based society and see how it works.
	What was the idea of verification and how was truth ascertained?
	I think I'm going to be fascinated by the way different epochs in history see things so differently and what is special about the way we see it.
	So that was what I got into and only this century I think it all changed.
	I got into the 9-11 truth group and I started getting fascinated by all that and I was at UCL as a research fellow and I got sort of chucked out.
	I was sort of not quite ideologically sound and that was when my life began as far as everyone who knows me is concerned.
	No one's interested in the stuff I did at UCL, which I thought was rather fascinating, about Newton and the Moon, and how Neptune was discovered, and sort of arcane topics that... Oh, well, no, I'm quite interested, as long as you can give me the really short version, because I've got this theory, correct me if I'm wrong, I think I am right, that Newton was part of the PSYOP.
	Newton was a kind of chosen by the Freemasons, who wanted to alter our understanding of the world, and he came up with all this bullshit.
	Well, I wouldn't quite put it like that, James, but he was a deeply egoistic character who was a brilliant mathematician, but he kind of took the credit of other people's discoveries.
	I think that was the angle I got fascinated by.
	Paul Robert Hooke had his law of gravity taken away from him, and then Leibniz had his theory of differentiation taken away from him, and Newton successfully cast himself as the great He was a great scientific figure but by this and I couldn't really acknowledge other people's work.
	I'd say he was a very materialistic character and everyone believes he was into sort of alchemy and that.
	Well he was, he studied it for years.
	But his conclusions were all fairly materialistic and led to theory of chemistry in the 18th and 19th centuries.
	And he had no correlation with women, really.
	He was a lifelong virgin and very much into what is called the abstract mind, abstract thought.
	Yeah, it's an archetype of scientists.
	Do you know what this is reminding me of, Nick?
	I mean, you could be right, I don't know.
	It reminds me of the moment in my Richard D. Hall podcast where I started talking to him about Flat Earth.
	And he was very dismissive, and in fact I think the reason he hasn't... Yeah, quite right, quite right, yeah.
	I'm glad to hear that.
	Yeah, good old Richard, yeah.
	And the reason he hasn't spoken to me since is because I think that maybe he was... he thought that I was seeking to discredit him by muddying his excellent research with crazy conspiracy theories.
	I wouldn't get us that we're at different stages of our journey down the rabbit hole, and there are areas which you're really rock solid on.
	Which I think we should stick to, because there's no point talking about stuff we disagree on, because we're not going to get anywhere.
	Really?
	I can't imagine us disagreeing, James.
	Yeah, no, I think so.
	Look, I think, for example, there is a massive rabbit hole signposted, The Enlightenment.
	I think the whole of the Enlightenment was a satanic con trick.
	So you see, there we are.
	There's no point going there.
	I think that... Well, I don't know.
	It was about...
	A humanistic endeavour, wasn't it?
	No, it wasn't.
	It definitely wasn't.
	We're not going to agree on this, so there's no point going there.
	It'll be sterile, the debate.
	It'll just be, you know, he said, she said.
	Well, I'd like to hear your view on it sometimes, James.
	Well, yeah, but you've got so much interesting stuff that you can tell me about.
	For example, we've just gone and passed The 19th, I gather, anniversary of the 7-7 bombings.
	Yeah, right, yeah.
	I mean, it's not an anniversary I mark.
	We can talk about that in a moment.
	anniversary i i mark yeah well we talk about that in a moment but i do remember that um 17 18 and a half years ago let's say i would have been getting onto the tube because i was still living in london at the time and doing so with enormous trepidation
	and and looking around particularly for people of a muslim persuasion and and eyeing their backpacks especially they're carrying backpacks and wishing that they were cut some band from band from the tube and wishing that there were more policemen around and wishing all this stuff and what you're saying Little did I know it at the time, but I was responding exactly As the people who perpetrated 7-7 wanted me to behave.
	That's been the dominant theme of this 21st century.
	Fake blame against Muslims.
	It started off with the epochal event of 9-11.
	The only really simple statement you can make about 9-11 is that Muslims didn't do it.
	They got the blame.
	The classic pattern of fabricated terror.
	You get an innocent third party that takes the blame and the people who actually do it Aimed to remain hidden.
	And that is the primary art form of this 21st century.
	The grand, complicated, state-fabricated events.
	And in this country, obviously, it's the London bombing of 2005, which one or two things went wrong with it.
	The perfect plan came unraveled, and that's how I got involved.
	I came to be in it, as it were.
	I was in the Nine of Truth movement, and I loved hearing all these guys talking about how 9-11 was done.
	And obviously we moved on to 7-7, which is on Mike's doorstep, right next to UCL.
	I was apparently the only member of staff at UCL who took an interest in what had happened and how it happened, and who did it.
	And there was also a special 7-7 Truth group that started up, where I got into that as well.
	And I just loved the puzzle, the riddle of who did it, you know, all the enigmas.
	And I got fascinated.
	I guess I'm a storyteller.
	I like putting a storyteller together.
	So, the puzzling fact emerges that mine is more or less the only book on the subject, and it will comprehensively tell you what happened, and it'll almost tell you who did it.
	That's interesting.
	So, just to remind ourselves of the official narrative, there were a series of... The official narrative is that four Muslims, three of them from Leeds, one from Aylesbury,
	Met up, they were motivated, well maybe the Iraq war or whatever, and they got a train down that morning to Kings Cross and they got on the coaches and one bus, three coaches on the underground and one bus in Savistock Square and they blew it up and 52 people died and including the four terrorists, four lads, and that was
	That was then, as it were, the war on terror comes to London and so they got all the blame and that was the story.
	So 52 dead and I think according to Wikipedia 700 injured.
	What was it that first alerted you to the possibility that this might not be as it was being sold to us in the media?
	Well I remember nine o'clock that morning my phone went dead in London I spent the day walking around and it was just this great air of mystery and then our group started talking about it and then I heard somebody say look those four lads couldn't have got that train from Luton.
	It wasn't run or the trains were all delayed so I got a colleague and we went up to Luton 8 o'clock that morning on the very platform with a sign asking anyone who was there to tell us about it.
	And we did.
	And I asked the station manager could he give us the computer memory of exactly what trains had run and he did.
	I got the same thing from King's Cross.
	So I was on a map out all the trains that morning and they're all delayed by 20 minutes.
	Leaves on the line, you know.
	And the key train, the 740, was cancelled.
	So it didn't run.
	And the whole official story started to unravel because That train, which they have said, they claim to have CCTV of the four lads on that train, and it didn't run.
	And so that's how it started.
	What actually happened, it took us quite a while, a genius fellow called Murdoob intuited this, those lads had actually arrived at King's Cross, but they had arrived late.
	They hadn't arrived at half past eight as they're supposed to.
	They're all told which coaches to get onto, you know.
	And they hung around King's Cross.
	They saw this bustle because Peter Power was organising a big mock terror drill.
	It was that same place, exact same trains, within minutes of the real thing.
	They saw this terrific kerfuffle going on at King's Cross station and they started to get frightened.
	Well, what have we been set up for?
	That's what I thought.
	They'd been helping the government with a sort of, give me a pleasant day out, get me a bit of money.
	And they were on some sort of You know, a tour of the tube to help the government.
	And it began to dawn on them that something frightful was happening.
	They were being set up.
	So what they did, they jumped back on the train they just got off from, and a few more stops later they came to Canary Wharf, where they were shot dead.
	Okay?
	There's a whole lot of evidence of... They were shot dead?
	A whole lot of evidence at Canary Wharf of lads who were called terrorists being shot by some sort of SAS or secret police.
	And that was reported all around the world.
	It's very much hushed up in this country.
	But that was about 11 o'clock in the morning.
	That is how they ended up.
	Because they'd got telephones, they'd got mobile phones.
	They didn't realise they could be tracked by the mobile phones.
	So from King's Cross they rushed out to Canary Wharf and... So Nick, this in itself is... Sorry, I'm just going to pause you there because otherwise you're going to run away with the sword.
	I didn't know about these.
	So these were innocent dupes.
	Yeah, four patsies.
	Who basically found themselves in their worst nightmare.
	They suddenly realised they'd been set up and within an hour they were dead.
	They'd all been shot.
	Whoa!
	That was how the story of the terrorists could only be put out by the government after 11 o'clock when they knew those lads were dead.
	I weren't about to talk to anybody.
	Then they had the problem, the terrific problem, of having these coaches which had exploded, right, they had gone bang, in fact they'd gone lifted up off the rails because the explosives were mainly underneath the coaches, and the Israel line had about three big holes in the main coach, so it wasn't just one, but
	The problem they had, the government had, was that all the witnesses, a whole lot of people, were really dead, mangled, bloody, with ghastly trauma.
	They lost the rest of their lives, okay, so it was all for real.
	But nobody had a memory of those lads.
	One thing they couldn't get was people remembering where those lads were.
	Oh yes, I saw them in Zurich and so on.
	Because actually they weren't there.
	So that was the main reason why the government couldn't release the CCTV, which it said it had.
	Because the lads were all late and weren't actually on the CCTV.
	And the CCTV would have had timelines on it, so it would have ruined the narrative.
	Yeah, yeah, that was the problem.
	I mean, they had had a mock rehearsal about 10 days before when three of the lads came up to London and wandered around, potted around, had some ice cream, you know, and we have seen perfectly normal CCTV of the three lads, three of the lads there, in London a week or so before, as it were, a dress rehearsal for the event.
	But on the actual event, they had the dire problem.
	They could never quite release TV.
	And I think several years later, they did fabricate it a bit to make it look as if they had CCTV.
	But the timestamps were all very dodgy.
	Right.
	Now, you mentioned Peter Powell.
	Power, yeah.
	Sorry, Peter Power.
	Sorry, Peter Powell was a DJ, wasn't he?
	Peter Power.
	Who is this man?
	Well, he's the kingpin of what you call resilience.
	Businesses are told they've got to build in resilience, which means that you will get terror attacking you sometime, and you might as well prepare for it in advance.
	There are terrorists and so on.
	And resilience means you've gone through rehearsals of what you're going to do if and when terror strikes.
	And so he was doing that.
	There was actually a huge panorama program May of the year before which went through a rolling docudrama of three underground coaches blowing up and one vehicle up on the road blowing up at similar times.
	And Peter Powell was there.
	And there were several dress rehearsals which are in a sense the preparation for the event itself.
	And Peter Power, on that morning, was going through the very same tube stations, and he was doing a business, he was working probably from somewhere in Tavistock Square, and he talked about going live, how to switch over to real time, when they realised it was actually happening.
	Hold on a second, you're saying that Peter Power was Was it an innocent dupe as well?
	He was just a kind of a businessman who happened to be into resilience?
	I rather doubt that.
	But he has quite a history of being there with his drills.
	You must have researched his background.
	Where does he come from?
	What business?
	Well, he had a business in Piccadilly going over resilience.
	He'd been doing that for quite some time.
	I don't know what he was doing before then.
	So he ran a business specialising in resilience?
	Yeah, he would advise firms how to prepare for it and how to do a rehearsal, how to rehearse your firm so you'd be able to cope if disaster strikes, okay?
	Okay, and just by really weird, uncanny coincidence, he happened to be staging this event, this fake event, on the day when... The key to understanding Fabricated Terror is the way in which drills morph into the real thing.
	You heard that on 9-11 that preparations start and aeroplanes are doing a mock drill and then somehow it goes real.
	That is the mystery which you need to study if you want to understand this 21st century phenomenon.
	So that did somehow happen on that morning, yeah.
	He told people, I've still got the hairs of my head standing upright at five o'clock in the afternoon.
	And people wondered why he'd gone public.
	Well, he'd gone, which he wasn't meant to.
	He went public because what he was doing was too similar to what actually happened.
	He didn't therefore want to be caught out later on saying, aha, we see you were doing all this stuff.
	He thought he'd better come out with it, you know, of his own accord, see what I mean?
	Right.
	I see.
	Okay.
	So, um, these lads, um, They had no interest in politics at all.
	They really didn't.
	They talk about cricket and they talk about their university degrees and their trainers and learning to get a car drive license, that kind of thing.
	And one of them was keenly religious, the others weren't.
	So there were nothing at all like what you might think alleged terrorists were.
	I mean, I'm chatting to you, having done a number of podcasts with Ole Damengard and being aware of the concept of false flags and how they operate.
	But, I mean, if you'd ask me, if you'd appear on this podcast, say, five years ago, I would have been thinking, why am I having this nutcase in the colourful shirt on my show?
	I mean, how dare he suggest that our wonderful intelligence services and our law-abiding government would allow such a monstrosity to be perpetrated against British citizens?
	Well, that is the terrible question, isn't it, James?
	Yeah.
	I don't imagine anyone can really answer it for you or give you an easy answer.
	All I can say is that from 2004 up to 2017, there was a tremendous sequence of big complicated fabricator events.
	Starting with Madrid.
	Madrid bombs four different trains in the morning.
	It starts off about quarter to nine, just to get the morning news.
	And you have a load of people killed.
	Then you get a terrific metamorphosis around 2012.
	When you get actors and dummies, you don't get real human beings blown to bits and real blood.
	Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
	Because otherwise, I think we need to... For the benefit, really, of people who are going to be watching this, who are essentially new to all this, and they will be gobsmacked by what you're saying, because what they'll be asking is, if it wasn't
	Just suppose you were right about the train timetables and stuff, and I'm amazed at the alacrity with which you went on that very day up to Luton on the train to... Oh no, no, it was a few weeks later.
	Oh, I see.
	We got memories of people and we got the official records of that day, yeah.
	OK.
	But people are going to be saying, OK, suppose I accept that these Muslims were just patsies.
	Who set off the bombs?
	Rudolph Giuliani was the Mayor of New York.
	He was right at the centre of what had happened on 9-11.
	He just happened to be there, meeting his friend Benjamin Netanyahu at the Liverpool Street Hotel.
	He was having breakfast there.
	That's a coincidence, isn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, he could have.
	Someone told me.
	Oh, he pressed the buttons.
	I mean, you don't know who actually did it.
	You can know the main centres of activity and foci.
	No, no, obviously you're not going to get the final detail, but what you are going to get is... For example, let me give you an example.
	the kind of final answer to what you just asked me.
	No, no, obviously you're not going to get the final detail, but what you are going to get is...
	For example, let me give you an example.
	Yeah.
	The whole film V for Vendetta, about this great question, will the government kill its own citizens for whatever reason, and it featured an underground train primed to blow up on the underground.
	That was all filmed in the first part of 2005, okay?
	So a whole lot of CIA agents or whatever had access to London Underground filming that film, and then the launch of it was then postponed because it was regardless of being too similar to what had happened in the wake of the London bombing. - Okay.
	That is an example of how people who wanted that event could have been involved in setting up stuff on the London Underground, OK?
	I mean, you have to consider the wider remit that the whole Project for a New American Century, formulated in America by the people who brewed Blueprint in 9-11, involved having a new enemy.
	They had to have an enemy, and the enemy wasn't communism anymore, communism was gone, and the new enemy had to be Islam.
	That was it.
	And those events, a whole series of them, were designed to give people the image that When you say a Muslim, you practically always say a Muslim terrorist.
	Yes.
	You just link them up.
	It certainly worked on me for a while, and I would have thought of myself as an intelligent person.
	Obviously, I consumed lots of media because I was working as a journalist at the time, and I felt it was my job to be well informed, as we say.
	And you're right, it did.
	The Madrid train bombing was ghastly.
	I mean, there were lots of people killed on that, weren't there?
	Yeah, yeah they were.
	Many more than... I did it dawn you, it had just been a big NATO exercise.
	International European NATO, it finished 24 hours before that, and that was all about terrorists in our cities and how to cope with international terrorism.
	And so that Madrid event was a kind of precipitation or expression of exactly what the whole NATO conference has been about.
	So there was the Madrid, and then there was the 7-7.
	There was another one, wasn't there?
	There were more in Europe.
	Well, the next year there was the big Heathrow liquid bomb hoax, which is what I call phantom terror.
	Which nobody actually died.
	Nothing happened.
	Loads of people were arrested.
	You call it phantom terror?
	Phantom terror?
	Well, everyone's given a scary image that fiendish terrorists are planning to mix up these two different chemicals in the lavatory of the aeroplane and blow up a whole lot of planes in the middle of the Atlantic.
	And loads of people are arrested and so on.
	And you can't take milk on the planes anymore and so on.
	And enormous queues in the airports, but nothing actually happens and nobody does anything.
	It's just a terror story brewed up of what is alleged to have been intended, right?
	So that could be done the year after 7-7.
	Right, yes.
	I remember him, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
	The only reason that... That was another one, yeah.
	That was another one.
	Amsterdam, yeah.
	He was rather loony, wasn't he?
	Well, I remember him because supposedly he used the same laundrette as me in South London.
	And so there was talk, you know, he was a local boy.
	And there was the story about the... They're very good at telling stories, aren't they?
	The story about the passengers which saw his shoe sort of hissing or something and they wrestled with him and they managed to tear the shoe off him and otherwise... I think so, yeah.
	Hundreds could have died.
	Yeah, yeah, could have, could, yeah.
	And then there was the crotch bomber.
	That wasn't the same, was it?
	On Christmas Day.
	Oh, there was a crotch bomber, yes.
	From Amsterdam Airport.
	He made something sort of fizzle, and it was alleged that he could have been trying to do something.
	These people are kind of manipulated by the intelligence services.
	The one thing you can say about all of them is that they're known to the intelligence services beforehand.
	That's the iron rule.
	Right.
	OK.
	Let's take a step back.
	So, you, by working out the timetables, you realise that the guys who allegedly carried out these bloody bombings in London were patsies.
	And we've established that it was on the same day as an exercise.
	Yeah.
	Spookily coincidental.
	Yeah.
	And we've established that Benjamin Netanyahu coincidentally was having breakfast with Rudy Giuliani in London that day.
	But for these things to work, Lots and lots of people have got to be in on the... if it's a conspiracy, lots of people have got to be in on it, haven't they?
	Well, I think rather few, actually.
	Most people think it's just a drill they're involved in.
	That's the advantage of having a drill.
	You get various people around, or wandering around, who only need quite a small number to make it go live.
	I mean, the major problem with that event, and quite a lot of others, is the explosives used, you see.
	You need a very deadly explosive, and The real experts I had right at the start with said it was something called C4, which is a NATO made, made in NATO laboratories, and it gives pure blast and no heat or fire.
	OK, but there was no way they could have the terrorists having that stuff.
	So they had to move the story to something they called TATP, which they allegedly brewed up in a bath.
	And so that started to get more and more improbable because the four lads in Leeds obviously knew nothing about chemistry.
	And they didn't have any evidence source of hydrogen peroxide and sulphuric acid and all that.
	So that's always a story.
	With quite a lot of these complicated terror events, some powerful explosive is actually used to make something go bang, but they can't really relate it to what the stories of the Patsy's they have.
	Why did they need C4?
	Why did they need that specialist?
	Well, it depends what you think happened.
	The Edgware coach actually lifted off the rails.
	That's one of the first accounts we have from that very morning, okay?
	Because the Guardian published a whole lot of immediate first-hand accounts from Edgware Road before they realised what the story was supposed to be.
	And then we get several different holes, and the holes had the metal bent upwards, right?
	People, ghastly accounts, blood-curdling accounts of people in the dark, wandering around these coaches, and the sharp metal is bent upwards from the blast, and you've got two or three different holes along the length of the carriage.
	So, it doesn't really resemble, at all resemble, a bomb going off in a rucksack.
	No!
	I see that.
	They would have been planted underneath the floor.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I see.
	That's very interesting.
	And then with another 30 bus, the whole top lifts off, in a very level way as if it probably looks as if it had all been cut previously that that bus has been selected i believe uh so so the top could lift off quite easily um and uh so that was um not nearly as traumatic as the As the underground events.
	Okay, so these are the sort of things which, in the days when I used to read newspapers, there was a thing on the Sunday Times called the Sunday Times Insight Team and they were investigative journalists and always when you had a big terror event like this you would have the Insight Team.
	Covering all angle and they would have diagrams of illustrations of exactly what happened at each time in the operation.
	Right.
	What is the... I mean, in the old days I used to imagine that the media's job was to expose, to hold truth to power and expose the evil machinations of scheming baddies.
	Well, I think in the last century, I think we all believed that, didn't we?
	Newspapers like the Guardian were kind of worth reading, and you'd expect something, you know, worthwhile from them.
	Maybe we were deluded, because you think, I thought about this, and going back, I haven't looked, I haven't checked, but I doubt the media was all over the Gulf of Tonkin incident and saying, hang on, this is a false flag, this is actually the US faking an attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats.
	Right, I doubt that as well.
	I mean, let's hope, James, that Political science classes can teach these things correctly.
	It's terribly important if a new generation of political science graduates are allowed to discuss the true account of how the Gulf Togglements fabricated out of absolutely nothing to start a war.
	As you say.
	Did the media act in good faith over 7-7?
	You're suggesting that initially they reacted like real journalists, but very quickly they were brought into line?
	Well, I think journalists are told, they're given a story, and they whack it on the front page, and once they've done that, they can't say, oh, sorry, look, we've got it so wrong, you know, this is what really happened.
	that they are trapped by a narrative.
	The war on terror, instead of the police looking for clues of who might be guilty, they're told there is a war on terror going on and their business is to participate in that war.
	That's what Tony Blair formulated, the war against terror.
	A very absurd concept.
	Blair and Bush.
	And once you're part of that war on terror, you just have to go for it.
	And we're trapped.
	We're in a war-maker civilization now, in this country.
	It's very hard for any politician to go against that and say no to the war.
	And before the war starts, the demonising of the enemy image is, as it were, the terrible thing that is done by these illusory, fabricated stories.
	I think that's what we all need to do our very best to understand.
	That for some reason, when the military becomes powerful enough, It fabricates narratives to give you an enemy to justify its growth.
	OK.
	So you say that it wouldn't require many people to be in on the conspiracy.
	OK, so we can imagine that the ordinary Rosses, ordinary policemen, would not have known anything.
	But at the highest level, I mean, for example, well, we'll come to Cressida Dick in a moment, because I know she had some involvement.
	The Cabinet Office must have known about this.
	The Prime Minister?
	Well... Blair, yeah.
	He was actually on eagles with Bush and he got offered the Olympic Games.
	He'd just been offered the Olympic Games, I think the day before or something, instead of France.
	So Britain was receiving the Olympic Games.
	Some people think that might have been a bribe or a condition for accepting this dreadful event in London.
	This brought the Al-Qaeda menace over to the people of Europe.
	That was, in a way, its purpose.
	After the Al-Qaeda story had been fabricated in America with 9-11, these events were to bring that new perception to the people of Europe.
	So, yeah, top people in the UK would have known that and participated in it, yeah.
	Is that just an inference based on the timing?
	The idea that the Olympic Games were a gift in return for accepting?
	Yeah, that's just it.
	So Blair would have known, his cabinet secretary would have known... Did Blair pronounce the very same day?
	He said we know that this is an Islamic crime.
	Now that was an outrageous thing to say because actually we didn't know anything at all.
	The police didn't know anything at all about who had done it or hardly even what had happened.
	And for Blair to come out and do that, he defined what it was the police were looking for.
	They had to look for guilty Muslims.
	And that's the way it went from then on.
	Right.
	Do you have any suspicions about who else in his cabinet was in on it?
	Or who cannot not have known?
	Well, I wouldn't like to say it at this point.
	No, that's fine.
	Okay, so relatively few people needed to be in Woolwich.
	Obviously, whoever planted the bomb, it could have been Special Forces or ex-Special Forces or anything, we don't know.
	What about the hapless Brazilian electrician who got chased and shot.
	Yeah.
	What was that story?
	John de Menezes?
	Yeah, Menezes.
	It was mysterious.
	He's working on the underground and everyone surmises that he knew too much somehow, that he'd realised something about it, Stockwell.
	It didn't link up very well and then shortly after him there were four so-called chapati bombers, I don't know if you remember them, who got arrested.
	The general feeling was That the London bombing, there were no terrorists visible.
	That was the trouble.
	They couldn't show any picture of these lads, so they wanted some visible terrorists on the tube.
	So that might have been what led to the Benazir story, where he was shot dead on the underground, and then shortly afterwards there was four lads with Japati bombs, so-called, a bit of hydrogen peroxide and Japati in their rucksacks, which didn't really Obviously couldn't go bang, but did scare people a bit.
	So that was meant to reinforce the climate of fear.
	Right.
	I do see that once the initial atrocity had taken place, What was required then was that people pointed the finger and that lots of terror was generated towards the Muslim community and lots of antipathy and then it was job done.
	Right.
	So you can't give me any kind of deep inside stuff on John de Menezes but what he saw?
	What you might have seen?
	I don't think anybody knows.
	It just remains a mystery.
	I'd love to know.
	It does sound to me like he was basically assassinated for knowing too much.
	Totally, yeah.
	And the police had to take the blame.
	The police were very uneasy because they really don't behave like that.
	They don't do that stuff.
	I think it was some secret SAS or whoever did that, but because they could remain secret, the police had to take the blame.
	And Cressida Dick was in charge, wasn't she, of their operation?
	Yeah, she was some Alpha...
	alpha level in the operation.
	I think she was also involved in the 7/7 story.
	So presumably, I mean, it's at least a possibility that in return for kind of...
	She probably didn't want this thing to happen, do you think?
	She probably thought it was an awful thing.
	I mean, who would like an innocent man to be shot on their watch?
	But probably it was indicated to her that later on she might benefit from this.
	I mean, she became... Yeah, it's one of those events where people just keep silent.
	You're never told, you know.
	But, I mean, how would you...
	Just for the benefit of people who think that you're just a kind of nutcase, what's your killer, what's your most convincing thing that shows that this was not the work of evil Muslims, evil Muslim suicide bombers?
	Well the whole way the events were designed, whatever it was that blew up those carriages, is quite incommensurate and unconnected with What those lads were supposed to have done.
	I mean they could never get any coherent account of what explosive those lads were supposed to have.
	The rucksack shown in the pictures didn't look at all scary.
	More like they got some lunch that mum had packed for them.
	There was nothing at all credible in Leeds for making explosives.
	And even if you want to believe they had a motive, I mean those rucksacks they had were very likely given to them that Luton Station.
	There was a Jaguar drove up next to their cars when they were parked there waiting for the train at about 7 in the morning and the CCTV just cuts off but it's very clear that a Jaguar parks next to their cars and might well have given them their rucksacks that they then took into London.
	I think they were trained on what they were supposed to do and I don't think there's anything in their biography or their past that gives an intention of doing this.
	Obviously, attempts are made to blacken their characters, but the people who knew them didn't see any such dark stain in their character.
	So I don't see any connection between these lads who are bumped off and called terrorists and the dreadful carnage that actually happened in London on that morning.
	Yeah.
	So what was the reaction?
	I hate the phrase, the Muslim community, but I imagine that there must have been a degree of scepticism about the nationality.
	Well, unfortunately, I wish they'd had a bit more actually, but Muslims keep very quiet and we generally, all the process, all the truth movement is done, generally speaking, without Muslims.
	They don't really want to get involved.
	Which has been quite distressing.
	Individual Muslims you talk to don't believe it.
	One can say that.
	But there's not a lot of collective response.
	There was a Birmingham mosque where a fellow was speaking out saying he didn't approve it.
	They would get strictly told by the authorities or a Muslim TV station would be told you better shut up and don't try and do that again.
	Really?
	Yeah, and of course, if they did speak out, the general public would just go... well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
	They're just in denial about their own evil terrorists in their midst.
	What?
	Well, the event coming up now, James, is, from what I just alluded to, this trial that our friend Richard D. Hawes got about Manchester.
	Could I just go over the funny numbers, if you don't mind?
	Oh, yeah, you can.
	I'm not up to speed on Richard.
	Right.
	Well, his trial is at 22-7, and when you interviewed Richard, you two were talking about the way the number 22 kept throbbing through the whole story of the Manchester Arena events.
	events.
	You know, on the 27th of May, allegedly 22 killed, and it just goes on.
	Okay.
	Let me, I'd like to read out a sequence of dates of big European fabricated terror events, okay?
	In Norway, Italy Island, 2011, 22-7.
	Then the Wollingen attacks, Tromøy-Lirigby, 2013, 22-5.
	The Brussels attack, the airport, 2016, 22-3.
	2013, 22.5.
	The Brussels attack, the airport, 2016, 22.3.
	A Munich attack, 2016, 22.7.
	A London Westminster Bridge attack in 2017, the last year, is 22.3.
	Then two months later, the Manchester attack, 22-5, 2017.
	So, there is... somebody's playing some sort of number game.
	You never quite understand what it's about, or how it works.
	So, I'm just linking up anyone who listened to your interview with Richard D. Hall a few months ago, that this thing is continuously going on.
	We don't quite understand why.
	Yes, well, have you looked into the Gematria of it?
	Well, it's much more to do with the Kabbalah, these numbers, I think, with 11 and 7, and obviously with 9-11.
	I'm not that much into it.
	No, if not, then don't bother.
	I know that people say that 22 has a particular significance in terms of deception, doesn't it?
	It symbolises... It's their serial killer calling card.
	It's their signature.
	Anyway, anyone watching, you interviewing Richard D. Hall, if you can go back a few months, You ask Richard, what about this number 27, 22, and that is at 22 minutes of your interview.
	Just point that out.
	Is it really?
	Just point that out.
	That's weird.
	So, do you think that means that there are good forces that are kind of manipulating reality so that we get that coincidence?
	Well, if you look at the whole Ukraine war, how that broke out, and I did do a little book on the subject, That was around 22-22, that was the whole pivotal event when the Russians had to come in and it all started.
	And I sometimes wonder if that was a pivotal event.
	No, no, this is all interesting.
	There's a guy I'm going to get on the podcast at some stage.
	He's a Romanian guy who was talking at a conference that I went to in Moldova.
	And it was for people, you know, talking about mostly Christians against the New World Order.
	And his The field of expertise was things like numbers and Kabbalah and so on.
	And he said, for example, that the Bolshevik revolution was timed for a particularly auspicious day in the Satanic calendar.
	And what it does when you get the timing right, it means that the demonic forces or whatever that control these things They're on your side.
	They will make it go more smoothly.
	Although it sounds like they cocked up on 7-7.
	Just to answer, you asked me about the Kabbalah.
	I just realised.
	The Kabbalah is about this tree, isn't it?
	Sephiroth, those spheres connected.
	And there's 22 connections, lines connecting, in the Kabbalah.
	22 lines connecting the different spheres.
	Okay?
	You seem rather doubtful.
	No, I'm listening.
	I don't know anything about the Kabbalah.
	It's one of the rabbit holes I haven't been down.
	Well, it's just an image of different realms, of ten different spheres.
	Okay, and also the 22 lifts in the Hebrew alphabet.
	So that was basically it.
	When you asked Richard what it meant, he said, I don't know.
	He said it's there, it's totally there, but he didn't know what it was doing there.
	And I think that is It's an interesting case Richard.
	I have enormous enormous respect for him and he's what I would call a normie in that he's just somebody who's approached this stuff saying okay let's look at the facts and Just rigorously and see whether the official narrative holds up.
	And then he realises that the official narrative doesn't hold up for this and that and this and that reason.
	But he hasn't formed, unlike some of us, he hasn't formed a grand universal theory of everything which explains why this stuff goes on.
	He understands that the deep state acts badly.
	He understands the notion of false flags.
	He probably understands You know, problem, reaction, solution, that there are reasons for this.
	But he hasn't yet, maybe never will, built up the overarching picture.
	For example, I don't think he understands the supernatural level.
	Aha, right.
	I don't know, maybe you don't either.
	Or are you on that one?
	Well, like you, I admire the way Richard doesn't try to form a grand theory of everything, and the all-important thing we need to focus on now, as we come up to his trial, which will determine his future, and if he loses that, you know, I think we're all done for in a way.
	His large book on the Mascherina asks in great detail that there were no real deaths, okay?
	There were all fabricated deaths, there were false identities, People who claim to have children and didn't really have them, or the children didn't actually die, and so on.
	That is the all-important thing we need to focus on as we come up to this trial of his.
	And somebody who claims to have a load of shrapnel in his back, who actually wasn't there at all on the evening, is suing Richard.
	Yes, but Nick?
	A deep state, let's call them that, that is capable of murdering 52 of its own citizens, shooting down four innocent Muslim guys in cold blood.
	And we're talking 20 years ago, so it's gone a lot more out of control since.
	Do you think that state, that deep state, is going to allow a man Calling out the lie to be exonerated in a trial.
	How was that even possible?
	They've got to ask will the British people accept this?
	They will be frightened of doing something that's too outrageous and too absurd for the British people to accept.
	So I think that is a limit that they experience.
	I mean everyone can see that Richard is, well what Richard's done by doing this is bring the whole concept of state fabricated terror into the open because newspapers have to cope with what he's saying.
	And they're not!
	I've read the stuff, I'm sorry, I've read what the Daily Mail had to say about Richard D. Hall.
	Right.
	And this is the view of 95% of the country.
	He is, in the popular imagination, because they've been told what to think by the media, is a sick, deranged individual who doesn't believe that the Arena Manchester bombing was real, and he believes that little Saffy Had probably died in, you know, previously and her death was essentially sort of faked.
	He's a nasty troll.
	He's the worst troll on... And you're telling me the British public are going to suddenly go, wait, this evil troll who pursues innocent people who are victims of bombings, what, he's an unfair victim of a corrupt justice system.
	They're not going to do that.
	No, by the way that sounds just like what they were saying about me when I was investigating the London bombings and they got to hear about it and they were seriously worried that a member of staff of UCL was doing this and so I came in for some quite heavy vilification.
	In fact, ghoulish was their favourite word they used about me.
	Ghoulish, yeah.
	Ghoulish interests in the dead.
	So that's what got you booted out of UCL?
	Yeah, partly.
	So, Richard, if you read that Daily Mail article, I urge viewers, don't bother reading the article, it's a load of rubbish.
	Go straight to the comments, if they're still there.
	And there were over a thousand comments, and every single one is rock solid supporting Richard, you know.
	I think the people in England are pretty damn furious at what's going on here.
	And if the Mail or the BBC wants to put up a hit piece, they have to ask, are we going to allow comments?
	Because the people are not going to agree with whatever we say.
	And so I think a lot depends on this outcome.
	And I mean, as you say, the Mail just puts out loads of insults.
	And do people believe it?
	Yes.
	People believe what they read in the mail.
	Most mail readers do.
	I'm not saying that you and I do or the people watching this podcast.
	Yeah.
	But yeah, you know that's how the game works.
	I mean, look at the crucial role the media has played in all the operations you describe.
	Right.
	Right.
	Well, the Manchester Arena was As it were, the grand culmination of the British state-fabricated terror with Islam as the enemy.
	Okay?
	So this is a diabolical, straight-from-hell theatre, and we need to understand that the government, especially the British government, is practising it.
	You do get events in other countries, you know, France, Germany, but nothing like as much in this country.
	It's a diabolical theatre, and after it had finished, Mascherina, what happened next?
	Oh, suddenly we get a new enemy, Russia.
	Oh, and then you get a whole Stripple affair brewed up.
	Oh, two people conk out on a bench, and there's this wicked Novichok brought over from Russia, and, you know, a terrific new story is brewed up.
	And it's your tax money goes people devising these monstrous stories, and We need to deconstruct them.
	It's terribly important.
	It's part of our life.
	In these states of amputated limbs, who is the victim?
	The victims are us.
	We, the people, who are impacted by what did not happen.
	It's designed to destroy our faith in our fellow men.
	And therefore, it is so important to get together with your friends, or whoever, and deconstruct it, and go over what it is you've been told.
	Why on earth?
	Why on earth do we live in a culture that always needs war and because it needs war it needs to give you these stories about who to hate?
	I totally agree with you Nick and of course anyone who stopped to think about it would realise that suppose people like you and Richard D. Hall are vexatious nutcases who can get off on harassing Terrorism victims and just ghoulish behaviour.
	At least the best way of dealing with vermin like you is to expose your noxious theories to the cleansing effect of light and you can be exposed for the idiots you are.
	I mean, it shouldn't be difficult, should it, for your theories to be ridiculed with facts?
	Yeah, I mean, here's my account of European fabricated terror.
	This is the great theatre of this 21st century, whereby the government gets your belief and your fear, and why are you prepared to pay taxes for war?
	From these events.
	And I urge every citizen to try and realise the dark powers controlling us through these fabricated theatre events.
	So, did you get any heat from the authorities when you wrote your 7-7 book?
	Well, before, while I was writing it, while they discovered I was writing it, yeah, quite a lot.
	But once the book is out, obviously they want to keep quiet.
	They don't want to mention the fact that... So what did they do when you were writing it?
	How did they warn you?
	Well, they'll do a picture of, say, the Tavistock Square bus and a claim that I'm trying to say, whatever, the deaths weren't real or something or that's just vilifying me as trying to say that because they have got a lot of Deeply traumatised families, okay?
	Yeah.
	And they need to keep those families away from any of the people in what you might call the truth group.
	So the 9-11 truth group, they don't want any of them to get near them to give them the idea that governments, intelligence agencies, America, Israel and Britain participated in an event that killed their own kin.
	Yes.
	I can see that.
	So it's important for them to Not allow those families and keep on with the emotion.
	All of the aftermath the government was managing of that event was emotional.
	They would talk about, you know, the tragedy and so on, how it was suffering, and they had no inquiry.
	There was never any inquiry into who had done the London bombing.
	It's important to appreciate that.
	They had hearings.
	You heard the tragedy of all the people, you know, mutilated and so on.
	They gave harrowing accounts.
	But there was no intelligent mind that evaluated what it all added up to.
	For example, you had a load of people in a carriage with their feet blown off, or with their legs and ankles damaged, and not with their upper limbs hurt.
	And that kept being heard.
	It was a constant theme.
	But nobody was saying, oh gosh, I guess that means that something happened underneath the trains, or something...
	You know, something other than a terrorist bomb went off.
	So there was a six-month inquest, right?
	Can you imagine a six-month inquest?
	And during that six months, get this James, it turned out there were no postmortems.
	No postmortems, right?
	They had all these bodies, piled them all up, four different piles, and then they started, I think it was 2010, 11, they had the inquest, and the relatives Had to understand that nobody had done an inquest on those 52 bodies.
	Why not?
	What was going on?
	There were harrowing stories, stories where they hadn't been allowed to see the bodies, or it took them about 10 days before they were allowed to see them, or they weren't given the bodies, they were just allowed to view them.
	So something quite strange was going on in the way the authorities didn't Give the bodies to the families.
	You know what to expect.
	Have you ever been contacted or heard of anyone who was either a victim or a friend or family of a victim who've woken up to what's going on?
	No, that's what we always hoped for.
	It's like there's a glass plate between us and them and you somehow never get through it.
	I think they took steps to protect the groups of the survivors I mean, I did once ring up somebody, yeah, Miriam, who was at Cambridgeshot Square, and I talked to him about when he last heard from his daughter and so on, and he gave me a story totally incompatible with the claim that she was, she'd got on the number 30 bus, and I got severely damned for having done that, you know.
	Yeah, yeah, that's the same, that's one of the tricks they use, isn't it?
	It's the same with Richard D. Hall.
	They make him out to be a bully and that he's going after the victims.
	Yeah, he's just doing normal journalistic work, which a journalist should do, and they're trying to pretend he's harassing people.
	It's just the BBC that harassed him, quite clearly.
	Yeah, what you're saying tallies with what Oliver Damengard said to me, which is that the victims of the, sorry, the families of the victims in these incidents are a real problem, which is why they moved from real atrocities with real explosives to fake, faked atrocities.
	When did that happen?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	It's so important to understand that.
	I hope everyone got that point that James just made.
	As Olly explained to him, it's a lot cheaper and easier if you can arrange these things without real deaths because that means you don't have relatives going after you for the rest of their lives and wanting to get the story.
	I would say it's round about 2012 where you, or dare I say it, you got the Drummer Lee Rigby story and you had a load of actors and dummies there.
	Fake blood's very tricky, but you sometimes get fake blood with these stories.
	So it's around about, let's say the first decade of this century was real fabricated terror.
	Then generally, I say generally, I mean I think the Norwegian one with Utøya Island was a lot of real deaths of the kids, you know.
	You have to be terribly careful answering that question, were there real deaths?
	Yes.
	That's the hardest question to answer.
	Of course, because get it wrong and they'll be down your throat and it will discredit everything else you say.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I remember Richie Allen who lives in Manchester, he just interviewed Olly Damagard, dare I say this, about the Manchester Inventory.
	Olly breezily said, oh there's nobody in the auditorium, you know, it's all set up.
	He was furious because he lives there and Actually, there were a lot of people there.
	So, you have to... Yes.
	Generally speaking, you don't really get the answer because it's so cleverly set up, you know.
	Well, they're no fools, the people who plan these operations, are they?
	And they've got their every avenue covered, pretty much.
	Yeah.
	And by the way, as you're talking to Ollo, to answer your questions about, you know, gemotria and the number symbolism, he's the best person to ask, I'd say.
	I think he's very clued up on all that.
	He's very directly intuitive, aren't they?
	So, if suppose that Lee Rigby was the start of the Force Force Flags.
	I've forgotten when... And then you've got, in America, you get the Sandy Hook story.
	Which, at much the same time, that is done with actors and dummies.
	Allegedly.
	Although, of course, Alex Jones has been sued successfully for a gazillion dollars.
	Yeah, well he should have just stuck to the original story.
	He should have just waved Jim Fetzer's book about.
	Uncle Jim's got a book called, quote, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which I've got a chapter in it.
	Alex Jones should have just stuck to that and he apologised and tried to back out and he still got sued.
	So, there you go.
	Well, I think that, so, the people, when I've tried having, and it's a complete mistake, when I've tried talking to normies, let's say, about false flag operations where it is alleged that nobody actually died.
	The thing they'll always say, in my experience, is I know somebody who knows somebody who was, who lost a child at this, and I can tell you they wouldn't be lying to me.
	They were real.
	Nobody would lie about a child's death.
	This kind of thing.
	Yeah.
	Well, to start, you can't prove that's wrong.
	All you can show is that you have got actors present at the event.
	And I think that's enough.
	It's our business to show that if you've got actors and dummies, You show that, and for example, if you haven't got real medics turning up, you've just got something that looks a bit like medics.
	And then later on, you don't have real post-mortems, you don't have a real inquest.
	That is all we can show.
	You can't possibly prove a negative, that there's nobody who died.
	I don't think it's our business to do that.
	Yeah.
	I must say, I would be very pissed off if I'd been blown up in a bombing and then a fake ambulance had turned up with a bunch of actors saying, I'm just going to pretend to treat you.
	Right.
	Well, the drama in Euripides, very obviously, you've got various actors hanging around and various photoshopped scenes and you've got a whole load of actors and the body there doesn't look at all real.
	Lying in the middle of the road doesn't look at all real and there's no blood there.
	I mean, it's quite easy to put together.
	And then the question, was there a real character, Drummy Lee Rigby?
	And you look at the Fusilier Guards he was specially part of, that was dissolved a year or so ago.
	And you can't really ascertain his identity or find out exactly where he was.
	And he looks a bit of a made up, made up identity.
	It's a terrific story, and it had an immense emotional impact on the British people.
	Indeed!
	Because people aren't... I think it's the first time, as I recall, anyone was beheaded in the streets by evil Muslim terrorists.
	So it's quite a big deal, isn't it?
	I mean, they chose a big story, if it was faked.
	Yeah.
	I remember I went there a day or two later, and a car is supposed to have careered right across the road, gone up onto the pavement, and hit a big metal post.
	And then two terrorists jumped out, wielding axes, and they managed to find Drummond Rigby, chop his head off, and then drag him into the middle of the road.
	There was no blood on the scene around there, but I think a day or so later, there was one image that had something a bit like blood.
	But the main thing was, a friend of mine went there right afterwards, and they showed that the car had not impacted that big metal pole at all.
	That was just put there theatrically and soon that became covered up because there's so many donations.
	I've never seen anything like it.
	People leaving gifts for the dead fellow and national flags and bottles of beer and messages.
	All the messages all the way down the street and all the way around the corner.
	It was a sort of heart-rending scene of all the grief that flowed out towards this character.
	So, it was immensely emotionally powerful, yeah.
	Well, it would be if it happened, if it were... It would be, yeah.
	I mean, the whole road was closed off, there was no traffic, and you saw these two guys, allegedly terrorists, one wheeled the other axe,
	I think he was being interviewed and a lady with a food trolley just walked past while he was being interviewed and it was obviously a constructed event and you could see a whole lot of axes behind him in the street further back and those two were both known to MI5 beforehand that's a key feature there were these poor rather lost creatures who are recruited
	Yeah.
	So where does this put the Paris atrocities?
	Bartack Law and stuff, was that...?
	That is, again, terribly difficult to say.
	It was set up as some sort of, what was it, the Eagles of Death Metal, some sort of Satanist type band.
	Were they?
	I mean, I think...
	They're an offshoot of Queens and the Stone Age.
	I think the name was ironically chosen, and they were.
	No, no, maybe not.
	But I mean, was there anybody in there?
	Were there real deaths?
	I don't think I ever quite fathomed that one.
	I mean, I've got quite a lot on that battleground in this.
	It's a very fascinating story.
	Did gunmen go mad mowing down loads of people in the audience?
	Or what?
	I'm rather doubtful of that.
	But I don't know how they set it up.
	You can ask Ole.
	Ole Damagard did quite a lot on that story.
	Well, it's actually nice to talk to somebody who's not Ollie about this stuff, because otherwise Ollie comes across like the only man in the world who knows about false flags and has looked into it.
	And it's quite reassuring in a way to know that one isn't putting all one's trust in a kind of... Oh I see, yeah, right.
	Well look at that, and also look at the NACE event.
	A lorry allegedly went on a rampage, mowing people down.
	That was the other big French event.
	That was clearly total hocus-pocus and a staged event.
	You could follow all the details of that in my book.
	These are events where nobody dies at all, I think.
	Yes, I don't know whether it's reassuring that they tend these days to do fake bombs and things rather than real ones, or whether it's just kind of more scary because it means that their ability to manipulate us has become even more sophisticated.
	Yeah.
	Well, let's add that this is in the past tense now.
	It's, what, eight years ago.
	I finished in 2017.
	This is a past art form That they're, as it were, not doing anymore.
	So it's something we're looking at that has happened.
	Because they've moved on, you mean?
	They've moved on to... Yeah, you're getting terrific fabrications about how bad Russia is and what Russia did and so on.
	Yes.
	And in a way, I think a truth movement, or let's say an anti-war movement, is not going to have any effects.
	Unless it can call out these events as being made up by the state.
	I think that is what we need now in this 21st century.
	We need an anti-war movement that can deconstruct these events and possibly, you know, say I don't see why I should pay taxes if you're going to spend it on war and make up these fictional events.
	Yes, well I think probably everyone watching this is in agreement with you but, and it is quite a big but, so Just before we started recording this podcast, there was a story doing the rounds about how the Russians, those evil Russians again, had blown up a children's hospital of all things in Kiev.
	And I think Keir Starmer, our, I suppose, Prime Minister, was outraged by this, you know, further example of Putin being evil.
	And, of course, the story quickly came out among truthers that, no, this was yet another Ukrainian-owned goal.
	It was one of their missiles, sort of.
	Right, right.
	landing on their own their own territory and then being blamed on on putin right now that was shared a lot by the kind among the kind of people who are watching this video but we're the minority nick we're just like the the most people will just hear kia starmer new prime minister standing resolute against the russia russians who bombed children's hospitals in kiev that's how that's how the game works well
	the newspapers know that less and less people are buying newspapers because they're not worth reading.
	And I think the papers need to ask themselves, do we want to print stuff that's important for people?
	And people don't bother to pay for them if they've got a reputation that what they write is true.
	And people don't want stories that will fall apart a day or two later.
	Nick, there's something like Toby Young there.
	That's the thing Toby would say.
	Toby would say, look, newspapers have got no interest in printing lies because they'd lose readership and the bottom line would suffer and why would they?
	The newspapers do not exist to inform readers, nor indeed to make money.
	They are part of the propaganda operation.
	They're a very key part of the propaganda operation.
	Well, surely the journalist doesn't have time to reflect.
	Journalists are given a lot of stuff and They whack it into print, put their name at the bottom, and that attaches them to a fake narrative, and that is part of the catastrophe that we're living through.
	May I say, with the Ukraine story, again, I was appalled by the way hate-inducing fictional narratives, like say, I don't know, the butcher massacre and stuff, which can quickly be forgotten about it, but they leave you with some prejudice that Russia's done something terrible.
	So I did this Ukraine, the just war, which goes over how Russia got drawn into the war.
	And I think throughout the conflict, I think they've been very careful to minimize and avoid civilian casualties.
	And that's why their progress has been so slow.
	And I think that's in contrast, the Kiev government has been continually bombing civilians in the east for nearly 10 years now.
	I agree with you on a lot of that, but I don't think that's the reason for... Again, it's one of those things where I think I'm further down the rabbit hole than you are on this one.
	I reckon that the reason the war...
	Look at how many men and how much material Russia has compared with Ukraine.
	They could have wrapped up this war very quickly if they wanted to.
	Even if, as you say, they've been pussyfooting around on civilian casualties, which I'm prepared to accept.
	Right, right.
	But the reason it hasn't ended is they don't want it to end.
	A, they need to draw... it's a fantastic... it's a way of making Europe suffer.
	I mean, you know, Germany hasn't got its Nord Stream gas pipeline because... America blew it up.
	America blew it up.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Europe isn't allowed to discuss the fact.
	No.
	But Putin, I'm afraid, is as interested in keeping this war going as anyone.
	They're all in it together.
	Putin is not, you know, he's not a goody.
	No, no.
	Well, if I could sidestep that issue, James, if you don't mind, I'd say, continuing what we were discussing, what really matters is to go, for example, you might have forgotten it by now, the shoot-down of the MH17 in 2014.
	That happened right over East Ukraine where the conflict is now censored and it got blamed on Russia and a load of allegedly a whole lot of civilian casualties and I think that was a fixed up job and it's quite a complicated fixed up job and which exactly plane was that and who was driving it and in any inquiry they had Russia gets excluded.
	You have Holland and America You know, trying to reach inclusion, which is preposterous because it's all prejudged.
	Russia is going to be to blame.
	Just look at the whole Stripple narrative.
	Whenever they analyze who did everything, Russia's excluded because Russia has to take the blame.
	So we need a truth movement which can evaluate these things and what happened.
	I mean the terribly important thing that's come out last year or so from the Krenn story is the peace deal in Istanbul.
	In March 2022, that's one month after the whole thing started, they were all ready to sign it.
	Kiev and Russia, there they were in Istanbul, and they'd agreed on enough to stop the war.
	And that might have been what Russia intended.
	They started what they called the LMO, Limited Military Operation, to do enough to make Kiev come to a peace deal after the Minsk agreements had crumbled.
	And that was stopped by Boris Johnson.
	He went out there and told Zelensky, no, no, no, don't sign, oh, no, no, you can't trust Russia.
	And it went on.
	You've got, like, nearly half a million soldiers have died since then, several hundred thousand have died, that could have been avoided if they'd just signed that peace deal.
	Now, I think it's terribly important for us to gather the fragments and intentions of that peace deal.
	And as Putin said recently, that peace deal is still on the table.
	It was inked by the parties, even though they didn't go through with it, but that could still be a basis for a future agreement.
	So I think the little we can do is to try and find out what really happened in these things.
	Well yeah, look, I did a piece, I did a whole sub-stack on the Butchka massacre that wasn't, and it was obviously another kind of It was a staged incident, or at least the idea that the Russians were massacring innocent Ukrainians.
	It was very much designed to abort that peace deal.
	If you look back at the time, when exactly that Bush massacre happened, it was to stop people taking seriously the Russians, trying to make out they were guilty of some atrocity.
	I know but that peace agreement in Istanbul is a bit aborted.
	But Nick, the normies don't want to know.
	I spent ages writing that bloody article and I'm sure you spent much longer researching your book thoroughly and excellently.
	But the fact is we are talking to a minority.
	If you try and truth bomb the normies with the kind of facts that we're discussing here, they will go Why would my government do such a thing?
	No, they never would.
	They don't want to go any further.
	They don't want to listen to the facts because your facts are basically, in the case of Butchka, they're Russian propaganda.
	It's something that Putin's propagandists would say.
	Therefore, it can't be true.
	In any way, their governments are there to help them.
	They'd never do such a thing.
	They won't go beyond that because they've been brainwashed into not accepting people like us.
	In a way, what he's saying is that the drift towards this war is now inevitable, but surely we've got to try and believe that rational people can desire peace, and see how it can be possible, and see through the deceptions which make people want the war.
	Well, yeah, but I can tell you that even that option is going to be closed down soon, because I'm sure that if Keir Starmer gets his way, Podcasts like this will be banned, because basically we'll be talking about, you know, how dare these lunatics suggest that the British government could participate in killing its own citizens in order to prevent a fake war.
	I urge all listeners to dare to do just this.
	Get together and talk about these issues, as James is indicating, and say we will not be silenced, we cannot be silenced, and this is our view, you know.
	I mean I've been co-managing a current defence discussion group for a dozen years and people like it.
	People like hearing about these issues and people want to talk about these issues and we can't be shut up.
	Well it's very interesting because obviously when you've got the facts on your side and you've got this massive system trying to conceal the facts that's always going to be exciting and interesting.
	But where are you?
	You mentioned in emails before we did this tour, you mentioned Kate.
	Princess Kate.
	Princess Kate, okay.
	Where is she?
	Well, is there a sort of conspiracy angle here?
	She was last seen, properly seen, last December.
	Not the 22nd.
	December 25th, Christmas Day.
	No, no, not the 22nd.
	And then an ambulance drove off on the 28th with a couple of police cars at night time.
	People wonder, well, what on earth happened?
	And then she seemed to turn up on the Tribune of Colour on the 15th of June and she looked quite radiant and 15 years younger.
	Yeah, as you do when you've been having cancer treatment, Nick.
	Yeah, intensive chemotherapy, right.
	People said, well, what's going on here?
	Is that really her, you know?
	So I decided to attempt a little text James which I might come out with about what is happening to the Windsor family because I think if she is gone it's not easy to see how that dynasty can continue and the general thing is that she always turns up for Wimbledon Ah.
	And Wimbledon, the last day, will be a few days time on the 13th.
	So, if she's really there, she should be there to give out the prizes.
	Her hologram will be definitely there.
	Princess Kate.
	Her hologram has never missed a Wimbledon so far.
	Oh, right.
	Well, it's certainly a mighty strange thing.
	I mean, just a few days, a week before that brilliant turn-up on Shooping the Colours, Which hit the front page of every newspaper in the world, I'm told.
	There was a notice saying, Palace sources say Kate may never reappear in the form in which we have known her.
	That was rather mysterious.
	Is that what they said?
	Those words?
	Yeah, that was it.
	And that was just about ten days before.
	So, how can that news come out?
	As you're clearly a bit suspicious, James, let me just give you this.
	William goes to see MI5 on the 13th of June.
	On the 14th of June it's announced that Kate will be appearing at Trooping of Colour.
	Now on the 15th of June she does appear.
	So you've got that three-day sequence.
	What is William doing to ascertain that his wife is going to appear?
	And why are we only told the day before?
	Anyway... Maybe she's been working incognito at MI5 and he was negotiating a day release for two days' time.
	Well, if she's still around... You see, we've had this extraordinary series of fabricated, fictional, fake pictures of her, which I presume you're really familiar with, especially the Mother's Day one, where the next day, somebody called Kate had to apologise because it was obviously photoshopped.
	Do you remember that?
	So her beaming with her kids and then people say, wait a minute, wait a minute, this is wrong and that's wrong.
	And then there was her running along at a farm shop.
	Do you remember that?
	No, that was in the sun.
	In the sun, yeah.
	People said, wait a minute, that's much too tall and it's not her, it's not William either for that matter.
	And she's jogging along and wearing tight skinny pants and doesn't look like she's been ill or whatever.
	So we had a series of these fake images and if she was around surely they wouldn't have been allowed to do that.
	Anyway the whole thing climaxed on, get this, 22-3.
	That's 22nd of March.
	There was her sitting on a park bench.
	Now, I don't know if I'm going a bit too far here, but people think that was an online fabrication, that it didn't look quite real.
	Well they do, because the flowers weren't moving and things like that.
	Yeah, I'm glad you pointed that out, right.
	And her hands, if you watch her hands moving, the ring on her hand, Diana's ring, appears and disappears if you slow it down.
	It's a magic, it's the ring of power.
	Ring of power, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But the main thing is the slats on the bench, I don't know if you noticed that.
	Anyway, they were quite different sizes on one side of the bench than the other, in a way that couldn't quite be a real bench.
	And then people went to Windsor Gardens and they found there wasn't a bench like that in the gardens.
	Oh, really?
	Anyway, that is the Scarlet Barns number.
	3-2-2, you see.
	As you ask me about funny numbers.
	I'll tell you what, Nick.
	My take-home from this podcast is never, ever, ever trust anything that happens on the 22nd of the month.
	Well, right.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I wish my birthday was on the 22nd, because then I wouldn't be my age.
	I wouldn't trust it.
	Anyway, you asked me about Kate, so I think there's a mystery.
	Is she still around?
	If she's not there, can William manage it?
	consideration the royal family, the Windsor depend on her.
	If she's not there, can William manage it?
	And if she is there, how come all these things could possibly have happened?
	Well, we're entering into what, Majesty magazine territory now.
	I would suggest that the rules don't really run their own lives anyway.
	I mean, they're not in charge of the operation, they're just sort of puppets.
	So I don't think it matters to the continuation of the Royal Line whether their chosen temporary broodmare is with us or not.
	In the same way that things carried on after Diana disappeared.
	Right.
	Got bumped off, yeah.
	I don't know how you can possibly say such a thing, Nick.
	It was an accident with those paparazzo in the tunnel, which happened to be dangerously close to the Merovingian burial chambers.
	That was a coincidence, you fool.
	I've just got one book I recommend you read.
	John Morgan.
	That is the definitive book.
	2012.
	Lifetime of Research.
	If you thought anything about the death, this is it.
	Is he still alive?
	I don't think so.
	I think he missed him.
	He was from Down Under but he spent many years getting all the info on this.
	So I'm afraid it was an op where the Royal Family was involved and MI6 sort of did it.
	So he's been offed?
	No, no, I'm not saying that.
	He could have just passed away.
	What, died of natural causes?
	Well, I don't know, James.
	You're sounding suspiciously normie to me again, Nick.
	I'm worried about you.
	I think you need to go on an intensive course of conspiracy theories, because you're sounding way too normal to me.
	Well, I think it took...
	Many, many years for the truth to come out about what happened to Diana.
	And I'm afraid Charles wanting to remarry and get his Camilla as the Queen is part of the story, you know.
	I'm sorry to say.
	Yeah, well... You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to agree with me.
	No, no, no, no, it's not that.
	I was thinking one can get very involved in these awful, awful stories.
	But I mean, I...
	Just pause for a moment.
	Well, it's just like Henry VIII, isn't it?
	Henry VIII bumped off his wife so he could marry another one.
	It's a bit like that, isn't it?
	But, you know, we should have some thoughts in our prayers.
	For example, those two passengers who got their legs blown off in that false flag atrocity, all those people whose lives were ruined, who had their so-called life-changing injuries,
	And it was perpetrated, probably, not by four innocent boys from Luton or Bradford or whatever, but by whoever, the Deep State, whatever.
	Deep State, yeah.
	And these people have not gone away.
	No, they haven't, no.
	They're threatening us all.
	Yeah.
	And this is the world we live in.
	Yeah.
	Well, let's try to envisage a culture of peace, James.
	Just try to imagine that.
	This country didn't want war and we wouldn't spend the money on making people happy, having fun, instead of starting wars and having enemies which we don't need at all.
	We would have to have the intelligence to be able to see through the fictional war making Fabrication.
	That is the central requirement.
	To have that intelligence and realise when you're being deceived.
	And fear is that primordial emotion that blocks out the higher mind.
	And that's how they do it.
	They invoke the primary primordial emotions, hate and fear.
	And that screams on the tabloid headlines and that sells the papers.
	And you lose the capacity for proper evaluation.
	Just a few people get the truth sometime later when it's no longer news.
	I totally agree with you.
	Nick, it's been really great talking to you.
	By the way, dear viewers and listeners, if there are any kind of sudden gaps in this, it probably means that I've had our lawyer run through the bits and she's probably said, Don't give him any ammunition.
	But apart from that... Thank you, Nick.
	I'm really glad to have got you on the podcast.
	And sorry to have been dismissive of your views on Newton.
	No, not at all, not at all.
	Where are you on dinosaurs, by the way?
	Oh, shucks.
	Well, I've got a fairly traditional view on dinosaurs, but... You've got some pyjamas with brontosauruses on them.
	Don't tell me.
	I'm quite happy to listen to any weird story you've got about dinosaurs.
	I've got some really bad news for you.
	I'm not.
	Okay, dinosaurs, fine.
	But I imagine you're down on all the big ones, you know, moon landings, 9-11.
	Now I'm terribly reactionary with the moon landings.
	Our group had the only debate on the 50th anniversary of Did They Go to the Moon?
	And I was debating with Marcus Allen about whether they went or not.
	Who's he?
	Well, he distributes Nexus in this country and he's the best known moon landing sceptic, right?
	So he agreed to come and debate it and I debated, I said yes they did go and I mean I knew I'd lose and of course I did lose, yeah.
	But I can put both sides across, you know.
	So how did they get through the Van Allen belt?
	Well, that's all a long story.
	Let's not go into all that.
	Oh, right.
	But, um... I've been a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society for about 30 years.
	I've been paying my subs.
	I don't know why I still do.
	I'll bet that's... I'll bet that's Freemasonic.
	Probably is, yeah.
	But everyone there would believe they went to the moon, you know?
	Well, of course they would.
	It's like everyone at NASA believes they went to the moon.
	Apart from those who... Probably do, yeah.
	Who plan the operation.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, it's... 1972 was the last time anyone went through the Van Allen radiation belt.
	And the more years go by that nobody's been through it, the less and less people are going to believe that it ever happened.
	That's quite plain, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, I would say the main thing any space agency should try and do now is get some astronauts to actually go through that belt and come back in then, if they can.
	You know the terrible thing is, Nick, that half the... if I show this to a normie, They're going to say, this man is a bloody idiot, because he doesn't think that the 7-7 bombings were carried out by evil Muslim terrorists.
	And if I showed it to anyone down the rabbit hole, they'd be going, this guy is an absolute nutcase, because he doesn't... he thinks we actually went to the moon!
	Well, I'm probably about the only people in our group, our current federation group, who has suspicions that maybe they did go to the moon.
	I mean, I analysed, there was a lot, a lot of analysis of the nature of the moon rock, for example.
	I could go on about that, but I won't, I won't.
	No.
	But, um, I mean, I hope I live long enough, James, to see some space people land on the moon and go to where America claims to have been, right?
	And say, I guess that settles it, you know?
	Either they're there or they're not there, you know?
	If only Bart Sibrell had a website, you could look it up and see what he has to say on the subject.
	But I don't think he does.
	Anyway, Nick, it's been fantastic having you on the podcast.
	Thank you for getting in touch.
	Pleasure's mine.
	Pleasure's mine, James.
	I hope I haven't been too outrageous.
	No!
	I don't think so.
	I don't think of you as an outrageous person.
	Although I can see that you're going to...
	You'll be very easily ridiculed by the people, the intelligence services and stuff, whom it will suit to ridicule you.
	Because that's how it works.
	I mean, it's either killing you or marginalising you, isn't it?
	I've never had any kind of threats against me or been hit or anything like that.
	I get vilified now and then by the press, which doesn't really hurt, does it?
	Tell us where we can read your books and get a hold of them.
	Oh, they're all on Amazon.
	Just get them on Amazon.
	Put my name on Amazon and they're all there.
	What, even your evil holocaust denying book?
	Oh no, not that one.
	I'm just going to say James.
	I'm just going to say.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, because that's the other thing.
	You're a holocaust denier.
	We didn't deal with that because, I mean, frankly.
	No, I couldn't handle that as well.
	Controversial enough without just kind of killing it instantly.
	Nick, thank you very much.
	Dear viewers and listeners, I hope you've enjoyed this podcast.
	Please, if you can, support me.
	You get early access to my shows.
	You get about a week ahead of the game.
	Support me on Substack or on Locals, Subscribestar, Patreon.
	If you don't want to commit, Just want to give me a coffee.
	Buy me a coffee.
	Support our sponsors.
	And thank you very much for viewing this thing.
	There's probably a button you're meant to click on.
	Right.
	Where it, like, follow or something.
	I hear other podcasters talking about this.
	I don't know what it is.
	But do that thing if you know what it is.
	Thanks very much.

▲