Francis O’Neill is an artist who has been awake far longer than James. They chat about the degree to which Awake movement is infiltrated and how you can spot who the traitors are. Also on the agenda: the mystery of Lucy Connolly, the alleged resistance heroine, allegedly in prison for tweeting about an alleged triple murder by an alleged illegal immigrant at an alleged ‘Taylor Swift’ ballet class, which allegedly provoked some alleged riots. Also: lessons of World War 1 - when a few men want war, war is what we all get. Allegedly. Francis O’Neill’s Substack is here https://francisoneill.substack.com↓Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future.In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, James tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpoleThe official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.ukxxx
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition of my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011 actually, the first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when the people behind the climate change scam got caught red-handed tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen ClimateGate.
So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us, we've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that way.
Just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Giants.
There we go.
It's a scam.
I love Dellingpole.
Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby.
I love Deadlingpole.
I'll listen on the town.
Subscribe with me.
I love to the Delling Pod.
It's me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say, I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, let's get in one of those words from our sponsor, shall we?
Gold and silver.
They've been going like rockets recently, especially gold.
I think silver will follow.
But I'm no expert.
What do I know?
I just know that I've got some gold and I've got some silver and I'm very happy to have some.
There are two ways of owning it.
Either you can buy physical gold in the form of gold and silver bullion or in the form of coins, or you can take the monetary metals option.
Monetary metals is a company.
I've had the CEO Keith Weiner on the podcast twice to explain how it all works.
It's a way of owning physical gold and silver, but you get paid interest on your holding.
Now this is different.
When you hold gold in a vault, you have to pay a fee, a management fee.
But if you buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you get paid interest.
So you don't have to pay storage charges.
You're actually earning income on your gold, which is paid in the form of more gold and silver.
It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, but actually it works because the jewellery industry pays money to monetary metals, which enables it to pay you interest on your gold.
It does work.
So if you want to buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you go to monetary metals, monetary hyphen metals dot com forward slash Dellingpole.
You can find out more about it.
Monetary hyphen metals dot com forward slash Dellingpole.
You can earn up to four percent in their leasing program immediately after after funding your account.
But you can even earn higher yields if you are an accredited investors via their bond offerings.
They're.
let you let you earn income on on their ounces paid in more ounces of physical gold the interest you earn is paid in ounces of physical gold or silver which you get in addition to any prices at appreciation from gold and silver during the year join thousands of investors earning interest in physical gold and silver every month with monetary metals visit monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole to earn more um welcome back francis
o'neill to the delling pod thank you very much there have been requests for you you know i mean i don't i possibly by friends of yours but but nevertheless there have been requests get from and i looked and it's been quite a while since you were on yeah it's a year or two isn't it i can't remember exactly when that's ridiculous that is that is too long especially since you've been doing some cracking stuff recently um i think we should
start by talking about the the contentious subject of lucy connolly the um the heroic freedom fighting mother mother of a 12 year old girl who's been imprisoned for 31 months for the crime of saying upset things about immigrants as a result of the
southport murders of three little girls at a taylor swift ballet class have i got the story right the more or less yeah yeah um i think the first thing that um prompted suspicion for me was the way maybe
you should start this a different way we don't know what's happening with this story none of us have and this is the problem with all these events is that we never get given the full evidence we don't have access to the evidence we're at one remove so like the government or the media presents us with a narrative and storyline that we are we absorb and from that point then we make a decision about whether we take it at face value or whether we question it So what I would say is after the past five years, I would question everything that they point in front of us.
If somebody tried to kill you or if you had a partner who was having multiple affairs, if they stayed out late one night and didn't come home and told you some tall story, you wouldn't necessarily believe them as a default.
You'd think, well, all the previous 111 times you didn't come home, you were seeing someone else.
Now, but for some reason, other people think that's an outlandish, cynical, aggressively kind of distrusting way of going about things.
So Lucy Connolly comes up and you think, well, what are they pushing us towards here?
What are they telling us?
They're telling us that we can't speak our mind on the internet, which is problematic.
And then you have this kind of really draconian sentence, 31 months for a tweet that was removed after three hours.
It's almost designed to provoke a response of, oh, there's a two-tier justice.
Oh, things are not right.
And look at what this person gets and all this stuff.
So you look at it and think, okay, who is this lady?
Who is she?
Well, her husband happens to be Northamptonshire's first COVID patient who was in the BBC News at the time.
And he's a conservative counselor.
So you think, well, he's kind of involved with the machine.
He's a conservative counselor.
I mean, lots of people can be conservative counselors and perfectly innocent.
But to be Northamptonshire's first COVID patient seems a little bit odd.
And within about 24 hours of Lucy Connolly being arrested, there was a labor counselor.
So someone from the other side who was saying that they should kill right-wing protesters.
He did a throat-slitting gesture called Ricky Jones.
And he happened to be a labor counselor who'd also been in the media because of his COVID illness, blaming it in early 2021 on all the young people going out, blaming it on his own kids going out and not paying attention to the rules.
So you've already got two people who've been used as agents of propaganda before we've even got started.
They're connected to the propaganda of the COVID things, which lots of us know to be untrue.
So then you think, well, are we being lied to this time?
And so you start paying attention.
That's all.
start paying attention to what you're being told you look at it and it starts to it the one of the first things you start to see is that she's reported as tweeting I worked out because her Twitter account came online in December of 2023 and she was arrested in August, I think 8th, 6th or the 8th of August in 2024.
So I worked out and calculated the amount of days and looked at it.
She was averaging about 105 tweets a day, which is a lot for a woman who is a mother, a wife, and she's running her own child mining business.
Unless she was sitting there not really minding the children and tweeting away.
That's a lot of kind of tweets that she was pointing out.
So there starts to be this idea that maybe she wasn't in charge of a Twitter account.
Her husband didn't seem to know how many children.
He says children when she only has one child.
He didn't seem to know when she was getting out.
He had to be prompted when he was doing an interview.
He comes across as a little bit lacking in awareness and a little bit almost faltering in his testimony to cameras.
So you think, well, you can bend over backwards and say, maybe this guy's not blessed with great articulation, or maybe he's not very intelligent, or maybe he's not very confident.
You can bend over backwards in all different ways.
But you start to look at the backdrop and you think there's a few doubts about it.
There's not many photographs of him and her together.
There just seems to be like reasons for suspicion.
It's sounding a bit Joe Cox and what's Mr. Cox called?
Oh yeah, Brendan Cox.
Sounding a bit Joe and Brendan Cox-ish, isn't it?
Yeah, and then Joe Cox's sister is this woman Leadbeater who goes into parliament and tries to campaign for legislation to kill us all at both ends of our life.
I don't know if I lost you there, the free screen throws there.
Yeah, well, I think, do you know what?
I think it's funny that we lost it when you were talking about Joe Cox, which is even more forbidden by the authorities than so anyway.
Then Miri, obviously, our friend Miri has been writing articles about Lucy Connolly and mentioning that she has doubts about the story.
And in doing so, she mentioned these ridiculous amounts of tweets that Lucy Connolly was apparently getting through in the day and was attacked by people from all over the place.
And the more she pushed, the more she was attacked by.
Now, a lot of it, like I've had experience of putting things online in the truth movement for about 20 years.
And so I know that when you're over the target, you get inundated with bots and shills and the abuse is heightened because they want you to shut up and think, oh, this is too much for me.
I can't deal with this attack.
I'm just not going to speak about it.
So Miri, like, bless her, like in her kind of confidence and assurance, and she just cracks on.
And so it's made no difference except to draw attention, it's like flushing out all the people who don't want you to question, which is a very, very strange line for people, supposedly on our side, to take to tell us not to question.
Like, why would they be doing that?
I want you to enlarge on that in a moment, but can I just let you into a trade secret?
I record this podcast.
My laptop rests on an awning board.
And I can feel that I've got the ironing board too low.
I'm having to sort of slump slightly.
And it's going to completely bugger my back.
And you know how hard it is if you're a man to make an ironning board work.
It's really hard.
Oh, yeah.
So I'm going to try and do that operation now.
So just give me a few moments.
No worries, noise.
How do I do it?
You know, while you're doing that, I can tell you, if you can still listen, that I've got my own system of strings and thing to keep my laptop up here because it's on boxes.
I've got cardboard boxes to get it at eye level.
It's a trick they taught me when I did interviews for that TNT thing.
Oh, yeah.
Hang on.
Yeah.
Because they were always concerned about your head being too far down or looking up your nostrils or something or seeing too much ceiling.
So they used to make me pile little boxes and books underneath my laptop.
You know that trick where...
Oh, here we go.
Oh, shit.
I don't know.
Wait.
Bloody hell,
do you know what?
This is the sort of thing that one...
Have you got a wife?
No.
They get at you for things like this.
They find it slightly insulting that you have such problems putting up an arming board.
They think that you ought to know, and they think it's a kind of an indictment of.
It kind of is, though, isn't it?
Yeah, kind of.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Especially when you've got a wife who's better at doing kind of DIY than you.
All the man things you should be able to do, you can't do either.
Yeah, they've trained all that out of us, haven't they?
They sent us to school to write and read and stuff instead of like, yeah.
I'm going to, I'm getting, it's getting, this weather is getting quite hot.
Yes.
It's close, isn't it?
It is.
I'm going to take my thing off.
Yeah.
So, it's interesting you've been doing this for 20 years.
Because, as you know, five years ago, I was, to all intents and purposes, a normie.
Obviously, I was way ahead of the curve on the climate change bollocks thing.
But a lot of the stuff that I now take for granted would hitherto have struck me as being outrageous conspiracy theorising.
But you're saying that even in your early days, you were getting this kind of attention online and stuff from people trying to...
Yeah, I mean, what used to do was I used to put things on Facebook.
I got introduced to Facebook and started to use it.
And obviously, I remember just when I first went on there, I was thinking, oh, so this is why everyone doesn't call you anymore.
They're like all online talking to each other.
And I started to put, over time, I started to put like little videos of the firefighters responding to explosions like in the streets around 9-11 and questioning it, saying, would anyone know anything about this?
And just testing the waters, because I remember very vividly having the kind of apprehension that you didn't want to step outside and become the weirdo and be the conspiracy theorist and be branded.
And so I was very sensitive to begin with.
And then I was reading and studying.
But as I became more knowledgeable about the subjects and more confident, I started to put things out.
And the things that would always attract attention were I would get hammered for talking about the directed energy weapons, which I disagree with.
don't think they were used on 9-11 and i think there's every i think if you don't have to watch the footage of like sequential explosions and floor by floor going down the buildings to recognize that it was you know a controlled demolition of a more conventional wired weren't they so that's That's probably my view.
Wasn't it a team from Israel pretending to be some kind of artistic collective or something?
Yeah, they did have that.
But they also had renovations in the floors that were struck by the planes.
And then the two subjects that used to get you hammered, because I used to concentrate on 9-11.
I thought, if we can't get people through this door, we're not going to get them through any other doors.
And I did broach some of the other subjects as well, like the moon landings and lies to do with the Second World War.
But they can be very, even those can be very polarizing.
But the 9-11 ones, the hot topics there that I used to get battered for were, and you could tell it was like vitriolic and it was endless.
And they didn't seem like real accounts that were doing that, would be suggesting that it wasn't directed energy weapons and suggesting that the planes actually did hit the towers because those were things that and interestingly recently the only thing in my substack articles where I've got that sort of heavy fire was from a guy who's been on your podcast called David A. Hughes who came at me for writing articles about the directed energy weapons.
He felt that he wrote two articles on me saying that I might have been co-opted by dark actors and dark forces because I disagreed with the directed energy weapons thing.
So I was thinking, well, where have you been for 20 years, this guy?
I mean, I've heard him on your podcast and he comes across very well and he obviously articulates what happened with COVID very well and you can't there's no quibbles with that like he presents it but I still think there's a part of me that thinks okay so where have you been you know like and why were you at why would you why would you come at me about this topic why can't you just let it slide and think okay we disagree about that it's a very I agree it's a very odd um bone of contention for people on our side of the argument
have in in as much as ultimately doesn't matter that much whether it was done by directed energy weapons or whether it was wired because ultimately the issue is um who was behind it and and it was it was the deep state or it was yeah it was the bush administration and etc but i think there's this idea that he presented which i think is an interesting idea to toy with just it just in in the abstract
like without i don't pick fights with people but like just yeah he's put talks about camp one camp two and camp three and he he articulated this okay your camp one is maybe a normie view and camp two is like oh there's a conspiracy theory for people who wake up a little bit but the truth is camp three i would argue that sometimes they give you a more extreme version of events to make you look silly so that you don't so that people can't come around to the truth of it so like they'll they'll give you something far-fetched and ridiculous to play with so that when you voice it to people who have got no idea
whatsoever they just plant you out there with like oh he's away with the fairies and he's a crackpot so i think you have to be guarded because yeah you have to be guarded in what you believe and what you you expound upon there was an example of this actually recently on twitter um that the undertaker guy or ex under is he it's the londike john oh yeah or loony um who says a lot of he's i mean he was one of the first people to talk about
how the boatloads of people coming over were military age fighting men and that they were being which which i think is very is a credible theory and he also talked about these weird clotting effects that he was noticing in in the the corpses that he was um embalming
but yesterday he put out a photograph of boris johnson the the very young job boris johnson who i knew uh reasonably well at oxford and his first wife who's a very pretty girl called allegra most and owen and what we were all sort of wowed that because he got married very young and it was quite a grown-up thing to do to get married when you're still at university and especially when she's a kind of vogue color cover model and so i sorry i knew who she was and
the caption on this photograph said that this was gillaine maxwell and and and that boris johnson would have been having an affair with or you know when he was young and i was thinking well this is not true you're putting out in flat ways obviously you're releasing this stuff to inflame people's emotions but you're doing so on the basis of false information and i was not not the first person to point this out in his position i would i
would have pulled the tweet and been slightly embarrassed but it makes me wonder whether possibly that's the role he's playing by putting out extreme information which is then designed to be discredited shared and then then to discredit people he has a great surname for that kind of purpose he does he does but just sorry that that was a that was a digression but you to your point it seems to be the case that even when you're relatively obscure i mean
as you as you would have been in your early days as a as a burgeoning awake person that that did not stop you.
Your obscurity did not stop you getting the attention of the security services, would you say?
Well, yes, certainly.
I mean, I posted, I do a little, we do have Miriam Leo Biddle and I have a chat about once a month, and we put this little podcast out and just talk about the way we've seen things.
And I mentioned in it a video from about 10 or so years ago, maybe more.
And it's from a mainstream broadcast about how things work.
And it talks about how information and discourse is conducted online by the intelligence services and how it's kind of shaped and nudged by the governments.
And it talks about this happening in China and Russia, but it also talks about happening in European countries in the United States and in the UK.
And it gave us the kind of techniques that they use where they use, obviously, and many of these will be familiar to us now.
Like obviously there's bots online.
We obviously know there's kind of automated accounts.
There are people who are paid to put out tweets and posts and comments to steer the discourse.
And it also talks about where they it talks about different kinds of puppets, like sock puppets accounts where you pretend to be, you purport to be someone that you're not, obviously.
But also they talked about ones where you take over the identity of somebody who already exists.
So maybe you buy, purchase their account from them, so they've gained some trust or traction, and then you steer their audience in a different direction.
Or maybe you take over from a continued account or for whatever reason, maybe someone's died, passed away, or whatever, you adopt an identity and then purport to be that person in order to steer discourse.
Now, these were acknowledged in a mainstream media broadcast.
It's not me.
And I always try and do this.
I always try and kind of account for what I'm saying so that it's evidence-based so that people can't dismiss you very easily.
But these were tactics that were talked about 10 years ago.
Then when in 2020, when we hit the lockdown stages, it was openly admitted during the lockdown that they were using the 77th Brigade so that the military were actively involved and had a division to study, shut down, engage with, and basically shoot down opposition to the lockdown online.
And this wasn't going to be made plain when they interacted with people.
This was going to be secret and as like a sub like a subversion of the angle of discourse on social media.
You were there for quite a few of those marches in London in the early days.
And it was all new and exciting for me.
I was meeting my people, as it were, for the first time.
kind of nutcases you now listen to this podcast and I love them because we've been on, a lot of people listening and watching have been on the same journey as me and And they've followed my progress from sort of right-wing, libertarian, contrarian, outspoken, but basically normie commentator to batshit, crazy, tinfoil hat, flat earth, Paul is dead, loon.
And most the ones who stayed with me have mostly decided that they more or less share my views.
And of course, the Christian, my journey into Christianity as well.
But I remember on those early marches in London, looking around, and there would be certain people who you were given to understand were kind of people that you should know.
They were sort of leaders of the movement.
They were this and that.
And you thought, well, I don't know this person, but clearly this is somebody that I should know of and perhaps cultivate.
I don't know.
And what I realize now, five years on, is that in that period, a lot of people were infiltrated into our ranks, ready to undermine us now.
And very luckily, I'm not really a joiner.
It's because I'm so, partly because I'm so sketchy that I'm not very good at organizing dates and rendezvous and things like that.
But partly it's because I've never been like, what was that organization together?
Together.
Together.
Exactly.
Never at any stage did I have any inclination to join this outfit called Together.
I just thought, why?
I don't need to be told I'm together.
I don't need to be on stage with other people who've been designated my fellow leaders of the revolution.
What's going on?
I think you'll agree with me.
I was probably right to be to steer clear.
Yeah, I've got lots to say to that.
So when you talked about your journey, I was sort of, you know, like you now probably will have nothing to do with the mainstream media.
Like you just have to see in passing if the newspapers around or something like that or TVs on it.
If they asked me, I'd still do it just because it'd be quite good for the shits and giggles to appear.
Oh, yeah, but I mean, you don't sort of seek out the opinion of people in the media.
Yeah, you're not looking to see what they're telling you.
It hits you, maybe if you see the newspaper or whatever, or you see that the news is on.
Yeah, so it comes to you in passing.
That's what I mean.
Well, I was a bit the same for a long time.
I started to realize it wasn't telling me the truth.
So I was vaguely aware of you.
Like you'd see something like the Newsnight clip that's been going around recently where you talked about immigration.
Then in 2020, people were saying, because I was out doing this gazebo outreach where we set up a gazebo and give people information in Oxford.
People said to me, oh, you need to speak to, you need to listen to James Dellingpole.
And they said, Mike Yeden on, you need to listen to this.
Because people were sending you information all the time.
Like, you just got to funnel it.
And I was also trying to learn so that I could articulate in front of people in the street who would quiz you on, like, well, why do you think this?
Because the thing that you find when you take up an oppositional position is that you're required to know all the answers.
Whereas if you believe the orthodox view or the mainstream narrative of whatever the given subject is, you're not required to know anything.
You say, oh, you believe that, and that's solid enough and somehow on its own.
So I was out in the street trying to tell people that code wasn't real.
I was thinking, I need to remember everything Mike Eden said.
So I was listening to your podcast on a Saturday before going out.
And I remember the last time I was on it, I was telling you about dealing with people who were working in the labs and coming up to me with floral masks and stuff.
And one of the things was, one of the things they asked me that I forgot to say when I was telling you that story was, I said something about T cell immunity and how, because you're speaking within the paradigm, a lot of us already suspected, because if you're in the awake community, you were aware that there was this discussion about terrain theory and germ theory.
So we always suspected that there was no such thing as a virus.
But you have to play the game and like speak to people on the level that they're at.
So you're saying like, yeah, T cell immunity does this.
And they said, you don't even know what T cells are.
You don't know what antibodies are.
And I said, yeah, I do.
And it's only because I just heard Mike Yeden tell me on your podcast.
So I regurgitated what he'd said.
Fantastic.
And because of that, it shut them up.
You could see their faces drop because it's kind of like simple, elegant explanation that I'd memorized from somebody who actually knew what they were talking about in that respect.
But there's that side of it.
Then at that gazebo, to come back to your point about infiltration, we used to get people coming up.
And I was thinking about that recently thinking, look, think of the people that came up to us.
We had like Peter Hitchens, Gezer Teriani.
We had Kevin Corbett come to see us.
We had Paloma Shemirani, who we maybe can talk about later, like Kate Shemirani's daughter.
We had this guy who was a Freemason who was like, there was people coming at us all the time.
was more as well i've forgotten um it was very strange and then post like the lockdown period when i came to london in early 2022 and actually maybe earlier than that it was 2021 in those big marches i started to meet people but people who had communicated with me on facebook and found me invite me you need to meet us when you come to the march so i had the same experience as you like it was amazing you're meeting your people the energy was up there's thousands of people on the street whereas in 2020 the the the attempted demonstrations and protests were low in attendance
and you're a bit disappointed but it was okay at least there was something going on in 2021 it was riotous and like joyous and there was music and people and you were thinking look there's so many of us there's no way they can hold us back and you're thinking there's like this kind of really upbeat thing and the people who um got hold of me were like oh let's put you need to join a whatsapp group now who'd set up the whatsapp groups it was like james melville had set up the whatsapp groups this
so then in the group so you're in a whatsapp group then with all these like low level tv news kind of people like you know i'm not trying to dismiss any people everyone's done their best and not but they weren't a grade celebrities they were like low grade celebrities like you know like people and there's odd bunch in there dude like right said friend might be in there anti-eternic people like this you know just any whatever i don't know if i should say it actually because um
anyway well we like these people i i i yeah yeah i'm always careful to unless you know somebody's i i i assume that everyone is my friend and everyone is is an is an honest actor and they're in good faith and that they if they if if they're involved in something dodgy it's because they've is unwittingly but you're absolutely right i mean i don't know whether i should have james with a barge pole i don't i just don't know because
it can affect their work as i just realized as i was saying it but there was people in there like who who were known and people who weren't known like myself like it's a mixture of people and and uh and so so we um i i was just paying attention and obviously things
i was thinking i've got experience like i i felt i had something to offer in the group so so you can say it's you know egotistical but i thought i knew what was happening i was aware of things i was from the beginning so like you know maybe they'll listen to me and maybe if these people have got influence they can do something with what i've got to say and so i was contributing a little bit but then when melville and oak shot interviewed matt hancock and didn't pull him up on uh on anything they spoke to him about cryptocurrency things exploded and everyone was going at each other right so
i was thinking so as it carried on i started i started to contribute and say like you know i think it's this it's this world economic from a forum program it's a great reset um the vaccinations are dangerous uh these kind of things all the things that we think and it was very noticeable how immediately that would get shut down and also i was put in and someone said to me you need to maybe you should get involved with the together thing and i thought well i don't really trust groups but it's a way of getting involved and keeping an eye on things and maybe having an influence and meeting people and doing stuff and i'd come to london i thought okay well and
i kept went in there with that guarded kind of attitude and they hadn't they had no real use for me and i thought that's very strange they could have put me they could have asked me an opinion of anything but they had me like they'd got me to my you know just be the dog's body like move tables and stay out of the way and shut up basically stay out of the way and shut up basically byeologically bye But so, when in these groups I would contribute, there would always be somebody shutting down what I'm saying.
It's like it's like any opinion was allowed apart from the ones that I was volunteering.
And then you start to think, Am I being managed here?
Are there certain people allocated to quash the kind of things that I'm saying?
Or like, and when I really went for them in the groups, I went for them privately first, like before I left and I wrote articles about Together and Oak Shot and people like this and James Melville.
I went for them in the groups to see elicit a response and to see, I say, how is it that the people leading this freedom group don't seem to know what it is that we are fighting?
And really, it's like I went day after day for about a week.
I was just like a bit longer.
I was just going, I was answering everything that came up and I was just hammering them.
And it was amazing.
People started getting added to the groups who I knew personally, who I thought were my friends, to shut me up.
And I thought, well, that's interesting, isn't it?
Who are you?
Who are you?
Like, I thought you were my, I thought I knew you, and we were friends from the revolution.
And here it is, you're telling me to shut up when I'm telling the truth.
You're telling me it's too negative.
I think, what do you mean it's too negative?
There's people being injected and locked down.
That's negative.
Like, and if we understand it, we can do something about it.
And so I vacated that space and stopped seeing those people.
And I've seen something with the Lucy Connolly thing here, which we've got to get back to.
I've got some interesting things to tell you about Lucy Connolly.
But where it's happening again.
I'm looking at the people and I thought, oh, and it's like, oh, Et2, Brutus.
Yeah, no, this is how it works.
Is it?
Oh, this is what's happening.
You're coming out of the woodwork to shut us up because we're questioning something that we should not be questioning.
So, first of all, why shouldn't we not be questioning it?
And second of all, who are you?
Yeah.
It sounds like it sounds paranoid, doesn't it?
But I think when you've been in this game long enough and you've seen how the whole, how the world works, their main tool is deception.
And infiltration of groups which might expose that deception is obviously a key part of their mission.
Because we're the kind of people who point out that the emperor's got no clothes.
So they want to shut us down.
Well, if you think about this like I do, then you'll remember that over the past, say, in the 1990s, turn of the century, there were animal rights activists who were giving out flyers outside McDonald's,
whose group was infiltrated to the extent that police officers undercover, unbeknownst to the women involved, got into relationships with them, made them pregnant, they had children, and then the police officers ended their stint as an undercover agent and disappeared.
So all I'm saying is that if you consider that happened to animal rights activists giving out leaflets outside McDonald's, I think the stakes we're playing for here are a little bit higher.
So what you might then think is, oh, oh, maybe there's been some attempts at infiltration.
And if you consider that as a possibility, then you look around and think like, so for example, me wandering around in my little billy daydream at the moment, I might think, oh, there's no, there's no infiltrators in the movement.
They're all trustworthy.
They're all now, how likely is that?
And if they were, and if I'm wrong, thinking they're trustworthy, then you look at the same scenario and you think, like, when would I notice them?
Maybe you'd notice them if you started to question.
Maybe they would be activated to shut you up and use emotional measures, emotional manipulation to shut you up at the point at which you hit a hot button topic, which maybe Lucy Connolly is.
Yes.
Well, I think we should Running the risk of slagging people.
I don't want to do that.
I really don't.
I'm a kind of peace and love kind of guy.
So am I. So am I. So, like, here's the thing, right?
So, here's that's how they get you, right?
So, like, let's say, let's say we just talk about COVID.
So, take people out of it.
So, let's say lockdown happens.
We're all sitting there minding our own business.
The television comes on, it says, Oh, you've all got to lock down.
So, how do the so how does that um operation successful?
Well, it's successful because of the trust that we place in the people speaking to us.
We're innocent, we're as innocent as doves, and they manipulate that innocence.
And they also manipulate our unwillingness to accuse anybody of anything so unseemly as deception without sufficient proof.
So, then we override our instincts for self-preservation and for protection.
And that is how the whole game operates.
Now, if you think about this, if you zoom out, we're living in an information war, right?
So, the only way that they can, so the way that an information war works is between your ears.
And the only way they can get between your ears is by getting in your head.
And the ways that they get in your head is by the screen.
But if the screen is not working on you, how else can they do it?
How else can they do it?
They can infiltrate your friendship groups, they can infiltrate your society, your movement.
So, you have an emotional attachment to people and you bend over backwards to make excuses for them when they're openly irrational, openly siding with the forces that we shouldn't be siding with.
Yeah, it's why I've come to realize increasingly that the only people I can absolutely trust 100% are Dick and Helen, because they're my brother and sister.
But even Dick, I'm not sure about some of the things he said.
See, the flip side of what I'm saying there as well is that one of the reasons that I bend over backwards, because I turn things upside down every which way and think, well, that can't be right, and this can't be right.
And maybe if they think like this, it's because I've been doing it for a long time.
So, a lot of the people who took issue with me initially were friends and family, but they weren't compromised.
They weren't Freemasons, they weren't agents of the state, they weren't paid.
And as lots of people will identify this with this listening, is that over 2020, you saw how irrational, how blind, how angry, how passionate, how people's thinking was flipped upside down.
You don't have to be a knowing, witting agent of the state to take some of these positions.
But if you are somebody who has gone through the process of unpicking, say, for example, the COVID deception and realizing the extent of it and has had it explained to you and pointed out, and then still thinks we shouldn't be questioning, it becomes even more unlikely every time,
further down the rabbit hole you go, the further down, the further into our movement you get where you understand that they're trying to kill us, and you're still not prepared to trust people who have your best interests at heart when they're asking innocent and open questions.
And another way of phrasing that is that we don't live in a meritocracy.
Alex Creel, who has talked about this before, he's saying like it's the opposite of a meritocracy, which is the word for it.
It's a kachistocracy, right?
Kachistocracy, yeah.
So, what you actually have is that people like Miri, who predicted the COVID, who's put it public, and they're people like me who called it before it happened.
We're given no merit whatsoever.
We're given no let's put it another way.
Let's say if I was an my sister, my sister is, she's a languages teacher, so she can speak French and Spanish, Italian.
There's just no way that I would assume that I knew more French, Spanish, or Italian than her.
Like I wouldn't assume to be yet people don't apply the same merit to something that you've studied for 20 odd years.
You know what I mean?
And there's no concession given to the fact that you helped wake them up in the first place.
That doesn't make sense.
There's a real absence of logic.
And when you start looking at that, this absence of rationale, you start to think, well, why is there an absence of rationale?
It can only be that you're completely irrational, but yet in every other aspect, you don't seem to be.
Or there's something else going on and then it makes you suspicious.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Presumably you must have gone through phases where you thought where you suspected me of being an enemy agent or not really.
Well, what I do is I line up a profile.
So for you, your profile is like this.
Oxford educated and you've got like friends with Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and these people.
And then you're like, that doesn't look particularly good.
But you also have to look at what they do.
And so you look at things that they do and what they say.
And so the only way that you could be an agent at the moment is that is if there was some kind of state push to push people into Christianity.
But like the only, all the other evidence suggests that's not the case.
That ain't going to happen.
Or to push people into the wilder fringes of conspiracy theory.
Because I do pretty much embrace most of them.
Because I think that's the argument I've sometimes heard that my function is to make the truth movement look ridiculous by embracing positions so preposterous that I'm there to discredit the cause.
have to monitor people and also the truth doesn't what you start to realize as well i think for me anyway this works like this is that the truth is not so much um it's not always based on evidence A lot of people who say, again, if we refer it back to shared experience, who woke up to COVID, they didn't wake up with evidence.
And like most of the people were resistant to kind of, you know, the graphs and the, you know, it made it all Chinese to people, like, what is this?
Who cares?
You know, like, and if someone pulls out one source, the other side of the argument pulls out another source.
And you've got this morass of information that you can't make sense of.
You need like seven lifetimes to get the kind of expertise to dissect it.
We wake up, the truth has a different feeling.
And like you can sort of watch people.
Now, obviously, people are great actors and they can be deceptive and people get fooled all the time.
But I think we still have a thing, a gut instinct, a kind of an intuition that we can rely on.
And I think that's what woke a lot of people up ultimately.
Have you read just a complete digression here?
I'm currently listening to the audio book of Tolstoy's Resurrection.
I've not read it.
I can recommend it.
It's good.
But the reason I mention it is because the I'm not sure whether you call him a hero or not, anti-hero, who goes on a sort of heroic journey.
He's this dissolute Russian nobleman who was once very, very pure and in tune with his soul.
And he has this moment in his life where he realizes, what have I done?
And he decides to reject all the kind of the behaviors that he's learned from the world, from his military, his comrades and his carousing partners and all that.
And he realizes he needs to be in tune with his soul again.
i'm the same i i i tend to i'm not a details man I mean, I find them helpful for constructing an argument or a long read piece for Substack, whatever.
But really, it's much more to do with pattern recognition.
And this sort of, yeah, I suppose it is a gut feeling, which is actually that one knows what the truth looks like and what lies look like.
And you get better and better at it the longer you look at these various deceptions.
Yeah, I think it's true.
And also, like, for example, we've been talking about this Lucy Connolly situation, which is a bit of a, I mean, it's just a topic of the moment.
But as an example, there are other examples.
Miri is talking about this stuff.
And I think for me, I listen to Miri, and I think that's part of the reason for her appeal, right, in terms of she's quite useful for, I used to think anyway, that she's a woman, a lady, because if you're a bloke, it's like, oh, you can, people can be more aggressive in their criticism and dismissal of you.
And also, part of her appeal is like maybe it's quite matter of fact and she's quite friendly and there'll be humor in her articles, whatever.
And so you can sense from that that there's no doesn't feel to be an agenda there.
But what I'm trying to get to is so you set you're setting up the scene with who she is, is that the response to her then is outlandish.
This sweary, insulting, vicious attack on her is completely unnecessary and it's so extreme that it's unnecessary.
So people can just, I think you can feel from that that that energy coming from there as opposed to the energy coming from her is completely at odds with one another.
And I think sometimes you can tell, even in the way we're talking, like you can tell when somebody has the best interests of the listener at heart.
We're not trying to mislead anybody.
We're not trying to demean anybody.
And I think that is a key.
If you listen to a lot of the people who talk to you and in the movement, who are supposedly in the movement, listen to the tone in which they address you, whether they're talking to you like you're stupid, whether they're talking like there's aggression in them, whether there's a place for aggression and all these things, righteous anger and flipping over the tables of the moneylenders in the temple and all that.
But I think that's a key kind of a clue that we can look for when we're making our decisions about people.
Yes.
What interests me is about the attacks on Miri and on you to a degree, but for anyone questioning the Lucy Connolly narrative, is that they come from people who claim to be part of the awake movement, don't they?
They're certainly they move in awake circles.
They often participated in the marches or whatever and that they hang out at things like my brother's Third Wednesday thing, which tends to be for truth seekers, doesn't it?
And their line seems to be that you're dividing the movement by making us, by adopting these extreme positions which make us look stupid.
I suppose I've just written a piece about this saying, isn't By definition, to be awake means that you question everything.
Because you've gone on this heroic journey from normedom to awareness, in which you've realized that everything you've been taught about the world is potentially untrue.
So you've got to relearn the world anew, reassess everything, and question everything.
So it seems to me an illegitimate, an intellectually illegitimate position for any supposedly awake person to condemn another wake person for asking questions about what could plausibly be a sil.
It doesn't compute.
You cannot be awake and have a go at another wake person for asking difficult questions, can you?
I made a post a long time ago about this and just listed some of the things that people have said to me.
You know that song, 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover?
I put like a title on it, like 50 Ways to Shut Up Your Brother.
Not that it was my brothers trying to shut me up or my family.
It was just people just trying to shut me up.
So I just put all the things that people said and people come out with all.
So what I'm getting to here is the principle.
So if there's a principle, and people agree that that principle has to be like, so if a person in the awake movement thinks it was okay to question the numbers of COVID deaths, whether Boris Johnson was supposedly ill in hospital in St. Thomas Hospital in March 2020 at the same time as Matt Hancock and Prince Charles supposedly tested positive for a disease that doesn't exist.
If it's okay to question those things, then you've established the principle that it's okay to question when people are victims of an illness or people are supposedly dying.
So once that principle is accepted and established, then you can apply it to the next news story.
So the institutions and agencies that tried to kill you and try to crush your businesses and try to get you to inject poison into yourself, if they are doing those things for starters, they're by definition questionable.
So when they do the next thing, we have to assume that it's not in our best interest and it's okay to question them.
Now, if you accept that questioning is permissible for any given topic of your choice, whether it's the Manchester Arena or the lockdown or the vaccines, then when you shut down questioning for another topic, you're denying the principle that allowed you to see through previous illusions.
And therefore, you are, by the definition, no longer an agent of the truth.
So what the hell are you doing?
Why are you doing this?
Like, you need to explore it.
You've put it better than I did.
They would say, they would say, oh, well, you can't be cynical about everything.
You can't live your life not believe it.
Let it do.
Not everything's a conspiracy.
Have you heard that one?
Not everything's a conspiracy.
And yet, so then you have to say, well, I totally agree.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
And the only way we can establish what it is that I'm being told whether it's true or not is by questioning it.
So like if the idea, the idea that I'm trying to formulate my thoughts as we go here, this idea that we can't question certain topics or that not everything is a conspiracy, it's almost as though I just lost my train of thought there.
I had something for you.
But anyway, it'll come back to me.
Well, whenever they say not everything is a conspiracy to me, I say, okay, name one thing that isn't.
I can only come up with horses.
But even that I'm not sure about.
No, here it is.
This is what I think.
This is what I think.
I had a thought and it's come back to me.
So you've got people and they'll say, I think it's because If you do the research, you start to find out that lots of things are conspiracies, whether it's the moon landings, 9-11, 7-7, Manchester Arena bombings, Orlando shootings, the La Von Affair, King David Hotel, Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, USS Main, you go through them.
Lots and lots of major incidents are presented in a way that they're not as they have been presented to us.
Now, people who don't look into them too much, they don't have a way of establishing truth.
So they get very shaken potentially.
This is with the best will in the world.
I'm speaking here now.
This is as though they're just not agents or in the service of the state.
Their foundations are threatened then when you start to question things which they think are true because they've not done the research to establish truth.
So they have no other way of establishing truth because they never do the work that puts framework that puts the foundations under their belief system.
So if you start to take away the foundations, which are maybe the newspaper or the alternative media or whoever it is that they rely on to provide them with the foundation to their paradigm of reality, if you start pulling at those things, they get very threatened.
So what they're dealing with is somebody, in my view, who is empirical, who will question and has their own way of working out what the truth is.
And they'll say to them, they'll say to that empirical person, oh, you think everything's a conspiracy?
Because if you question a given story like Lucy Connolly or something like that, which they've attached to belief systems, they have no way of working out what's true in the world once you remove that because they don't do research.
They have like a topsoil awareness and they just sort of stumbled across the idea that COVID was a lie or something like that.
So it's very, it's potentially very threatening, but that's giving as much leeway as I can to these people who are exploding in our movement about this story when they could just leave us alone and let us question it quietly and not draw attention to us.
And she'll be released officially on August the 21st and it's no big deal.
I tell you what's actually not that interesting, mildly interesting about the Lucy Connolly thing is that I've got this I've got this Telegram channel and I think people are quite good at spotting infiltrators.
I got rid of another one the other day and he annoyed me ages ago.
I just thought this guy's a wanker and the only reason I'm going to let him stay is because I'm nice, but he's a wanker.
He just doesn't fit in.
And it turned out that he'd been to meetings and everyone else had thought he was a wanker.
wouldn't give his real name and stuff like that he was just like so you can sense you you after a while you you detect um but nobody in our group had even thought to discuss the issue of lucy connolly as a real person did that it was It was just like, we get exercised to think about things, but had Lucy Connolly been real, we would all have been going, well, this is just ridiculous.
She's just a how can the government do such a thing to imprison this?
I've got to come in here first.
What's the Nicola Bully?
Yeah.
I've got to come in here because I've got to tell you, I've got to tell you my interesting thing quickly, just before you go too far with that.
So just so you've got the full before we make pronouncements, because I went to Nicola to Nicola Bully, to Lucy Connolly's house the day before yesterday.
And I knocked on the doors in the street and asked people what they knew about her.
So I just went, I thought, because we've got to get to the bottom of this.
We need to know, like, because I don't, this is the thing, right?
In reference to what I was just saying about empiricism, I'm not here to mislead people.
I'm not here to tell them things that aren't true.
I'm not here to like, I've got no agenda.
Like, I couldn't care less.
Like, I'd rather get back to my painting.
I'm writing some articles just so that next time it comes around, I can just say, or next time I have the argument, I can say, look at these, there's the moon landings, there's my article on that.
You can have a look.
Now, just shut up and leave me alone.
I've had this conversation a million times.
Whatever.
So I don't care.
I don't care if she's real.
I don't care if she's fake.
I'm just going to go knock on doors and find out.
So I knocked on the doors.
Next, I started with the doors and either she's number 32.
I knocked on number 30, number whatever the other side is.
And the lady said, I said, I said, I'm just an independent journalist and I've just come to, I'm aware that there's a year anniversary of the Southport thing coming up.
And I'm aware that Lucy Connolly is coming up for a year and she'll be released soon.
And I just wanted to write an article and just looking for some positive comment about it.
And she was like, she didn't want to know.
And she said, they were good neighbors, my duck.
They're good neighbors.
And I was like, okay.
So she sort of shut the door on me and went to the next one.
And she said, yeah, yeah, we knew them.
Just say hello to.
But I'm going out now.
And the husband said to me, No, we don't want to talk.
Who are you anyway?
And he said, So I went around, but the general gist of it was people knew her to say hello to.
They would say, Oh, yeah, I waved at her.
I said hello.
She used to say hello.
If I was in my garden, she'd say hello.
I don't really know her.
And then there was one lady who was getting into a car just as I started asking that, knocking on doors.
And she said, I said to her, Did you know Lucy Connie?
And she said, What do you want to know?
And this was my first question.
I hadn't got my spiel down, basically.
I was figuring out what to say.
And I said, Well, you know, just did you know her?
And have you got anything nice to say about her?
Was she a nice good neighbor to you?
And she said, Yeah, it's fine.
And she was like, But people were like a bit annoyed at you.
And I think another guy said, I've given all my statements to the press already.
They've been around already.
And I thought, well, that's strange because I've been looking for anybody who knows anything about her.
And I've not seen any quotations from anyone in the press about, so I don't know where your quotes have gone and your interview went with the press.
So he didn't want to speak to me.
Anyway, the lady in the car, as I do my rounds on the doors, she went away, maybe to the shop or something, and then came back.
And then suddenly she was quite happy to speak to me.
She went, hello again.
And I was like, hey, hello.
And she said, and she was talking to it.
And she told me that she'd lived there for, I think she said, 50 years.
She was 90.
She didn't look 90.
She was really able.
And she was saying, she said, yeah, she said, I remember the two boys there.
And she said, and then after that, maybe they went to live with their mum or something.
And then they had the little one.
And I said, did you meet the little one?
And she said, God, he was just a tot, you know.
And so I don't know if she ever laid eyes on the little baby who supposedly died in 2011, I think.
But she knew all about the story.
She said it was NHS negligence.
And then she said, and you and the daughter, and the daughter's not been around recently.
She's not seen the daughter.
Nobody had seen the daughter recently.
So I'm just telling you what they said.
I'm not attaching any angle to it.
She said, she's not seen the daughter for a while.
And she's talked to me lots of, she basically had, I got this sense of the quite an innocent, sleep, not sleepy, but just normally kind of street.
And she had decided everybody was basically on side with Lucy.
They felt that she'd been harshly treated.
They thought that immigrants were a problem.
Lucy was saying what everybody thought.
And there was a guy on the other side of the road.
There were two incidents on the other side of the road.
There was one where a young woman answered the door.
So she might have been, I don't know what her age was, 18, 20.
She was just a young woman.
She opens the door and I said, My spiel, I'm and she went, mom.
And I could see a mum through the door into the kitchen.
She was just sitting in the kitchen in a sort of open plan.
And she said, it's about Lucy.
And the mum said, I'm not saying anything.
So I said, oh, it was going to be positive anyway.
And then I just left.
And then the next, the guy further down the street, both him and the older lady, the 90-year-old lady, both seemed to, they said they knew Ray and they spoke to Ray occasionally.
But I couldn't get anything like, for example, when Abby Roberts got arrested, if you'd have got in touch with me, I would have been able to say, yeah, then the police said this to her.
And then I know that was an incident that happened right in front of me.
It wasn't on the screen, like Lucy Connie.
There would have been something that made it tangible that I had first-hand experience.
Like, oh, yeah, I just spoke to Ray the other day, or he said this, or I didn't get any of that.
I got the sense that people said hello to her, and that the people who maybe knew her didn't want to speak to me.
And the people who didn't really know her just said, Oh, yeah, she was a nice neighbor.
I saw her said hello.
And I'd say things like, Do you remember her, what do you call it?
Child mining business said, With lots of kids coming and going all the time, she's like, Yeah, yeah, like all the killers, all the colours in the world, like all the countries in the world.
She's not racist, she looks after all the kids in the world.
But that again is something that's in the newspapers.
So, I couldn't make so my sense coming away from there was that, okay, unless I've just stumbled onto a street of masons and like a whole like world of deceit.
These people are telling me that she lived there up and for like a given number of years and up until August of last year, and that they used to see her and say at least to say hello to.
They saw her to say hello to.
So, that's that.
And then, so obviously, where I came home and I thought, well, that's interesting.
And I typed in tech in Northamptonshire and Freemasonry into the internet.
And it's like this big hub of Freemasonry.
It's the oldest lodge in the country, and it's the Duke of Kent who's the head of it.
And I was like, So, so, so all I'm saying is that so.
Then, then you've got to look at it.
And again, I'm not trying people can make their own conclusions from this.
I sort of make a list in my head, okay?
The whole thing is real, and then the agenda is to just make people scared of tweeting, and or it's like that, or it's a you know, conspiracy theory honey trap, like, oh, everyone says she's not real, and then they just say, Oh, she is real.
And then you can look at the next level, and it's maybe okay, she's been given £150,000 in a fundraiser, and so maybe she's playing a role, but she was real up until August.
Or then you go to the more crazy ideas, like, well, maybe she's not real, and you know, or maybe she's died, or they've adopted her identity, or something.
You just don't know, but like you go through each of the possibilities without any bias or any separate consideration.
But the problem we have, just to finish, and this is the key thing, is that whether she's real or not, there's something very weird going on.
Because when, for example, Miri highlighted the fact that she's been doing 100 tweets a day, or that some of the photos of her were AI, or that there were mistakes in the husband's accounts, you get this vituperative, vociferous response of all these like accounts.
And there's been another one today where she's posted pictures of her.
And there's these two pictures that somebody, a supposed online friend who's been on a night out with her, supposedly, and it might be true, but it doesn't look true.
And she's posted separately at two different occasions, these photos on this night out.
So, I've been quite sort of visual, and I looked at it and thought, well, those dresses aren't the same.
So, I just had the same shoulder area of the dresses.
And I zoomed in, cropped it out, put them next to each other, and analyzed the pattern.
And they're not the same, but they look fairly similar.
But it's the kind of mistake an AI would make if it was faking pictures.
Then you've got to think, well, why would you put fake pictures of somebody real on the internet?
But the agenda that seems to be being pushed all the time, like today, Calvin Phillips has been saying that we need to take or we need to take a civil unrest is the only way to change this.
They seem to be pushing people all the time towards like some incendiary moment where they create unrest.
They're trying to stir up unrest all the time.
And so the only way you could do that really is if something happened to Lucy in prison or if they didn't let her out, because if she's on good behavior, she'd be let out after 40% of her sentence was served, which is coming up in August, the 21st, according to Alison Pearson.
That's the date given for release.
And so as I say that, I realized there's people online who purport to be her friends who are saying that they've kept the release date secret because she just wants to slip away quietly.
And yet Alison Pearson's put it in the Daily Telegraph.
So lots of these accounts aren't making sense.
And so there's something very fishy going on.
And it's up to us then to discern what it is.
Yeah.
There we go.
Yes.
I see this all over.
It's almost as though they, the people in charge of the deception, are getting a bit frustrated that despite poking the wasp nest with a stick, the wasps have yet to emerge from the nest.
So they've given us this story about this sort of freedom-loving, immigrant-concerned person who just says what she feels briefly about three murdered girls and then deletes it.
And yet she goes to prison.
And you can see the story's been calculated to inflame people.
And I see that there's a story about Tommy Robinson in the newspapers today and all these.
It's – we're being – the media is trying to work us up into a frenzy of outrage and provoke riots.
I think both you and Miri have pointed out that even the riots that supposedly were caused or what followed her tweet, Lucy Connolly's tweets, they were fake too.
They never actually existed.
We were told there were riots, but there's no evidence they ever happened other than the claims made about them.
Yeah, up here in North London, I know a shopkeeper at the top.
And he was saying – people were saying to him, are you going to shut your shop?
Because he's brown.
He's like, oh, are you going to shut your shop?
And like, you know, because you're worried about the far right coming to town.
And he's like, I don't think so.
I'm not shutting my shop.
And then it's just like a bunch of – you know, the anti-fascist, the sort of liberal blue-haired brigade turned out.
There was no – there were like two guys with a St. George's flag and they were, you know, mild.
And he said it was fear-mongering.
It was exploded beyond all – you know, it had no basis, basically.
But the thing that I find interesting about the Lucy Connolly thing, the thing that's piqued my interest is this.
See, my method has been to point backwards when the evidence – because obviously, you know, fools rush in.
And if I make a mistake about a given story, then I get to be an idiot conspiracy theorist.
It doesn't matter how many times the media lies to you.
If I make one mistake, that discredits me for life, you know, in some people's eyes, right?
So they'll hold it against you and bring it out as a trump card in 10 years when you're talking about something else.
So from my articles and from my – when I'm doing podcasts or interviews or whatever, I tend to speak about things that we have evidence for.
And I point backwards and say, like I just did, I gave you a list of false flag events, not Pearl Harbor, et cetera.
And so what I find very intriguing and kind of exciting is the sense that looking backwards, you can prime people to recognize that they're being deceived on a continuous basis, a consistent basis, which is really helpful.
If they can recognize that, then they might not get injected.
They might not fall for the next thing, whatever.
But what Miri does is quite brave.
And she makes predictions based on the ongoing trajectory and on the agendas that we know exist.
So then you think one of the kind of frustrations of being in our position as we are now is to watch these agendas unfold.
You've watched them roll out and look around like bereft as everybody falls for them over and over again.
So very rarely, very rarely, if ever, I don't think I've had this opportunity before, had the potential to stick a stick in the bicycle spokes.
So if this is a possibility, I don't care if it's not, I'm just going to take the possibility that it might be the occasion when I can do this.
Like, and so I'm, so that's why I went up to Northampton.
That's why I wrote to her.
I've put in a freedom of information request.
I'm thinking if this is an agenda that I can put a spanner in the works and this is my one opportunity, I'm just going to take it because I've not had it before.
Like, and if I'm wrong, I couldn't give them monkeys.
I've got like a backlog of articles that are all sourced and footnoted, but boring as hell to do in some ways, like that people can look at.
And like, and if this is my one mistake in the past five years, that's fine.
I'll take it.
But I just think it's, it's, it's good to go.
There's that Karl Rove quote about like, um, we're an empire now.
And when we act, you know, you'll be left to study it as, and watch what we do and study it.
And so I think, oh, you're so annoying.
So annoying.
I don't be following these people's slipstream.
Who wants to be following these people around, picking up the evidence after them?
Like, you know, Inspector Clouseau, forget that, get the frigging, the stick in the spoke and watch them fall off the bike or something, just something, anything.
So I'm just taking the opportunity.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I, I, I agree.
Um, I, sorry, I, I couldn't help.
I doubt I'm not familiar with, with, can you give me the, the, the, the very short version of what really happened at the King David Hotel?
Oh, right.
So you've got the British in Palestine.
I think it's 1948.
And so they want to get rid of them.
So the Israelis blow it up, but they blame it on the Muslims, I think.
And then it's, it's a false flag event.
Oh, I see.
Oh, oh, okay.
Fine.
I, I, I thought, I thought you were going to tell me that it wasn't, um, Egon and the Stan, the Stern gang, but it was, it was the Stern gang.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, that's kind of why, but it's openly known now.
Yeah, it's openly known now.
So it's not even, it's, it's so much, it's, it's a false flag.
That's like a, just an open flag now that everybody knows that they did this.
And, and, and, and yet when you accuse them of doing something else, like this, if you accuse the Israelis of doing something else now, you're like, that's anti-Semitic.
They'd never do that.
You're like, well, they, they had to be dancing Israelis on 9-11 watching it from New Jersey and filming it.
And openly said they'd been sent there to document the event.
And you're like, well, there's kind of evidence that you've got the Levon affair, where they did the same sort of thing.
They were blowing people up or they had plans to, and they were going to blame it, um, on Egyptian Muslims.
You mentioned, you mentioned Paloma Shemarami, which I've got to be, I've got to be very careful about because, because members of my family, um, are friendly with, with some of the, um, some of the, the people involved in this.
And I've, I've had Sebastian on my pod twice in the past when I was more of a normie, but I have to say the whole story stinks in that.
If one were, if one were to create a PSYOP designed to make natural cancer treatments look dangerous and ridiculous, and to marginalize all alternative treatments to the kind of the Rockefeller medicine techniques, then this, the PSYOP would look very much like the one involving the Paloma Shemarami.
What, what, what, what, what were your impressions when you met her?
What was the story that you, you got?
Oh, well, this was back in Oxford.
I was on the gazebo, like just in the square and, and this, and people would come up to you all the time.
And they'd come, sometimes come up to you sheepishly and then just give you a mouthful, like, and it's like a, of abuse or disagreement or something.
So you're never quite sure what was coming at you.
So this young, like well-presented student comes up to me and, and she, I don't know what she's going to say.
And she says, I agree with you.
And so we get onto the, I said, oh, that's good.
Yeah.
And speaking to her.
And then she asked my name and ask her name and it's outside.
So I can't remember exactly why, but like there was, I didn't hear her say her surname, but she looked at me when she said it.
And I clocked at this look and I thought, what did that look mean?
And, um, so I heard, uh, you know, uh, Paloma.
And then I was thinking, so we carried on with the conversation and later on she dropped in.
She said, well, that's what my mom says or something.
And I said, okay, who's your mom?
And she said, and she said, Kate Shamarani.
I said, oh, is that why you looked at me funny when you said the surname?
Because she was looking at my reaction, because even at that time, I think Kate Shamarani was a kind of a polarizing figure a little bit.
People weren't sure.
And I knew, I know that because we went to some of the, um, went to the first March, uh, they weren't Marches that, they were just in the Trafalgar Square.
I think it was one in August, about August 21st in 2020.
And David Icke spoke and Kate Shamarani was on stage.
And even then she was quite polarizing.
She was quite, um, she wasn't gentle in her presentation of the facts for normies.
She was like, yeah, this is, this is the vibe I got.
So she, she presented, if you're watching that sympathetic to a lot of people.
Yeah.
And she was also, yeah, it wasn't sympathetic.
That's probably the best way of putting it.
She wasn't sympathetic to the fact that, that this is, it would be a shock.
This information, you have to bring people out slowly.
And like, you have to, you have to give them something that they can, where they can, you can bring them on site.
It's why I'm always trying to do evidence-based things.
Like, and today I've like, maybe shot my mouth off a little bit, but you're always trying to pull people around with, okay, let's love a look at what we agree on.
And she was like, bam, bam, bam.
And I was thinking, that's not going to, I was thinking, that's not going to go.
I think you might be right about that, but it's not going to go down well.
Um, so it was interesting that this, this young lady in front of me was quite, uh, and she agreed with a mom and she seemed to, and I thought, well, that sort of gives you the sense that she, a mom might be, you know, genuine.
And I asked her about her brothers because I was already aware about the brothers being on TV, uh, slagging the mom off.
And she was like, you know, um, she disagreed with the brother and she thought it was a silly thing to do and he'll probably regret it and this kind of thing.
Um, but this is like one conversation that I had in 2021, like a long time, like, so.
so it's hard to remember everything but i did remember it i remember being there was something about it that But as I say, people used to come up to us at that gazebo and, you know, if you want to, again, you can look at it as that was just a genuine interaction that I had, or you can look at it that we're in an information war where they're constantly trying to get between your ears and control what you think.
And it could have been seeding in some way for this story because now I'm speaking about it.
Like I can vouch for it that she was a real person that came up to me and whatnot.
She was visiting Oxford from Cambridge.
I think she might have been visiting a boyfriend from memory.
And yeah, and she told me she was from Brighton and whatnot.
So I got the, so when I heard, this is what was puzzling for me is that when she died last year, I didn't hear about it at the time.
It was like a month or two later, maybe six weeks later, I saw Kate Shimirani on a podcast that I watched by chance because I'm not really into like Kate Shimirani's output.
And she mentioned that her daughter had died in the middle of it.
And I thought, well, that's crazy.
I met her daughter and I was looking up and I couldn't find any listings of her death anywhere, like no newspaper report.
And this is someone who was Miss Brighton.
She was in the newspapers when she passed her A-levels.
She's been in the newspapers like competing for Miss Brighton.
So I couldn't find anything.
So I thought that's strange that it's not even come around the networks on the Telegrams or the Freedom news.
And I thought that was strange at the time.
And then suddenly they're reporting it like crazy a year later.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was an operation.
But I don't know.
I have no evidence for that.
I'm just, as you say, if you were going to create an operation that was to polarize people and create division in the movement, that was also going to polarize people in the wider world where you've got people supporting the orthodox medicine against and vilifying and criminalizing.
The other thing that's very peculiar about this story is that she's a 23-year-old educated woman, a Cambridge graduate, and they're speaking about her like she's a minor.
Like her mother has captured her and taken her away from people and she's not been able to make her own decisions about her hospital treatment.
She's a grown woman with her own mind who can make any decision she wants to.
And then, so I don't know, the whole thing is very strange.
And recently did the Daily Mail made another one of these mistakes like they made in the Lucy Connolly story where Kate Shemirani is listed as having four children and she's got two daughters.
And the Daily Mail says she's got three children and they seem to speak about it as though they only have one sister, but they've got two sisters and one of them supposedly died.
So it's a very strange storyline.
To me, one of the rules that we use to ascertain these things is for me, and it's worked.
This is the thing about looking at things in the past.
When things have blown over, when you can get a sense of things and what trajectory and what they, it's easier to do looking backwards, right?
So, and having done that a few times, like with lots of operations over the past, like with a 7-7, if you know about 9-11, as soon as 7-7 happens, you think, well, that's weird.
And then something weird comes on the radio about, oh, yeah, we're running drills at three of the stations that happened.
And what are the probabilities of that?
Well, that's ridiculous.
like getting struck by lightning three times on the same day okay well that's kind of a bit you can say you can say your gut feeling or without all the evidence to support your opinion it's probably this is something fishy about this seven seven story from the get-go right So I've got the same feeling about the Kate Shemirani story.
I can't put all the scaffolding underneath it yet because it's not there.
It hasn't happened yet.
But when you listen to Sebastian online and he's just talking, I listened to his, he gave some speech, like he sort of introduced himself with like 40 minutes, 30 minute speech on a Twitter live.
All he's doing is basically using this story to hit agenda talking points all the way through, all the way through.
You're thinking about shutting down online discourse, shutting down alternative treatments for health and stuff like that.
So I've been watchful of this story.
I mean, and the other thing, just to finish, is that how it relates to Lucy Connolly is that the other day there was, Miri has that phrase about if you know the name, they're in the game.
So all these people have suddenly talked issue, all these people who are online talking heads have suddenly taken issue with this phrase and they're saying, taking it literally, like, well, well, clearly it doesn't mean that if I know my brother, that he's in the game, right?
Clearly, it doesn't mean that.
It's like, you know, and I think about it.
When clearly he is.
Yeah, but I mean, it's like any kind of thing.
He's going to hate being exposed as a spy.
Yeah, he's not going to like it very much.
It's going to blow his cover.
But if you have any kind of maximum and it says, like, oh, a stitch in time saves nine, people don't think it literally saves nine.
Or if I said, oh, the green-eyed monster came over me, they don't go, oh, well, you better tell me where he is.
I wouldn't like that to happen to me.
It's like people don't take like maxims literally.
Do you know what I mean?
But there's all these people suddenly appeared to take it literally.
And then you look at them.
And what else were they saying?
He was saying, this could be taken to question the Kate Shemarani story.
And I was like, well, why are you saying that?
You with like your Rosicrucian sort of illusion in your surname.
Your Rose Cross, Rose Diamond.
Ah, yeah.
And also, I have led a horse to water.
And you can make them drink sometimes.
What you've got to do is you sort of splash water over their nose and sort of they sometimes drink then.
So I mean, they've got a chance of drinking if you take them.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
We really haven't got the space, but I think we should talk about it.
In a way, this puts all this discussion into the context of why it really matters.
And why it really matters is this stuff, they do it to us all the time, not just about trivial things like whether or not you can tweet hurdy things on Twitter, but world wars that claim the lives of millions and millions of people in the blood sacrifice, which is basically what World War I and World War II were about.
They were satanic culls, weren't they?
For in the interests of the satanic elites, well, I'd say anyway.
But you've done a piece about the background to those wars, and it's extraordinary the degree to which a very small number of people were able to prime the populace into thinking that this war was inevitable and even justifiable and desirable.
Yeah, I mean, when we look at 2020, for me, you had a similar kind of operation on the go.
You don't need the whole cabinet.
What's quite interesting about looking at the First World War, I read this book, The Hidden History of World War I, and they'd gone through all the papers and the telegrams and they studied it.
And so I thought people need to know this.
So I've kind of condensed a lot of, and some other little bits and bobs that I knew or found elsewhere, and I've put them into this two-part article.
It was too long for one.
And I just list that, I've just gone through the parallels.
So, for example, the co-opsing of the media.
So, like, you've got one guy buys up the Daily Express and the Daily Mail and the Telegraph and the Times and the Sunday Times.
And so they put out all the anti-German propaganda, but it's happening for like about two decades, this sort of plan was happening before the First World War.
And the other thing they do was they try and incite war.
There was conflicting interests, like Britain and France in Egypt and Morocco, and Germany obviously wanted an influence in North Africa and the Mediterranean sea trade and what have you.
There's the conflicts in the interest in North Africa.
So they tried to use that to provoke war on a number of occasions, a bit like they had these kind of forays into provoking pandemics.
And although it was never quite likely to take off, they were able to sort of assess the responses of the public and think, okay, tweak it then, because we haven't got the right prime minister in France, or we haven't got the right response in France, so we need to wind that up a bit, this kind of idea that they need to go with war with Germany to take back Alzas-Lorraine.
And so they play on these parallels, and then you think, okay, what about the opposition?
Where was the opposition?
Well, the kind of powerful orator of the age is Lloyd George, and he emerges from like the Welsh mining towns or somewhere.
And he's the voice of the people, voice of the workers.
He's anti-war.
He opposes the Boer War.
He's pro-freedom.
And then the next thing you know, he's making speeches suggesting they go to war with Germany.
And the next thing you know, he's been shown the secret war plans, him and Churchill.
And the secret war plans are privy to only like how many it was, five of the cabinets.
So there's 13 in the cabinet who apparently had no frigging idea.
So like you've got, so the cabinet is, but these are the people that they are using are like the powerhouses.
You've got your average useful idiots in cabinet, but they don't, by the time it's presented to them, the other thing was that they, a bit like they did with medicine, they had all their figure, the placemen in place for medicine in 2020.
So you've got your Chris Witty and your Valence and your Hootie of the guy.
It doesn't matter anyway.
You know who they were.
And then in those in the pre-war years, in the pre-First World War years, they arranged for these guys to be in the Liberal Party.
And it was the King and the Conservative Prime Minister and the Conservative Foreign Minister who were arranging this prior to the election in which the Liberal Party got in.
And the Liberal Party was supposedly an anti-war party, but they made sure they had these three key placemen in there.
And that was enough because then they brought in Churchill and Lloyd George.
And then when they said, oh, look, they kind of shielded the cabinet because the cabinet was concerned about things like votes for women, you know, the suffragettes.
And they were concerned about poverty.
Let's get rid of poverty.
That's our agenda.
We're going to make everything good for the working people.
So they're looking that way.
And in the background, you've got, they've set up a war department where the military are liaising with the French and the Belgians.
The Belgians are supposed to be independent.
And so they've got this ongoing plot in the background, a bit like their pandemic scenarios, a bit like their war-gamed simulations that they ran from 9-11 onwards until 2020.
So in the background, they're surveilling Belgium, which they know is going to be the theatre of war.
But the Liberal cabinet and the MPs are clueless.
I was struck by this incredibly thick person that you mentioned who failed his Sandhurst exams five times, I think.
Was then given this posting.
And was it in 1906 that I think he went on a bicycle?
They knew that Flanders was going to be the battleground.
So he went on a bicycling tour to map out the future battleground in 1906.
So that's eight years before the war breaks out.
This is how much they plan things in advance.
And as you say, buying up the newspapers and putting in pro and anti-German propaganda, which is what we've seen in our newspapers for the last, well, since 2014, since the anti-Russian stuff.
And now we've got all this stuff about, again, Iran, they're so evil, the Mullahs, they want to blow us all up, they're crazy.
So it's like they prepare the ground and they then look for that they try and create opportunities.
Like you said, they they they tried to engineer something in North Africa.
But I can imagine nobody gave a shit about North Africa, what the Germans do in North Africa.
So so they then I mean, how they persuaded the public to buy the argument that because Franz Ferdinand had been assassinated by some student in Sarajevo, we therefore must go to World War One.
I mean, how are they persuaded the public to buy the argument that because Franz Ferdinand had been assassinated by some student in Sarajevo, we therefore must go to World War One.
How did they do that even?
Well, that was that was that they had had this plan, didn't they?
Because Austria-Hungary was allied to Germany.
So when you get Franz Ferdinand, an Austro-Hungarian prince or whatever, he gets assassinated.
That sucks.
Austria-Hungary has to do something about it.
So they did it very methodically and spent like three weeks saying preparing their response and investigating everything.
And they say, this is what we're going to say to them.
They need to behave themselves.
Because they've been provoked a number of times.
There's been lots of things going on.
So they thought we need to have some kind of diplomatic agreement here because this is no good.
We can't have our dignitaries getting killed.
But then the Serbs knew that they were backed by Russia and France and the UK because they're all part of this.
So they knew that they could just wind it up and say, and they wanted to reclaim territory that Austro-Hungary had taken off them.
So they just inflamed it and said, well, basically they told them to get lost.
And so Austro-Hungary has to then do something military.
Right, basically.
And so then Austro-Hungary has to get involved.
And before you know it, the whole thing goes up.
And Germany gets dragged in.
And the point is that Germany, the really key point was that Germany got dragged in, but they didn't want the war.
But once these huge armies started mobilizing and had these advantage of days in advance, even though they'd not declared war, these armies were massing on their borders.
They had to make a decision, like, are we going to go to war or are we going to just wait and see what happens when these armies get to our borders?
And so you can imagine the panic in Germany.
They're thinking, well, what the hell do we do?
So they had to declare war and then they declare war and they're the bad guy for eternity.
And then a lot of things happened in the 20th century because of that.
And did you, I've forgotten whether you established in your piece what the purpose of this, it was the Milner group, wasn't it?
It was people like Rhodes, who are the others?
Well, Lord Milner, obviously.
Yeah, Isha.
There's a few of them.
The German was involved.
Yeah, the kings.
Now, what's interesting is this is a good, really kind of interesting question because the way they frame it, when you look at this research in one of the books that I used about the hidden history, they're examining and showing that Germany was a kind of an innocent party to all extent and purposes.
But what's interesting from our point of view is that we look at it and see that the Milner Group and the Rhodes Foundation and the Pilgrim Society seem to want this Anglo-American power dominance of the whole world.
And so they think, okay, that's what they wanted.
But then if you look at it from our point of view, you think, well, would they be happy with what's happening now?
Do you feel like we're going to have an Anglo-American power in charge of the world in the foreseeable future?
Now, they obviously don't give a monkeys about the ordinary Anglo-American people because they killed millions of them in the two world wars, which were based on lies.
So you think then, well, because you think about the loss of knowledge and capability and heritage that went with all those millions of men that they could have, all the people or the children who didn't have fathers or the traumatized people who came home and the breaking up of that kind of sort of parental heritage,
that inheritance of knowledge and culture, it's hard not to look at everything that's followed subsequently as almost like to the detriment of ordinary Anglo-Americans or of the Anglosphere because they're kind of wrapping up that kind of culture.
They're kind of phasing it out of existence.
So it's hard to imagine that what I'm trying to say is there might have been a layer of conspiracy or evil above the Milners and the Rhodes because they think they're establishing dominance.
I think there has to be.
So I think, for example, everyone down the rabbit hole quotes that book written by the guy who was the historian at what I mean.
Oh yeah, Carol Quigley.
They hit the big tragedy and hope.
Tragedy and hope.
Carol Quigley.
Yeah.
Which sort of does it do reveal the method to a degree, but it doesn't really tell you why they do this stuff.
It's just a given that this is what the elites, for want of a better word, do.
And I agree with your point about that.
I mean, you could almost imagine somebody like Andrew Roberts, the historian, being quite pleased at the idea of an Anglosphere and that it's not something he would be too embarrassed to admit had taken place.
So the sort of the right wing might think it acceptable that Cecil Rhodes and a few conspirators wanted to remake the world in the image of the English-speaking peoples and perpetuate that for all eternity.
But I think you're right.
We're missing some details here.
And I think what we're missing is the satanic element.
I don't know how much you entertain this side of things or whether you don't go there.
No, I totally entertain it.
But I'm aware that when you speak to people, the idea of the supernatural is obviously frowned upon in our society.
It's like, well, they probably in the Anglosphere, but if you go to South America or Africa, it's everywhere the supernatural or India.
There's all kinds of, it's prevalent in the culture.
What I can tell you that I find really interesting.
So I wrote a piece on the money system and on the Federal Reserve and Jekyll Island.
And on Jekyll Island, where they had their secret meeting where they arranged the co-opting of the financial system for American and by extension, the whole world.
I found this little piece on it on a video where it talks about how you can still go there.
The cabins are fairly humble and they still exist and you can go and see the rooms where they had their meetings and whatnot.
They had their meetings, their discussions over a kind of or the whole compound where the discussions took place is an old sort of settlement and burial ground.
And they had it over a particular Indian burial ground.
No, that's the key thing.
It's not.
It's from a little country in the Middle East.
They say it's got connections to the Middle East.
It's on the east coast of the United States.
And so they had their meeting over a kind of an old human sacrifice.
That was it.
When the Spanish or the Europeans came to that place, they was disgusted by the practices at that particular place on Jekyll Island because there was child sacrifice and all that going on.
And that's where they had their meeting.
And they had it on the particular spot where the riots would take place.
I haven't heard that one before.
It's a good one, isn't it?
That is the best one I've heard since my other recent discovery that Ellen DeGeneres is Rockefeller's grandson.
Do you know that one?
I've seen the pictures where they put the picture next to each other.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But I say yours is even better.
And amazing and yet totally unsurprising.
Exactly.
Exactly.
But I had to watch, I was watching this long and boring video, and it was just at the end, and I was like, you said what?
And so I've linked to it in the piece I wrote about the Federal Reserve.
And yeah, it's a good one.
And you can watch it and you can look and you can see.
They show footage of the cabins and stuff.
They've got a glass.
I think from memory they've got a glass floor over it.
So you can see into the pit where they did whatever they did.
I really enjoyed this chat.
I think an hour and a half is good because I'm thinking it's time for my cup of tea now.
And my wife hasn't brought me one, as she sometimes does.
Otherwise, I might have gone on a bit.
So I'm going to have to go and make it myself.
I'm going to have to fend for myself.
But it's really been fun and interesting.
Thank you, Francis.
Where can people find your stuff?
I'm francisoneil.substack.com and I have paintings on francisoneil.net.
And thank you very much for having me.
It's been good.
No, buy Francis's paintings, everybody, and read his subset.
I can recommend...
The thing about World War I, it's a shocker.
You just realise what bastards are in charge.
Total bastards.
They're all just like.
Shockers.
People who've had a Rhodes Scholarship.
I wouldn't trust them.
It's a clue.
People who've been to Aurel.
I wouldn't trust them.
Yeah, there was a clue in the name.
So if you enjoyed this podcast, hello.
You can consider supporting me on Substack.
And do, actually.
I get the tiniest trickle.
I really appreciate when I get a new message from somebody saying, I finally, I finally bitten the bullet and decided to become, I've been freeloading too long.
I've decided to become a paid subscriber.
I really do appreciate it.
It's lovely.
You are appreciated.
It does make a difference.
It really does.
Especially given Substack and these places are trying to dissuade you from supporting people like me.
They range their algorithms, so it's a real faff trying to get the payments through and stuff.
I know how hard it is.
So when you do, I appreciate it.
Come to my events.
You'll have missed by now my summer event.
But I'll probably be doing a Christmas show if you can come to that.
And support my sponsors.
And what was the other one?
Oh, yeah.
Buy me a coffee if you don't want to do any of those things.
