Obviously that isn’t quite true. Of course I still talk to Normies when, say, I’m ordering food in a restaurant or asking directions or enjoying the vicar squirming slightly as I review his sermon afterwards or inquiring of one of the grooms ‘What do I need to know about this horse?’ or we’ve been invited down the road for drinks and I have to fill what might otherwise be dead air by pontificating about the latest bollocks I’ve had to review on Netflix for my TV column…

What I mean, rather, is that I no longer talk to Normies about any of the stuff that matters. Stuff like, say, that we’ve never been to the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, the Beatles and the Stones were Tavistock Institute psyop and the world is run by Satanic paedophiles who are spraying our skies, poisoning our food and water, murdering us in hospitals and want either to exterminate us like cockroaches or to exploit us like slaves.

This information, when you think about it, is about a gazillion times more interesting, useful, and urgent than any opinion I might care to offer on, say, My Oxford Year in which the handsome but caddish-seeming don wins the young American undergraduate’s heart but then breaks it when he dies of cancer. (Sorry. Should have said. Spoiler alert).

But still I’m not going to squander my pearls of wisdom and insight on these Normie pillocks any more. I’ve had enough.

In fact, I’d already had enough about four years ago when I first had inscribed on the gigantic granite slab at the bottom of my garden in foot-high lettering picked out in black the words: YOV CANNOT TRVTH-BOMB NORMIES INTO AWAKENESS.

This time, though, I (almost) mean it. The straws that broke the camel’s back were two recent incidents in which I tried yet again to engage in a little Normie-red-pilling outreach work for the benefit of the afflicted. And after which, also yet again, I only ended up feeling underappreciated, misunderstood and, worst of all patronised.

The first incident was when I wrote a piece for the online edition of The Spectator on the subject of ‘revealing conspiracy videos which, amazingly, you can still find on YouTube’. It wasn’t necessarily the piece the editors commissioned but I decided, as a special treat, that I’d introduce the readership to areas they probably hadn’t explored before.

For example, I assumed that none of them had ever watched the videos where the late Dutch banker and Illuminati insider Ronald Bernard spills the beans on his former paymasters. Nor the long interview with Kay Griggs talking about what it’s like to discover that your perfect US marine hero husband is actually a mind controlled, secretly gay assassin working for a US Deep State kill squad. Nor the one where film producer Aaron Russo - or should I say, the late, died-quite-young film producer Aaron Russo - tells Alex Jones the extraordinarily revealing things he learned when he got befriended by a member of the Rockefellers.

When I read the comments below, I thought they’d be full of Spectator readers going: “Hey, thanks, James! I used to mock conspiracy theorists and think of them as crazy. But having watched these informative testimonies by people who quite obviously are speaking the truth my eyes have been opened. Thank you, again, thank you James! I now intend to buy loads of Bitcoin and start prepping - and I’ll never get jabbed again!”

But none of them - well, apart from one from some brave soul called Knoxville101 who wrote “Your podcasts are intelligent, articulate and a delight to listen to” - said any such thing. They largely comprised the usual pompous dismissals and desperate attempts at humour (“There’s one simple answer to everything: it was aliens”) and “a grand conspiracy? I don’t think they have the ability to organise it” copes we have come to expect from our Normie brethren.

It was, of course, very silly of me to have expected otherwise. Especially so when one remembers that the comments at sites like the Speccie’s are infested with 77th Brigade disinformation specialists, because they do love to control the narrative, our predatory elites.

Still, I can’t pretend I wasn’t a little disappointed that my playful invitation to join me down the rabbit hole hadn’t resulted in more acceptances.

My disappointment was compounded by a second incident in which I tried, unsuccessfully, to present to a Normie another example of one of those things that sounds like a ‘conspiracy theory’ but is in fact verifiable conspiracy fact. I found myself not merely rebuffed in response, but being given a patronising lecture clearly designed to put me firmly in my place by weariedly spelling out exactly what an idiot I was through the medium of a conventional-narrative history lesson.

I call this behaviour Normsplaining.

Most often you encounter it with people who’ve studied a science at university. They’ll Normsplain with a response that often includes the phrase ‘Basic Physics’, the implication being that you lack the education and understanding to grasp whichever immutable scientific ‘truth’ they’re trying to inflict on you.

“Ah, silly me! What would I know? I’m a mere arts graduate,” you’re expected to giggle with a girlish toss of your head.

What they don’t quite appreciate - because they’re Normies - is that they might as well be citing ‘Unicorn Magic’ for all the difference it makes to the credibility of their argument.

So here was this Normie, trying to impress me with his Unicorn Magic, and feeling - I could tell - really quite pleased with himself as he was doing so. It reminded me of one of those old school headmaster types who gives you a vigorous caning, not because he’s a secret perv who likes thwacking little boys’ bums, but, damn it, because you’ll thank him for it one day because he’s giving you a lesson you’ll never forget.

Traditionally on these occasions, you are supposed to say - on rolling up your trousers - “Thank you, sir!” for the thrashing that has just been inflicted on you.

Probably this would have been the ideal Christian response: turn the other cheek.

Or, in this case, turn the other butt cheek.

Unfortunately, being a rubbish Christian, I couldn’t just shake the dust off my feet and move on. I just had to do something to vent my frustration at being talked down to in this annoying way. So what I thought I’d do - and I hope God will forgive me if this is out of order, but I do think it will bring consolation to a lot of fellow Awake people who’ve had a similar experience - is express myself in this open letter to Normies.

Dear Normies,

First, I want you to know that we in the Awake community love you very much. Well, most of us do. I do hear some hardcore Awake types saying you had what was coming to you when you took the death jabs just so you could go on holiday. But I disagree. You were sold those ‘safe and effective’ vaccines on a false prospectus at the dog-end of a military grade psyop designed to reduce you to a state of panic, fear, confusion and desperation. Of course it wasn’t your fault. And even if it was, just a teeny tiny bit, I/we still love you because most of our friends and families are Normies, and you’re all made in God’s image.

Also, by the way, we can totally empathise with you. We know exactly why you think the way you do because once upon a time, before our Awakening, we too were Normies.

But, Normies, just because we love you and empathise with you and fully understand where you’re coming from doesn’t mean we’re prepared to take any shit from you on what you imagine to be the true nature of the world.

We don’t care if you’ve got a PhD because we’re not impressed by the credentialism of a broken, corrupt and compromised academic system. We don’t care if you’ve read lots of books because they’re mostly, likely, Normie books published in order to reinforce a particular narrative which we know to be false. We don’t care if you’re a high flier at the top of your professional game because we know how the Beast system works and whom it tends to reward. And we don’t care about your ‘science’ and your ‘history’ because we know that most of it is fake. Your entire paradigm, in fact, is bollocks.

You don’t understand any of this, we appreciate that. But we do understand it. And there’s the irreconcilable difference between us.

Love, James

At a recent signing, a lady who was a great fan of the original version of my book Watermelons told me she wished I hadn’t updated it because it was no longer suitable reading material for her resolutely Normie husband.

She was referring to the content of the two new chapters I had written explaining just how deep the conspiracy goes. Her husband - and people like her husband - would have been comfortable enough with the original chapters, which pointed out how little scientific evidence there was to support Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. But the additional stuff about it being a deliberate, long-planned, top-down conspiracy by the Predator Class to immiserate us, impoverish us and enslave us in their New World Order was, she felt, a bit off putting for the general reader.

Yes. I do see her point. But I still have no regrets for reasons I have outlined in the short piece below. Some influencers in the Awake movement see the battle for hearts and minds as a sort of marketing exercise, in which the important thing is to gauge which of our ideas might have broad appeal and which ones are a turn off for our target audience. But I’m not one of those people. I prefer the “If they don’t like it, **** ‘em, approach.”

This may or may not make me a poor tactician but I really don’t care. I’m not in the business of winning friends and influencing people. What matters to me is the truth. If I think it’s true, then I will usually say it, regardless of how unpopular it makes me or how uncomfortable it makes my audience.

Please don’t think I’m trying to emulate those blunt professional Yorkshireman types who delight in boring you rigid and simultaneously offending you by banging on about how ruggedly plain-speaking they are. That’s not what I mean at all: those people are bloody annoying - and also they’re mostly incorrigible Normies. Rather what I mean is that I don’t believe in pulling my punches or softening my argument to make it more palatable, more Normie-friendly. I think the short article below explains pretty well why.

Some years ago I wrote a book called Watermelons in which I examined the various claims made the green movement and discovered - not to put too fine a point upon it - that they were all complete bollocks.

Instead of destroying the planet, the hated trace gas CO2 was actually making it greener. Instead of shrinking, polar bear populations were exploding to the point where they were becoming a pest. Instead of saving the natural world and harnessing free energy, wind turbines were slicing and dicing birds and bats, and costing us all a fortune.

But the biggest lie of all, I found, was the doomsday narrative about so-called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. It wasn’t as if the climate alarmists had just got it a little bit wrong, here and there. Their entire thesis - that industrial civilisation was causing unprecedentedly large increases in global mean temperatures, requiring urgent action to stave off disaster - was the purest nonsense. None of the so-called ‘science’ backed up their claims; all their forecasts were based on computer models biased towards catastrophe; everything they were telling us was flat out untrue.

After I’d finished the book, I thought: “Job done.” I didn’t delude myself, by any means, that I’d written the last word on the subject. But I did believe that the tide was about to turn. So cast-iron was the case against the global warming industry it could only be a matter of time before everybody else woke up, said “Enough is enough!”, and brought this extravagantly unnecessary and destructive scam to an immediate end.

Instead, here we all are, nearly fifteen years on and the problem is worse than ever. Not climate, obviously, but the metastasising climate industrial complex. In Britain, we see this reflected in everything from the rocketing cost of air travel and the worsening headache of car ownership to the clumsy attempts to force everyone to install a smart meter and an expensive new boiler which won’t keep you warm when it’s cold.

Apart from the mostly paid agitators of pretend-grassroots protest groups like Extinction Rebellion, hardly anyone seems to support this war on liberty and private property being waged by the State against the populace in the name of Net Zero. Yet the policy - despite the glaring absence of any real evidence justify it - steamrolls ahead anyway. Why? How on earth are they still getting away with it?

The answer is that ‘climate change’ was a faked crisis issue designed from the very start to bypass the democratic process. A bit like HS2 - imposed on you, against your will, by similar vested interests - ‘climate change’ was never going to be one of those things you could vote against or which could be derailed by overwhelming contradictory evidence or a change of government.

It dates back to the 1950s when the grandsons of the US oil magnate JD Rockefeller were looking for new ways increase their stupendous family fortune and expand their global influence. What they needed was to invent an issue of international importance which would require supranational governance. Climate change fit the bill just perfectly.

For most people this would have been an impossible ambition. But not for the Rockefellers. Their influence extended over banks (Chase Manhattan); universities (Chicago; Columbia in New York; plus 70 other top colleges); the United Nations (which they had co-founded); the media (Time and Life magazines); and more than 50 environmental organisations including the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and the Intergovernmental on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘Global warming’, you could reasonably argue, would never have existed without the Rockefellers. They invented it, they promoted it, they bankrolled it.

Which isn’t to say, of course, that other stupendously wealthy people weren’t in on the game. For example, in the first versions of Watermelons, I fingered the Club of Rome as the most influential of the various billionaires’ think tanks pushing the climate change scare narrative. What I hadn’t realised when I named its co-founder Aurelio Peccei as ‘another of those secretive billionaire industrialists you’ve never heard of’ is that Peccei was merely a frontman for a secretive billionaire industrialist you definitely have heard of, Gianni Agnelli.

But why would such people want to wage war on industrial civilisation? Surely they would want to oppose the climate change narrative, not bolster it? Yes, you’d certainly think so. But while the world’s oldest and most powerful families - say the 1 per cent of the 1 per cent of the 1 per cent - aren’t averse to making money, what they value far more is control. The global warming scare has provided the perfect excuse they need to bring us closer to their long-desired one world government tyranny, while persuading us that it’s in our interests because it means saving the planet.

If you think this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, I really don’t blame you. I was pretty gobsmacked myself when I first became aware of it, via Jacob Nordangård, a Swedish academic (and part time heavy metal singer). Nordangård used to be an ardent environmentalist, a member of the Swedish green party. But then he began asking awkward questions like “how come so many green groups are funded by their supposed enemies in the oil industry?”. His research led him to the Rockefellers, resulting in a detailed study Rockefeller - Controlling the Game.

The next question you might well ask is: “If this is all in the public domain, why have I never heard of it before?” Why do you think? This is a scam perpetrated by unimaginably rich vested interests which control not just the universities, the corporations and the politicians, but also all the think tanks and the media organisations.

When I was preparing a revised edition of Watermelons earlier this year - about time: it was out of print and the problems it describes are worse than ever - I did wonder how much of this controversial new information to include. Should I, for example, mention ‘geoengineering’ - aka chemtrails - the mostly clandestine yet widespread man-made weather manipulation whose sometimes disastrous effects are blamed by the complicit mainstream media on ‘climate change’?

What I realised is that when you pull your punches you are doing the enemy’s work for them. Of course, they want you to believe that the very notion that ‘climate change’ is a hoax, orchestrated from above, is just one of those crazy conspiracy theories. Of course, they want the ‘debate’ to be focused on the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin speculation as to how much of our anthropogenic CO2 input contributes to global warming. Of course, they want you to distract and divide you with Marmite characters like Greta Thunberg, fabricated in order to give you the illusion that this is an issue of real public concern which MUST be addressed. That’s how they win.

Watermelons - 2025 revised edition - can be purchased here https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/Products/Watermelons-2025.html

I was originally going to give this piece a different title. Something along the lines of: “What do Brigitte Macron, Michelle Obama and Dame Edna Everage Have In Common?” or “Which World Leader’s ‘Wife’ Has The Biggest Hairiest Bollocks?” or “If Mrs Macron Is A Woman Then I’m The Secret Love Child of Serge Gainsbourg.” But then I heard the shock news that the French president and his fragrant and definitely-not-a-bloke wife are suing Candace Owens for defamation.

When the story broke in the mainstream media, I happened to have been sitting next to an old friend of mine who is a total Normie. “I’m no fan of the Macrons but I hope they take her for every penny. Who is this Candace Owens person anyway?” he said.

This, I suspect, will be typical of the reactions across Normieland. And designedly so. When I read the story my immediate thought was: “This is another Alex Jones and Sandy Hook psyop.” The law suit by the Macrons appears to have been calculated to have the same effect on ‘conspiracy theorists’ talking about Elite Gender Inversion (EGI) as the Alex Jones case did on ‘conspiracy theorists’ talking about faked high school shootings: ridicule them; marginalise them; frighten them; shut ‘em down.

Whether or not I’m right will only become clear as the law suit progresses. Is Mrs Macron really going to subject herself to the indignity of a full examination to ascertain whether she is the sex she claims to be? Well yes, possibly, if she really was born a woman. But if she wasn’t, then aren’t the Macrons taking an almighty risk here?

My guess is that the intimate personal examination is never going to happen. And that the law suit will be settled out of court, with Candace Owens being forced to pay some kind of salutary settlement - a bit like the person pretending to be ‘Alex Jones’ very publicly had to do over Sandy Hook.

I could be wrong. But if I’m right it will justify the suspicions I’ve had for some time about Candace Owens. Yes she is attractive and articulate but she has risen, almost without trace, to enjoy a platform far larger than people pushing ‘conspiracy theory’ material about subjects ranging from the Jews to Elite Gender Inversion are generally permitted.

Was the purpose of Owens’s success, all along, to gain a huge profile in Awake circles before being ‘exposed’ in the mainstream as a dangerous charlatan not a single one of whose wacky ideas should be taken seriously by any rational human being? If so it wouldn’t be the first time They have played this trick.

Alex Jones and Sandy Hook provides the template. Though the case never went to court - thus ensuring that none of the questions about the authenticity of a mass shooting in a school which had been closed for many months were ever subject to legal niceties like disclosure and cross-examination - the general public is now convinced that the official Sandy Hook narrative has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In the UK, currently, we have a cut price version of this propaganda technique being deployed in the case of one Lucy Connolly. Connolly, if you believe the official narrative, is an otherwise blameless mother currently serving a 31 month jail term for something supposedly inflammatory she said on Twitter in the wake of the Southport ‘killings’ in which three little girls were allegedly stabbed to death at a ‘Taylor Swift’ ballet class by a scary-looking black immigrant.

You may guess from my inverted commas deployment that I don’t believe the official narrative. Nor - and I do recommend reading their takes, below - do Miri AF or Francis O’Neill.

Francis’s Substack

A Letter to Lucy Connolly

On 31st October 2024, Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison, “the particulars of the offence being that “on 29 July 2024 she published and distributed written material on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) which was threatening, abusive or insulting with the intent thereby to stir up racial hatred or whereby, having regard to al…

Read more

7 days ago · 75 likes · 8 comments · Francis O'Neill

Whenever you write pieces like this you will - as night follows day - attract comments, purportedly from fellow ‘Awake’ people, accusing you of paranoia, purity spiralling and needless divisiveness. This is just what has happened to Miri AF and O’Neill on social media.

On Twitter, for example, Miri has been attacked for her catchphrase “If you know their name they’re in the game.”

Here is a tweet from Fiona Rose Diamond, ‘Truth Be Told Founder, Activist, Law Student, Human Rights Advocate, Campaigning for Truth, Justice & Freedom’.

"If you know their name, they're in the game."

What an absolutely ridiculous, self-defeating mindset. That phrase gets tossed around in the freedom/truth movement like gospel, but it's pure poison.

Think about it: You're saying that every single person who's publicly standing up, risking their life, reputation, career, family - for truth, freedom, and justice - is automatically a plant or controlled opposition... just because you’ve heard of them?

Seriously? That’s not critical thinking. That’s indoctrination wearing a tinfoil hat.

This kind of thinking does exactly what 'they' want; it ensures there's zero unity, zero leadership, zero momentum. It breeds suspicion, paralysis, and nihilism.

So you trust no one, follow no one, build nothing, and fight nothing. You sit in a corner, pointing fingers at everyone who’s actually moving.

Newsflash: If they’ve got a name, it usually means they’ve DONE something. Said something. Moved something.

Here is a tweet from an accountant called Graham Kemp.

"If you know their name, they are in the game" might sound edgy, but in practice, it undermines unity, discredits effort, and isolates people who are doing real work.

When I read responses like this I often find myself thinking: “Tu Quoque.”

This is not, sadly, because I am so incredibly clever that I spend all my time thinking in Latin. Rather it’s that Tu Quoque is the name often given to the rhetorical fallacy in which you accuse someone - it means ‘you too’ or ‘you also’ - of doing the very thing of which you yourself are guilty.

So, in this example, both Fiona Rose Diamond and Graham Kemp are accusing Miri AF of fomenting division in the Awake community when they themselves, by tweeting in this way, are fomenting division in the Awake community.

They could have just shrugged their shoulders and gone: “Ah. That’ll be Miri being Miri.” Or they could have gone: “Damn it! I’m sick of this woman with her furry hats and her pesky arguments which make no sense to me, so I shan’t read her stuff any more.”

Instead, though, they’ve decided to turn Miri’s contention that lots of prominent people in the Awake movement might secretly be enemy agents or collaborators into The Hill They’re Prepared To Die On.

Which seems to me a pretty weird Hill To Choose To Die On for anyone who purports to be Awake.

If you fancy my long read take on this, I can highly recommend a scorching essay I wrote a couple of years ago. [You can tell this has been a pet peeve of mine for some time…]

For those without the time, here is the key paragraph.

If you accept - as all the red-pilled must because it is the foundation of Awake awareness - that the world as it has been sold to us is a tissue of lies, half-truths and deceptions, then it naturally follows that everything we think we know about the world is potentially fallacious.

That is, it is not an intellectually tenable position for anyone who is truly Awake to pour scorn on anything they deem to be a ‘conspiracy theory too far’ - be it Flat Earth or Paul is Dead or Lucy Connolly is a Psyop - because this would require them to have perfect knowledge that they cannot possibly possess.

Sure they might be right that ‘Lucy Connolly’ is a blameless freedom fighter genuinely serving a draconian prison sentence - rendered even more cruel and horrible by having to endure prison visits from Reform MP Richard Tice - for the crime of getting momentarily upset on Twitter about all the evil immigrants murdering our babies at Taylor Swift dance classes and such like.

But they might - especially given the prevalence of such psyops - be wrong. And unless they can prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, what they are engaging in is mere, idle speculation. Mere idle speculation does not put you in a position of such authority that you can reasonably traduce those arguing a different point of view.

Nor does it give you the moral high ground. Quite the opposite in fact because what you are doing is standing in the way of perhaps the purest and most noble mission of the Awake community - the pursuit of the truth.

Pursuing the truth in a world of lies requires courage. Attacking truth seekers for asking difficult questions, on the other hand, requires no courage whatsoever because all you are doing - whether unwittingly or otherwise - is announcing that you agree with the Current Thing.

A good example of this was immediate aftermath of October 7 when we were told, inter alia, that no fewer than 40 babies had been beheaded by the evil, bloodthirsty terrorists of Hamas.

It took a brave soul indeed to declare in those early days of orchestrated hysteria and mendacity: “Not buying this. It makes no sense”.

It required all the courage of the bastard offspring of Brave Sir Robin and the Cowardly Lion, on the other hand, to declare how disgusted you were by all those hateful, antisemitic conspiracy theorists peddling outrageous nonsense about those 40 murdered innocents not being real.

[See also: all the innocent children killed by an evil terrorist at the Ariana Grande concert]

Or, to put it another way, the price of claiming that 40 babies weren’t beheaded - and it later being proved that they really were - is embarrassment, opprobrium and reputational damage.

The price of claiming that 40 babies were beheaded - and then it subsequently emerging that they weren’t - is zero.

But - as so often - I digress. To return to my main point, I think it highly likely that many influencers within the Awake movement have been positioned there for disruptive purposes. And that the bigger their reach, the more likely it is that they are compromised.

This ought to be so obvious to anyone even half-awake as scarcely to need explaining. But let me do so anyway, perhaps with special reference to the Brigitte Macron story which first inspired this article.

OK. So the world is run by a tiny cabal of Satanic paedophiles who hate us and want to kill us. But they can’t kill us all - not immediately, there are too many of us - so instead they have to settle for keeping us like mind-controlled slaves (‘cattle’ as they fondly refer to us).

Mind control is very important to them, a) because it appeals to their sick sense of humour and makes them feel like they are outwitting us (which indeed they mostly are) and b) because if ever we woke up, en masse, to what’s really going on the game would be over and they wouldn’t be able to treat us like cattle any longer.

Hence the high premium They place on deception, on the agencies of deception (the media, the movie and TV industry, pop music, social media, etc), and on the individual agents of deception (which is why pop stars, movie stars, chat show hosts, newscasters, etc get paid so much). They rely on these institutions to keep everyone fooled.

But some people aren’t fooled. A small percentage of the population knows that the world is run by a cabal of Satanic paedophiles. As long that percentage remains small then these people don’t pose too much of a problem. So the important thing with this lot is to keep them contained and stop their ideas spreading and infecting the broader culture with their dangerous truth virus. (Not that we believe in viruses, obviously, but that’s another story.)

How do The Powers That Be contain the Awake threat? Lots of ways, obviously, from shadow banning all the way to killing. But one of their favourite methods - because it involves doing what they do best - is mind games.

So, they take various plausible characters and insert them into Awake circles, like sleeper agents who can be activated at any moment - now or a long time in the future - according to requirement.

“Release Agent Connolly,” They might decide. And suddenly Agent Connolly will find herself deployed in a psychological operation designed to work up segments of the UK populace into so furious a state that they begin rioting and looting. Which has, of course, been the plan for some time because then the state can respond by crushing the populace with draconian new regulation, introduced Für ihre sicherheit.

Then, a few weeks later, They might decide: “The cattle are getting too wise to this crazy, perverted thing we Dark Overlords do where most of our US presidents’ wives are actually blokes, and where we have to bring up our male children as females and vice versa…” [See my podcast with Mr E for further details]

“Unleash Agent Candace,” some Illuminati player might suggest.

“No. Not Agent Candace. She is too valuable to squander on an issue so trivial,” another Evil Overlord - one of the Du Ponts, maybe, or Elon Musk, or the Grey Pope - might chip in.

“Trivial? To us it might be trivial. We Illuminati take it for granted that all our beautiful wives secretly have huge hairy bollocks and swinging lunchpacks like ‘Big Mike’ Obama. We don’t bat an eyelid when we hear that Ellen De Generes is one of the Rockefellers’ grandsons or that Barbara Bush was sired by Aleister Crowley. But if the Normie cattle ever got to find this stuff out it wouldn’t go down well. They’d think it was proof that we were all paedophiles from ancient bloodlines with more reptilian DNA than human DNA, all of us sworn to the service of our master Lucifer.”

“Well tbf that IS exactly who we are,” might respond David Bowie, not unreasonably.

“Yeah. But the Normie cattle don’t know that. They think it’s all just crazy conspiracy theory stuff. And we need to keep it that way.”

Grey Pope: “All right. Sigh. Pains me to do this but I guess it’s gotta be done. Unleash Agent Candace.”