Before I left Moscow, I exchanged with Vlad one of those manly Russian bear hugs, and expressed my fervent prayer that never, ever should our sons have to face one another in battle.

This was partly because Vlad is a 6 ft 5 in Siberian who wrestles bears - I’ve seen the video - and keeps a pet wolf (a black one, which he reared from a cub), and if his six boys are anything similar I suspect it’s going to be an unequal contest.

And partly because - have you seen the size of Russia? Are you aware how many natural resources they have? Have you factored in a Sino-Russian alliance? Do you know how much practice they’ve had of late in the kind of war we’d be fighting? - I think it’s a battle we’d lose.

But mainly it’s because there is not a single good reason on earth why we should be going to war with Russia in the first place.

The Russians are not our enemy. They are, as white Christians, our natural allies and soulmates. The only reason that anyone in the West even thinks it makes sense for us to be fighting our brothers in the East is because they’ve been brainwashed into acting against their own interests.

And guess who is behind that brainwashing…

Yes. That’s right. Our true enemies are not the Russians but the people who are doing their damnedest right now to engineer a war between us and the Russians. Call these people what you will: the Cabal; the Brotherhood; the Illuminati; the Powers That Be; the Predator Class; the Rulers of the Darkness of This World. They’re all the same thing when it comes down to it and they all serve the same dark entity.

Of course these people want Christian Americans and Christian Europeans and Christian Australasians dying in their droves in a futile and unnecessary war with Christian Russians. Christians killing Christians is the devil’s wet dream. His servants know this, which is why they’re working overtime right now trying to turn a little local proxy war in Eastern Ukraine into a properly acknowledged World War III.

One of their main methods for achieving this is through the use of misinformation and disinformation. In Britain, as elsewhere, the populace has been bombarded so relentlessly with stories about how plucky and noble and saintly the Ukrainians are, how vicious and ruthless the Russians are, how heroic and principled and role-model-y Zelenskyyyyy is, how oh-so-like-Hitler-but-probably-worse-actually Putin is, that they have been shell-shocked into accepting a narrative - ‘the Russians are baddies and they’re out to get us’ - that a moment’s thought would have written off as ludicrous.

That’s how propaganda works, and why it is so effective. It bypasses the intellect by appealing, though endless repetition, to the subconscious.

Even people who I used to think were clever because we were at Oxford together or because they have high-powered jobs in law or the City or who are name columnists in influential publications have succumbed to this drooling ‘Russia is bad m’kay’ idiocy.

Again and again when I mentioned to people that I was going to Russia I got the same reaction.

“Are you sure that’s wise?” as one of them put it. Which was a polite way of saying: “What the hell do you think you’re doing going to shill for the evil Putin? I suppose after a week’s being fed caviar and vodka by his public relations stooges and oiled and massaged by his honey trap devotchkas you’re going to come back and tell us that you’ve seen the future and it works, like the bloody useful idiot you are?”

Here is the first piece I wrote about my trip to Russia. Unfortunately, it is paywalled but perhaps you can find a way round this. If you can’t you’ll at least get an idea from the provocative headline: “Believe it or not, Russia is great.”

Because I was writing it for a Normie readership in the Spectator, I did so with the assumption that it would go down with my audience like a cup of cold sick.

I was not wrong.

One or two readers got it.

It feels so refreshing to read an article grounded in real experience, observation and insight, instead of just parroting propaganda. Great job!

(Thanks: Salome Vatsadze!)

Good article and a breath of fresh air. I am ambivalent about the war in Ukraine, to my mind, the protagonists, including NATO, are as bad as one another. However, this belief, in the West, that the Western way is the only way needs a swift reality check. Compare our crumbling, delinquent cities to those countries with a personal morality in their society. Their refusal to bow to the self flagellation of Western Wokery and hairshirt repentance, engendered by the corrupted lefty intelligentsia, then countries like Russia, Poland and a lot of our Eastern neighbours can teach us a big lesson in self-esteem.

(You’re a man of discernment William James-Allison!)

But many of the comments below were more in this vein:

Why does this great magazine pay Delingpole to write for it? He is a buffoon as this article shows. Those who frequent the Orthodox church in Moldova belong to a different generation and of course they believe in the old ways. But they will be gone in less than 10 years. Who should the country accommodate, the future or the past? The election has just told us which way the country wishes to turn. A cursory glance at Wikipedia would have told him that the church existed in the Soviet Union. He does the Spectator a great disservice and it’s high time it ditched him.

and

You sound just like Tucker Carlson following his “guided tour” of Moscow, James.
He’s a (useful) idiot too.
Check out the footage from the Ukrainian town of Bucha and revel in the trademark barbarism and savagery of your new Russian friends - who were all awarded bravery medals by Putin for the rape, mutilation and slaughter of innocent civilians.
And just like your colleague and man-child Leith, you think you’re being oh-so funny and clever with your contrived contrarianism.
You’re not. You’re just a pathetic, attention-seeking plonker.

With regards to the ‘footage’ from the Ukrainian town of Bucha: which footage and from what sources?

I looked into that incident in April 2022 and came to the conclusion that it was more than likely a psyop staged by Ukraine and its Western backers to discredit the Russians. Here is the piece I wrote then.

And here is probably the best piece of investigative journalism you’ll read on the subject, by Christelle Néant.

It goes without saying that the kind of people who call me a ‘useful idiot’ and a ‘pathetic, attention-seeking plonker’ aren’t going to waste their valuable time reading such articles. [I’m heroically assuming that they are real people and not just part of the intelligence community which, realistically, a lot of them will be. 77th Brigade and other branches of the state disinformation apparatus infest the comment sections like a bad dose of genital crab lice]. They know what they think about Russia and Putler already and they’re certainly not going to let their views be tempered by exposure to inconvenient counterarguments or facts.

Instead, they’ll just say what they’ve been programmed to say on these occasions. That this is “pure Putin propaganda.”

Now I don’t doubt for a moment that the Russians put out lots of propaganda. They did, after all, invent the term ‘Maskirovka’ - and Pravda (in the sense of the complete opposite of the truth) - and they had the NKVD and then the KGB and now the FSB. So I’m not trying to present the Russian state as a blushing bride, far more sinned against than sinning, whose word on everything is to be trusted.

But one of the differences between people from the West and from the East is that people in the latter, having had first- or second-hand experience of life under communism, are instinctively much less trusting of authority.

There was a good example of this during Covid, recounted to me over dinner in one of the many excellent and buzzing restaurants off Bolshaya Nikitskaya, by my friend Ian who now lives in Belorussia, but who spent some time in Moscow during the height of the scare.

Russia was certainly no bastion of bodily autonomy rights, anti-Big-Pharma scepticism or personal freedom during Covid. [Edward Slavsquat has reported on this a lot: eg

https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/sputnik-v-returns-to-earth?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

During ‘Covid’, Russia was no better than anywhere, with the state doing its damnedest to bully and blackmail the populace into taking the locally made version of the Covid kill shot, Sputnik V. One way it tried to do this - as in Italy and France - was to make vaccine certificates a condition of entry to bars.

My friend Ian discovered this when he found himself being denied entry to a sports bar to watch a football match. What he noticed, however, was that the bar was almost empty. Muscovites preferred to be relegated to the terraces outside the bars than to take this dodgy injection their government was trying to impose on them.

So the government’s next move was to insist on vaccine-certificates for the terraces too.

This lasted for about a week. No one bothered going out any more. The bar and restaurant industry was dying on its feet.

Not long after that, the city of Moscow rescinded its vaccine certificate mandate and life went back more or less to normal.

If only people in Britain, and the West generally, shared this bracing scepticism towards authority we would be in a much better state than we are now. People may protest that they don’t believe everything they hear on the BBC or read in the newspapers and that they don’t trust politicians. But these are mostly the same people who queued up for a hazardous, experimental drug procedure for no better reason than that they had been told to do so by their government and by some random ‘experts’ on the news.

It’s something I always like to keep in my mind whenever someone accuses me of being a gullible Putin shill: chances are they took the jab (if not several), banged their pots and pans for Our NHS, hung a blue and yellow flag outside their home because a coke-snorting ex-comedian in a khaki t-shirt was hailed as a hero by politicians they know to be serial liars, believed that the world’s most sophisticated intelligence-gathering nation was taken by surprise on October 7…

Being accused of gullibility by these people is like being called ugly by the Elephant Man.

As for the ‘shill’ part, I have no interest in taking sides and I owe my allegiance to no one (save Jesus). I’ll just go wherever the truth takes me. I don’t buy into what I call the “Hitler/Dogs fallacy”. That is, if Hitler says dogs make agreeable companions I’m not going to take the opposing point of view just because Hitler said it. [Here’s my full length essay on this theme. It’s a good ‘un].

None of this would matter, of course, if opinions didn’t have consequences. I would love to live in a world where people like James Delingpole could be right about stuff and where the majority of people - aka Normies - could be wrong about stuff, but where none of it mattered one jot because, hey, we can all agree to disagree. But that’s not the world we live in, is it?

Unfortunately, the one we live in is where Satan is the prince of this world; where a tiny minority of unimaginably evil people set the agenda; and where the only earthly thing that’s going to stop these creatures getting their way is if the majority refuses to co-operate it.

Really, that’s all we need to stop the Satanic elite’s masterplan in its tracks. We are many, they are few. If we all just say “No”, then it’s over for them.

That’s why - a point made by Ole Dammegard on our recent podcast - They put so much effort into mind manipulation. They know that dictatorship doesn’t really work. In the short term, maybe. But not in the long term because oppressed people are inclined to resist. No, the only truly effective form of tyranny is the version in which people imagine themselves to be free.

When I began my journalistic career in the late 1980s I was conscious of how lucky I was to be living in a country which placed such high value on freedom of the press, where journalists could speak truth to power without fear or favour - and with no danger of being bumped off or arrested.

I knew this, mainly, because articles by commentators I looked up to and whose prestige I emulated kept telling me that this was the case. This is how journalism works, by the way. Leading commentators regurgitate what previous leading commentators have written before them. Eventually these received ideas acquire the authority of well-established facts.

Since then, of course, I have become somewhat more sceptical of the integrity of the British press. It is - and probably always have been - a lie machine for the elites, designed not to inform the populace but to frighten them, divide them and mislead them.

This is what our media (and the Western media generally) have been doing for the last few years in their coverage of the war - or Special Military Operation, if you prefer, as I do because it annoys all the right people - in the Ukraine. And to be fair, they’ve done a very good job. At least they have to judge by the number of ‘informed’, ‘educated’ types I meet who, I get the impression, would have absolutely no problem if their government suddenly announced that it had declared war on Russia.

Unofficially, of course, the NATO states have been at war with Russia for years. I asked a senior Russian politician whether the West had engaged ground troops. Of course, he said, somewhat testily - like it was my fault, which I thought was a bit unfair. All the missiles systems and artillery are controlled by the British, Americans, French et al. Our various special forces are heavily engaged. Also, adding to what the politician told me, I hear tales from my children that their young officer friends in the Army occasionally boast about going off for exercises in “Poland”, with great emphasis on the inverted commas.

The Russian politician said: “Sometimes you will read obituaries of British, or Canadian or American generals who died in a skiing accident. They did not die in a skiing accident.”

Did any of us vote to go to war with Russia? Was it ever debated in parliament? What about the stipulation in the Bill of Rights that a declaration of war (other than to defend British possessions overseas) is constitutionally not Parliament’s to give away?

These are important questions, don’t you think? The kind of questions that any half way serious person ought to be asking if they wish to show themselves morally and intellectually fit to venture their opinions in the public square?

But none of our opinion-formers and opinion-relayers is asking them. They don’t even seem to be capable of answering more basic questions, like: ‘What’s in it for us?’

I mean, war is quite a big deal, right? And the kind of war we’d be committing our boys to fighting in Ukraine is especially horrible: like the worst of the World War I trenches combined, say, with that Tom Cruise future war sci fi movie Edge of Tomorrow.

The war has been transformed by drones which hover in their tens of thousands over the grey zone - the vast stretch of no man’s land between the Russian and Ukrainian front lines - where the bodies often lie unburied because it’s too dangerous to retrieve them. Any military asset of consequence - be it a tank or a concentration of infantry - is likely to be destroyed as soon as it tries to advance. Impersonal and relentless, the humming of the drones shreds the nerves of men on both sides. One veteran told me that he only has to hear the sound of a lawnmower to trigger his PTSD. Your life as an infantryman now depends on how quickly and accurately you can wield a shotgun to bring down the suicide drone before it explodes on top of you. A new kind of fighting has evolved, known as ‘trickle warfare’. Units advance in groups of no more than three men at a time, often riding electric motorbikes. Tanks are almost obsolete, only capable of moving if shielded by impenetrable drone cover.

Now this isn’t the kind of environment I’d choose for my sons spend their last days. Nor anyone else’s sons, for that matter. I think it’s tragic enough that Russian and Ukrainian boys are being fed into this meat grinder, perhaps a million of them dead, so far. But the idea that we in the West should add to that tally but throwing our own children (and brothers and fathers) into this overegged border dispute cum Cabal proxy war is depraved beyond measure.

Since when did we hold the lives of our people so cheap? Has anyone conducted any kind of cost benefit analysis? What exactly would we be hoping to achieve by ramping up a Third World War? What would our war aims be? What manner of existential threat does Russia pose to us that we should contemplate such drastic action?

And if it’s being done for ‘moral’ reasons, where is the evidence that we are the goodies? And given that thanks to our propagandising media and our lying politicians we are so pitifully ill-informed about the nature of the war and its origins, how could most of us form a worthwhile judgement?

The more astute reader may have spotted at this point that although this piece is ostensibly about the Russia/Ukraine ‘war’, what it really is is another variation on that endlessly frustrating theme: Why are Normies so incredibly ****ing stupid?

They really are, though, aren’t they? Yes. I know it’s unhelpful and demeaning and divisive lumping the mass of humanity into this contemptuous category. But nonetheless it is true and cannot be stated often enough.

Anyone in the West who think it’s in their interests to go to war with Russia has been taken for a ride by the propaganda of the Cabal. The Cabal loves wars. It needs them to perpetuate its disaster capitalism/fractional reserve banking business model.

See, eg, this summary of G Edward Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island:

5. War Profiteering Through Central Banking Central banks enable wars by providing governments unlimited funding through money creation, removing the natural restraint of taxation that would make citizens resist military adventures. The Rothschild Formula perfected the technique of funding both sides of conflicts, ensuring massive debts that generate interest payments forever regardless of who wins. Without the Federal Reserve, America could not have financed its involvement in World War I, World War II, or the endless Middle Eastern wars—all of which enriched bankers while impoverishing nations. Every major war since the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 has been made possible by central bank funding that hides the true cost through inflation rather than honest taxation.

But the Cabal’s interests are not OUR interests. The Cabal are Satanists. They rape, torture and murder children in homage to their dark gods. They loathe God and His creation, which is why they are so dedicated to poisoning, killing and enslaving us. Their most especial enemies are Christians who, thanks to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and the Church, are most attuned to the nature of the spiritual war being played out before us and now seeming to approach its apogee. So if these Satanists manage to engineer another scenario in which millions of Christians go to war with millions of other Christians - as They successfully managed in World War I and World War II - it represents a massive victory for them and their dark lord.

The West’s proxy war in the Ukraine against Russia is worth not an ounce of our treasure nor a single drop of our blood. The Russian people are our natural friends and allies, not our enemies. And though I really hate to say this and it’s a terrible way to end a piece and I promise that I’ll never do this again…

Sting was right.

People get very upset when you tell them Charlie Kirk isn’t dead. They get even more upset when you put ‘Charlie Kirk’ in inverted commas, the implication being that he was never a real person like you or me but just another of our Dark Overlords’ creative fictions, a so-called ‘lifetime actor', selected and groomed for a particular role, to be dispensed with as required.

But I don’t say such things in order to upset people. I say them because, to the best of my understanding, they are true.

CHARLIE KIRK. THIS TIME IT STILL ISN'T DIFFERENT
ALSO STARRING: CS LEWIS; JRR TOLKIEN; AND LUCIFER

There are lots of reasons why I don’t believe ‘Charlie Kirk’ is dead, why I think his ‘assassination’ was staged, and why I think the official conspiracy narrative about him being bumped off by Mossad is as fake as the official mainstream narrative about him being taken out by an LGBT plus activist. Most of them are covered in my latest podcast with Ole Dammegård, probably the world’s greatest expert in false flag psyops.

Here are some of them.

The heavy calibre bullet that supposedly killed Kirk would have taken his head clean off rather than merely causing a spurt of blood which somehow failed to stain his t-shirt and which mysteriously produced no exit wound.

The crowd of ‘students’ who witnessed the shooting did not behave at all as people generally do when under attack from unidentified - and totally unexpected - gunmen. They did not panic or dive for cover. Nor, mysteriously in an age when everyone uses their cellphones all the time, did any of them film the event, so that the only visual evidence we have comes from unidentified official sources.

The behaviour of Kirk’s security team was similarly mystifying. Not only did they fail to cover him physically after the first shot, but they also failed to form a defensive cordon about what could potentially have been multiple shooters. Then, against all protocol, they bundled the ‘wounded’ Kirk through the crowds and away into an unmarked vehicle. Where was the local autopsy as Utah state law requires?

The campus on which Charlie Kirk - Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah - has strong connections with both Freemasonry and the intelligence services; perfect territory for a psyop imbued with occult ritual.

The mainstream media story about the official suspect Tyler Robinson is clearly nonsense. For example, the Mauser hunting rifle that he used would have been impossible to strip down in the time claimed by the police. As for the unfired rounds found near the rifle, on which were engraved phrase like “If you read this you are gay LMAO'“ - these sound about as credible as the hijacker’s passport found amid the embers of Twin Towers.

The press conference given by FBI chief Kash Patel abounded with freemasonic code, designed to go right over the heads of the profane but to signal to the initiated the nature of the operation. It took almost 40 - no wait, 33 hours - before the suspect was apprehended. Patel later uttered the bizarre phrase “See you in Valhalla.” Valhalla is near the Goat Island marine reserve in New Zealand, an image of which was found on the alleged suspect’s computer.

The ‘assassination’ was prefigured in Snake Eyes, a 1998 movie starring Nicolas Cage, in which a US politician called Charles Kirkland is shot in the neck during a boxing match featuring a boxer surnamed Tyler (also the first name of Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin). In freemasonry, a Tyler is the senior mason whose job is to guard the entrance to the Lodge Room and maintain secrecy.

And don’t get me started on the antics - at the coffin, at the memorial service, at various press conferences - of Charlie Kirk’s supposed widow, Erika.

My list of reasons for doubting both the official narrative and the official conspiracy narrative on Charlie Kirk is by no means exhaustive, nor is it meant to be. For more detail on all this, I recommend first my chat with Dammegård, and, should your appetite prove insatiable, his website www.lightonconspiracies.com. All I’m trying to indicate, at this point, is that my scepticism about Charlie Kirk is not some edgy position I’ve adopted in order to win over more crazies but one grounded in evidence and common sense.

In fact, I’d say that the fakery surrounding the grand finale of the Charlie Kirk Show has been so blatant at times that it has felt like the people behind it actually want us to see that it’s fake. They’re mocking us.

To the people already annoyed by my claim that ‘Charlie Kirk’ isn’t dead this will be even more annoying still. What it implies, essentially, is that not only have they been hoodwinked by a psyop but they have been hoodwinked by a psyop so blatant and shameless that only an idiot could have been taken in by it.

Look, I apologise for any offence caused here. But please don’t shoot the messenger. If you are cross with me for pointing out that Charlie Kirk isn’t dead - oh, and that he probably isn’t even a Christian, either, despite what he kept telling us - it’s not me you should blame but the people running the world.

They, after all, are the ones responsible for making a fool of you. They’re the ones who hate you so much they refer to you as ‘cattle’ or ‘useless eaters’ or ‘the profane’, who want to kill, enslave, poison and immiserate you, and who gain their power over you by exploiting your innocence and fundamental decency and willingness to think the best of people.

And you know this. Well you certainly ought to know this if you’re spent any time reading my stuff or listening to my podcasts. It’s not as if my messaging is inconsistent on this score. In fact, I’m more in danger of sounding like a stuck record the way I bang on again and again about the kind of people who really run the world, whom they serve (Satan, obvs) and how they achieve it.

Deception is their primary weapon - inspired, of course, by the great deceiver himself, the Prince of Lies.

It’s hardly my fault, is it, that Charlie Kirk turned out to be yet another of their tricks?

Delingpod 11:Charlie Kirk - March 2019

https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Podcasts/Archive/show.php?slug=2019-03-15-charlie-kirk

Some years ago, when I was still barely on the cusp of Awakeness, I launched a Telegram chat group. Soon it had attracted an eclectic group of characters, many like me only at the beginning of their heroic journey, but one or two who had been down the rabbit hole for quite some time.

One of the latter commented under the pseudonym “Sunshineandlight”, an ironic choice as we soon began to notice because her posts were almost unrelievedly dark and pessimistic. But not in an unpleasant way. She could be spikey, yes, but I don’t recall her being aggressive or rude. Her style was more one of wearied cynicism. “Don’t you people realise that EVERYTHING is a psyop?” was the general tenor of her musings.

“Sunshineandlight” was an energetic, pixie-like woman who lived in Spain. I discovered this when she flew over specially to attend one of my early podcast live events. She wanted to vet me, she said: to see if I was for real or just another imposter. Apparently, I passed her test, which pleased me because I liked her and she seemed to me to have integrity and authenticity, even if some of her observations did strike me as a bit out-there.

I remember on one occasion her drawing my attention to a Miles Mathis post questioning the bona fides of CS Lewis. This struck me at first as completely bonkers: about the most comically paranoid inversion of the truth it would be possible to imagine. I was reaching just now for an analogy to describe how absurd it was and - piquantly and revealingly I think you’ll agree - the first thing that came to mind was one from my programmed Normie days. “It would be like suggesting Mother Teresa was a Satanist”, I almost said, before I remembered: “Er, hang on…”

Anyway, in the case of CS Lewis, I thought it really was ridiculous. Surely everyone knew that his Mere Christianity lectures were a masterpiece of Christian apologetics; that the The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe had, for generations, inspired children to find God through the medium of a wondrous talking lion; that That Hideous Strength offered one of the most persuasive accounts in literature of how evil operates on ambitious types desperate to join the “Inner Circle.” Also, damn it, Lewis was an Old Boy of my school Malvern (though a few years earlier than me and apparently he loathed it). No way could such a paragon of moral insight be a secret agent of the dark side!

My current position on CS Lewis - all my positions are subject to alteration because I don’t yet pretend to know everything - is that I’m agnostic. I feel the same towards Miles Mathis, whom I suspect not to be a real individual but a disinformation committee with Intelligence connections. But just because Miles Mathis (MM - there’s a clue) - is probably a spook (or spooks) doesn’t mean that there aren’t one or two gold nuggets to be found amid the bullion dross of his genealogy-heavy screeds. And so it is with his/their piece on Lewis.

https://mileswmathis.com/blarnia.pdf

Here’s one of MM’s observations that I found quite funny:

Despite the Aslan sacrifice scene and the appearance of Santa Claus, the books are otherwise stridently pagan, violent, and anti-Christian. Even the Santa Claus scene is doubly odd, since Santa gives the children weapons. I would expect Christians to be boycotting the movies as they did the Harry Potter movies, and for the same basic reasons. Not only do the books and films contain a lot of witchcraft, they contain satyrs and dryads and minotaurs. They contain animal worship. They contain the elevation of children over adults. They contain the glorification of war. Christians don't normally find these things entertaining. Christians boycotted Jesus Christ Superstar back in the 1970s: do you really think they would promote Jesus being replaced by a furry beast in the 2000s?

It’s funny because it’s true. You might decide after reading MM’s rambling, characteristically hit-and-miss takedown that you’re still very much Team Lewis. But there is enough in there, at the very least, to make you scratch your chin and go: “Hmm…”

Here’s another piece you might want to consider, by Veronica Swift.

VeronicaSwift.Blog on Substack

Occult Writers J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis

Read more

3 days ago · 21 likes · 24 comments · Veronica Swift

C.S. Lewis is named by John Todd, ex-Illuminati member, as a member of the Golden Dawn, also known as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Order of the Golden Dawn, or the Ordo Templi Orientis. The occult has a tendency to name, re-name and nickname their organizations, probably to cause confusion amongst non-members.

John Todd also names J.R.R. Tolkien as a member of the Golden Dawn, which was the 2nd individual James asked me about that I knew had been named as a Luciferian, but wasn’t quite sure who had named him as I thought back during the taping. When I went to my database to see what I could find, I was surprised at the depth of both Tolkien and Lewis’ involvement in the deep occult.

Again, you may decide after reading Swift’s essay - which is more by way of a ‘quick response to a podcast I’ve just recorded’ piece than one of her more heavily researched numbers - that you still think CS Lewis and his Oxford drinking buddy JRR Tolkien were absolute, out-and-out, cast-iron, copper-bottomed Goodies, totally on our side no question. That of course is your prerogative and I really don’t blame you for clinging to this life raft of hope. I too would dearly love to believe this to be true because, like Tolkien and Lewis, I’m a Christian, an Oxford English Language and Literature graduate, I drank in the same pubs they drank in (eg The Eagle and Child aka ‘The Vulture and Foetus’), I got quite into Anglo-Saxon, I often cite Mere Christianity when trying to prove the existence of God and I do like the idea of being able to shoot arrows as quickly as Legolas does and I didn’t half use to fancy Arwen.

What I don’t think is your prerogative - sorry, I really just don’t, for reasons I hope I’m going to make clear - is for you to shit all over anyone who advances a theory which threatens to knock CS Lewis and/or JRR Tolkien off the pedestal you’ve erected for them in your imagination.

Or, for that matter, the pedestal you’ve erected in your imagination for the late - at least, the allegedly late - Charlie Kirk.

Don’t all pile in on me at once. But I have my doubts about many aspects of the Official Narrative (TM) on Charlie Kirk: that he was assassinated for his outspoken right-wing Christian views by a mysterious gunman who left his calling card (as snipers always do because they love giving clues) by carving his Transgender symbols onto the butt of his rifle. [*Update: by a bright but misguided loner kid handed over to the authorities by his sheriff dad].

And also about the Official Conspiracy Narrative (TM): that of course it was the Israelis really, Mossad probably, because Kirk had made the mistake of defying his former backers by speaking The Truth about Israel/Gaza.

I’m not saying I know for certain what really happened. (Who does, unless they were involved in the planning?). But right now, in the absence of further information, I’m very much of the Miri AF persuasion that Yes. This was another psyop.

Read Miri’s take here.

Miri’s Massive Missives

Charlie Kirk: Turning Point or TV Plot?

When I studied in the States for a year, I'm slightly ashamed to admit that one of the highlights was having access to American Netflix, and the primary reason for this was that I discovered the '80s American sitcom, Family Ties, to which I rapidly became highly addicted…

Read more

3 days ago · 306 likes · 39 comments · Miri AF

And if nothing else, give her credit for her huge balls. Unlike a lot of ‘edgy’ commentators, Miri doesn’t hang about before piling in with her ‘insensitive’ opinion. She’s not afraid to be hated - and be spat on with phrases like “while the body’s still warm” - in the cause of being right.

Is it a real assassination?

I find this highly unlikely, for the same reasons I have outlined many times regarding various other high-profile "shootings" and "terror attacks", i.e., real events by their very nature are outside of the control of the ruling classes. They cannot wield complete control over a narrative they are not scripting, including and especially how the bereaved loved ones of the victims will react.

They need the loved ones to not only agree to speak to the media (many genuine victims of bereavement would refuse), but to do so in "the right way" and say all "the right things" to order that the desired agendas of the assassination are properly promoted (in this instance, one key agenda item could well be increased support for the death penalty - not just in the USA, buthere too).

Note that Miri’s scepticism towards the official narratives on Kirk (and much else besides) is driven mainly by pattern recognition. Mine too.

I’ve written about the importance of pattern recognition before. For example, in an essay I wrote in the aftermath of the October 7 Israel/Gaza incident.

Israel/Gaza: Ignore The Distracting Details. Focus on the Bigger Picture

James Delingpole

·

29 October 2023

Today I’m going to give you the definitive version of what really happened during the Hamas incursion into Israel. As usual, I shall be providing lavish footnotes and copious hyperlinks to relevant web pages, plus lots of insights supplied to me by high-placed sources within the intelligence, military and political community.

Read full story

Once you’ve looked into a few conspiracy theories - and worked out that they are all conspiracy fact - you start to realise that the people behind these events have what poker players call a ‘tell’ and what serial killers call their ‘naked disembowelled corpses arranged in a circle, their heads decorated with stag antlers and their genitalia with deadly nightshade pattern.’ That is, once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all because these ‘events’ all to a greater or lesser degree, evince the same motivation, modus operandi, and psychopathology.

This is why Miri AF didn’t have to wait days and days for all the ‘evidence’ to emerge on Charlie Kirk. She had all the evidence she needed in the form of historical precedent. They - the shadowy forces that run the world and do so mainly by deception - use the same techniques over and over again because these techniques work. And they’re not going to stop using these techniques just because one or two pesky noticers have started noticing them. Instead, what they’re going to do is discredit the noticers, secure in the knowledge that the majority of people will turn against those noticers in order to give themselves permission to go on falling for the same old tricks again and again.

What the perpetrators of these deceptions really want is you to focus on the detail. They want you to be nauseated by the horror of the blood spurting from the victim’s neck. They want you to be moved by the video the widow put up on the internet (as you do when your husband has just been killed) of herself kissing his dead hands in his coffin; and by the remarkably calm and articulate speech to the nation, eye make-up incredibly intact throughout, she managed somehow to deliver later. They want you speculating, feverishly, on the snippets of new information drip fed by the totally trustworthy media and by the no less trustworthy internet.

The sensory rush of information, misinformation, disinformation, speculation and rumour is all part of the plan. They want everyone to become an instant expert so that they start bickering with all the other instant experts about whether, say, it was a transgender activist or a Mossad hitman. The more they can get everyone focused on what didn’t happen, the less likely it is that anyone will wake up to what did probably happen, viz: the whole incident was staged.

A key part of this process is to get the public so emotionally invested in the story that they identify personally with the ‘victim.’ So, people who’d never even heard of Charlie Kirk suddenly start hailing him as a paragon of courage, integrity and insight whose loss is an international tragedy. They speculate on how the widow and her two beautiful children are going to cope and agonise about their future possibly more than they agonise about similar trials faced by people they actually know. They brandish Kirk’s fervent Christianity as a weapon against anyone who doubts the official narrative: “You think a devout Christian would fake his own death???” etc.

This worked up, collective hysteria doubles as a very handy weapon to put down naysayers. If you question the official narrative about Charlie Kirk’s death, especially in the immediate aftermath - ‘Too soon!’ - you are not being judiciously sceptical. No, you are being heartless, insensitive, and probably mad. You are actually denying the integrity of the most fervent, God-fearing Christian that ever died for Jesus. You are cruelly mocking the agonies of the lovely widow and did I mention her cute orphaned children? You are one of those crazies who sees conspiracies in everything. You have failed to realise that though, sure, sometimes conspiracy incidents may have happened in the past, this one isn’t one of them because just look at the spurting blood, look at this speech where Charlie Kirk stands up for Christianity, think of those orphaned children.

But this is exactly it. This is how They roll, the deceivers who run the world, by taking advantage not just of our gullibility but also of our empathy.

The only way to avoid being taken in by these relentless deceptions is to take a step back. And the best way to achieve this is always to keep your eyes on the bigger picture and never to allow them to be distracted by the conjuror’s prestidigitation.

This rule applies across the board - to issues as seemingly diverse as the ‘assassination’ of Charlie Kirk and the question of whether CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were in fact secretly working for the dark side.

You’re unlikely to find your answers by burying yourself in the detail because that’s where They want you - lost in the thickets.

Suppose CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were closet Luciferians and likely, especially in Lewis’s case, working for the Intelligence services. Do you think they would have left lots of evidence of this behind for their future biographers? Do you think during their lifetimes they wouldn’t have taken enormous pains to keep their double identities secret? Do you know how occultism and secret societies work? Try looking up the meaning of the word ‘occult’, sometime.

And if you still need persuading that Lewis and Tolkien weren’t quite what you imagine them to have been, consider this follow-up piece by Veronica Swift. The linked article (mainly on Lewis) by New Ager turned Christian Jeremy James is particularly insightful.

VeronicaSwift.Blog on Substack

Lupus Occultus: The Paganized Christianity of CS Lewis.

Read more

2 days ago · 1 like · Veronica Swift

Ditto Charlie Kirk.

[Miles Matthis is well worth a read on this subject. Kirk’s origins story just doesn’t add up https://mileswmathis.com/kirk.pdf]

Suppose Kirk really was a ‘lifetime actor’: someone selected at a young age for a particular role, his career development scripted for a particular purpose, and his sudden departure planned years in advance. Do you not think enormous efforts and resources would have been put into building up this “legend”, as agents’ official cover stories are known? Do you not think if part of his cover was to be a ‘Christian’, he’d talk Christianity as fervently and informedly as any Christian has before or since?

Yes, I could be wrong in my suspicions. As I say, I don’t know everything about everything, yet.

But “I could be wrong” is certainly not a phrase I’ve been hearing from the ‘Charlie Kirk was definitely assassinated’ camp. Nor from the ‘CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were White Knight Christian heroes’ camp.

What I’d like to ask all those people who are so sure of their convictions that they feel they have a right to pour venom-laced indignation on those who disagree with them is: how, in a world where deception is the norm, can you be so certain?