James Delingpole
Politics • Culture • Writing
David Icke's Gingerbread Cottage
Icke has been right on so much. But here is why I don't trust him...
January 21, 2024

There’s a moment in my live show with David Icke where I completely lose it.

  “I know why you haven’t been killed for saying the stuff you say,” I yell at him. “It’s because you are one of them! You are part of the Trap!”

It was something like that, anyway. You’ll have to check out the podcast yourself (I’ve now depaywalled it) — https://delingpole.substack.com/p/david-icke— to hear the exact words. But what I do vividly remember as I made the accusation was how shocked I felt to be saying it. I’d begun the evening expecting that we were going to end it as good mates. Instead, here I was, effectively accusing one of the world’s most red-pilled influencers of working for the Enemy.

  This was the point in the evening where I realised I’d lost about half my audience. I could actually hear their groans of disappointment and disbelief. How dare I question the integrity of the heroic, magnificent and sacrosanct guru who first led them down the rabbit hole and who has been proved right about so much since?

  Contrary to popular belief, I don’t enjoy confrontation. But I’m definitely not shy of giving it back if I’m feeling provoked. Icke had already irked me mightily with his sludgy monologues, his inability to answer a question straight, and his reluctance to hold anything resembling a conversation. The final straw, though, was when he started making sneering references to my ‘religion.’

  Now I certainly hadn’t gone on stage intending to defend Christianity to a known atheist. I mentioned my own faith, en passant, just because I was starting to get a bit frustrated by Icke’s vagueness on the nature of his philosophical/religious outlook. Icke is very good at telling you stridently what the deal is: that we’re all living in a simulation, that there are these demons feeding on our energy, and so on. What he is much less able to do, it seems to me, is to provide a persuasive account as to why we should believe him.

  And I don’t think I was being unreasonably demanding here. If you are going to travel round the world, appearing on stage to adoring audiences, expounding a particular world view, then surely it behoves you to be able to justify it. For me, it would be the work of moments to explain why the Bible narrative - that we were created in the image of a loving God, who imbued us with a moral compass and a yearning for truth and beauty - makes emotional and intellectual sense. And I’ve got texts to back it up. All I wanted from Icke was his own apologia for why it is that he thinks what he thinks.

  But Icke either couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver. This for me was a massive tell. I’d started out, as I do with all my podcast guests, wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt. But now there were red flags all over the place. Why, when talking about truly monstrous evils, like the Satanic bloodline families and how they torture and kill children in order to harvest their adrenochrome, did he sound so curiously unmoved? Why, given his oft-stated view that only through ‘love’ can we transcend the simulation, was he so viciously antipathetical to Christianity? Could it be that the ugly rumours about Icke which I’d be so careful not to investigate beforehand might actually have a grain of truth in them?

  You’ll find the answer to these questions in two revealing videos. Perhaps I should have watched them before I did the live event. Then again, had I done so I would have cancelled the whole thing for what they tell us about Icke does not make me warm to him or trust him. Icke is a theosophist; a New Ager; essentially - though he might not use that specific term - a Luciferian. Now that might not sound too worrying if you don’t know what those labels mean. So let’s spell it out: David Icke shares the same religious belief system as the wicked master rulers he has spent the last thirty years supposedly exposing.

I’m surprised by how little this is talked about or even understood in Awake circles. But I think that may partly be a function of the way Icke markets himself. If you’re one of his 500,000 Twitter followers, for example, you get edgy, incisive commentary on everything from Israel/Gaza to the credibility of Alex Jones and Elon Musk. This is the Icke of the popular imagination: unafraid to go where others will not dare; completely on the money with his predictions of what the New World Order will do next; a martyr to the cause of truths that They just don’t want you to hear.

  I fell for this myself. It was the whole reason I had him on the podcast. Though it’s true - as I admitted in our stage show - that I’d never read any of Icke’s books I know lots of people who have and who credit him as their main inspiration for much of what they know about the machinations of the Illuminati. And then there’s that video, which I did see, showing Icke at least ten years ago predicting with uncanny prescience all the things that have since come to pass from the fake pandemic and poisonous vaccines to the menace of digital ID. How could someone so right about so many things that matter possibly not be one of the good guys?

  What I now realise is that David Icke is a game of two halves. There’s David Icke the red-pilled truth warrior with whom it’s hard to disagree on much. But there’s also David Icke the New Ager, whose laborious, dogmatic, third hand ruminations on the true nature of existence deserve much more scrutiny that they generally get from his devotedly cultish audiences.

  For chapter and verse on the latter, I highly recommend this deep dive investigation by Chris White, which quotes closely from Icke’s written work, interviews and stage lectures. It is called David Icke: Where Did He Get His Theories?


Though Icke’s position on some issues has shifted over the years - he used to claim that he conversed regularly with Jesus; now he claims Jesus never existed, for example - the essence of his spiritual philosophy remains much the same as it was over thirty years ago, when the information was fed him by a spirit guide, an ‘ascended master’ called Rakorski.

  Rakorski, it turns out, is not some random guru from the ether who chose on a whim to confer his wisdom on a former Hereford United goalkeeper. He also happens to be a key figure in the automatic writing and inspiration of Alice Bailey, founder of the Luciferian (the clue’s in the name) Lucis Trust, and herself a student of Madame Blavatsky, the Russian mystic, likely a complete charlatan, who in the late Nineteenth Century established a hugely fashionable new religion called Theosophy.

  Theosophy, a mish mash of occultism and Eastern philosophy, mutated into what we now know as the New Age movement. Most people think of the New Age, if at all, as an amiably batty phenomenon - now largely defunct - that surfaced some time in the late Sixties, and gave us the musical Hair (“This is the dawn of the Age of Aquarius”), the more mystical elements of the hippy movement, Shirley MacLaine on a beach shouting to the waves ‘I am God I am God’, shops selling crystals, and so on.

But far from going away, the New Age is now so well assimilated in Western culture it has become a permanent fixture. Yoga, mindfulness, the whale music playing during your Reiki or aromatherapy treatment, the notion that love and hate vibrate at different frequencies, meditation, ashram retreats, “I’m not religious but I’m definitely spiritual’ - we’re most of us part of the New Age these days without even knowing it.

  Having dabbled with quite a few of the above in my time I can perfectly well appreciate their appeal. The problem with the New Age is that it’s a bit like the nice old lady with the cats who couldn’t be more warm or helpful but turns out to be the one who wrote the poison pen letters which destroyed the village. That is, beneath its apparently benign, wise, professedly loving exterior is a core of ruthlessness, intolerance and malignity. Even discerning Awake people often fail to grasp this.

  Indeed, the New Age might have been tailor made for the Awake community in particular because it appeals to their instinctive distrust of the System, their sense that there’s so much more to this world than what we’ve been told, their feeling that something radical needs to change if we are to escape from the current paradigm - and also to their heartfelt belief that more than anything what we need right now is peace, love and unity.

  The New Age appears to be the answer to all this and more. It tells of the dawning of a collective consciousness which will free us from the shackles and superstitions of organised religion (most especially Christianity, which it sees as the main obstacle) and will enable us to maximise our true potential by achieving the latent godhead which resides within us all.

  Sounds great, right? I mean, what could be cooler than discovering that you - yes, little old you! - are actually a god? And the only reason you didn’t realise this is that all pesky religion you had rammed down your throat when you were a child, Christianity being by far the worst, led you up the garden path. But now you’re in on the secret that the world’s elites have known for centuries. Finally you can escape the Matrix and save the world (just like Neo and Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker did: the people who made those movies KNEW) by achieving that state of divine wisdom which some call ‘gnosis.’

  Well if this is all true then clearly it’s the way to go. But how do we know it’s not just another trap - what Christians would consider to be a Satanic ploy - designed to lure us away from the only true form of salvation offered by Jesus? The answer is that we cannot know. Not with any certainty. So I feel in no position to judge any of those myriad Awake types who’ve gone down the New Age path - or variants thereon, such as gnosticism - because they might yet be right and I might be proved a gullible idiot.

  What I can say, though, with absolute certainty is that the spiritual/philosophical world view preached by David Icke is utterly incompatible with the Christian one. If one of them is correct then the other one isn’t. It’s a zero sum game. But you’d be amazed how many Awake people are oblivious to this fact, as I discovered in the aftermath of our event. “You and David have so much more in common than you realise,” well meaning people kept telling me. “You can’t quite agree on terms but essentially you’re saying the same thing.”

  No, we are not. Really we are not. We are talking about polar opposites. From the Christian perspective, Icke’s philosophy is exactly what we were warned about in Genesis 3:5. When the serpent tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge he claims: “For God does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods.”

  You can dismiss the Genesis account of man’s fall as a fairy story, if you wish. But believing Christians do not - and nor, perhaps more pertinently, do the people who run the world. The key difference between them is that the Cabal - or the Predator Class, the Illuminati, call them what you will - see the serpent not as the Enemy but as mankind’s benefactor: the bringer of knowledge who freed man from the tyranny of ignorance with which a cruel and capricious God held him prisoner. In the Cabal’s version of events, in other words, Satan or Lucifer is the good guy; as he is also in the New Age belief system which Icke claims to despise (“It is an emotional wreck with a crystal in its hand”) but yet embodies.

At our live show Icke sought to present our clash as one between my religious dogma on the one hand and on the other his enlightened, non-judgemental, free-thinking, hard won, deeply researched insight. This was slippery of him. The New Age may not be too keen to admit it but it is at least as much a form of religious dogma as Christianity is. It just uses all that airy fairy talk of raised consciousness and oneness with the universe and so on to disguise its true purpose: the age old Luciferian mission of abolishing God. Any doubts on this score can be cleared up by glancing at the works of Madame Blavatsky or her acolyte Alice Bailey, whence much of Icke’s spiritual philosophy is derived. For more details, watch this video by E511 Ministries


So which version of events do you trust? In the Christian one, God created man in His image, gave him dominion over a world of exquisite beauty, then sent His only son to redeem man for his sins since the Fall which was engineered by the enemy of creation, Satan/Lucifer. In the Ickean one, the wonders of creation are an illusion, man is but an NPC in a gigantic video game, ‘there is no good and evil, only consciousness’ and the God of the Bible is a malevolent control freak from whose shackles we can free ourselves once we release that we - not Him - are the true gods.

Both propositions are plausible. For me, the decision comes down which side has the most persuasive evidence. Of course, I’m aware that there all manner of ‘conspiracy theory’ takes on the Bible - everything from the integrity of the translations and the role of Paul to the behaviour of the Church since. Even so, I think it requires quite an imaginative leap to believe that Icke’s sources of authority for his claims - a mix of personal revelation provided by entities from another realm, sundry texts and interviews of questionable reliability - are more trustworthy.

I’ll give you one example of where I think Icke fails badly on this score. It comes from his book The Biggest Secret (2000) - the one with the lizard-headed royals - in a passage which pours scorn on those foolish enough to take the New Testament literally. Here it is:

“Horus was the ‘son’ of God in Egypt. He was derived from the Babylonian Tammuz and, in turn, provided another blueprint for the later Jesus. The connections are devastating for the credibility of the Christian Church: Jesus was the Light of the World. Horus was the Light of the World. Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life. Horus said he was the truth, the life. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the ‘house of bread’. Horus was born in Annu, the ‘place of bread’. Jesus was the Good Shepherd. Horus was the Good Shepherd. Seven fishers board a boat with Jesus. Seven people board a boat with Horus. Jesus was the lamb. Horus was the lamb. Jesus is identified with a cross. Horus is identified with a cross. Jesus was baptised at 30. Horus was baptised at 30. Jesus was the child of a virgin, Mary. Horus was the child of a virgin, Isis. The birth of Jesus was marked by a star. The birth of Horus was marked by a star. Jesus was child teacher in the temple. Horus was the child teacher in the temple. Jesus had 12 disciples. Horus had 12 followers. Jesus was the Morning Star. Horus was the Morning Star. Jesus was the Christ. Horus was the Krst. Jesus was tempted on a mountain by Satan. Horus was tempted on a mountain by Set.”

‘Devastating’ indeed. Or at least it would be if these claims were true. Icke seems to believe that they are, having often used them in his stage shows, and having yet - so far as I am aware - to issue any retraction. They have also received wider circulation in Zeitgeist: the Movie. They’re even cited in Mark Millar’s comic book series The Chosen One. The problem is, though, that they do not seem to have any basis in actual Egyptian mythology.

Icke himself cites the source of these ‘devastating’ comparisons between Horus and Jesus as an author called Albert Churchward, a freemason who claimed in the 1920s that Jesus didn’t actually exist. Churchward’s brother James promoted another of the stories that Icke has since championed: the notion of a lost civilisation on the sunken continent of Mu. James Churchward claimed to have found proof of this via the Naacal tablets, prehistoric records he had encountered on a trip to India, and which were translated for him by an Indian priest (one of just three people who could read this lost language). It’s possible that James Churchward got this idea from Madame Blavatsky, who claimed to have discovered a similarly ancient lost text - the Stanzas of Dzyan - on a trip to Tibet. Translated for her from the unknown language of Senzar by the Occult Brotherhood, this was then used to inform her book The Secret Doctrine, which purported to tell us the mystical philosophy of the earliest humans.There is no evidence that the Naacal tablets or the Stanzas of Dzyan or the lost continent of Mu ever existed. The Horus/Jesus comparisons too, according to Chris White, who has tried unsuccessfully to trace them to an earlier source, appear to be yet another fabrication.

Part of Icke’s schtick, repeated almost daily in the aggrieved, martyrly tone he adopts on his Twitter feed, is that he is a fearless, outspoken seeker-after-truth who has been vilified and marginalised for exposing secrets that our evil controlling overlords would prefer remained hidden. Well, fine. Nothing wrong with that. But if that is the claim you make for yourself, surely the bare minimum you ought to be able to offer your audience is the guarantee that the ‘truths’ you are revealing are actually true - and not just yet more of the made-up shit you are continually berating your enemies in the mainstream for producing.

This ought to be a sine qua non for any author or public speaker seeking to inform the world about, well, anything really. One of the reasons it took me so long to write my demolition of the climate change industry, Watermelons, is because I had to make damn sure that all my claims were properly sourced and accurate. Had I not done so, I would have offered an easy target to that vast, rich and vindictive Climate Industrial Complex just gagging for an opportunity to embarrass one of its critics.

The fact that Icke does not appear to hold himself to the same standards is a red flag for me. Like most truth seekers, I’m genuinely open to the possibility that everything I currently understand about the world - and the afterlife - may be wrong, up to and including the shape of the planet or esoteric stuff like ‘soul traps’ and whether, when you die, you’re meant to avoid the light or follow it. Icke, judging by the stridency of his tone, the dogmatism of his assertions, and his ill-disguised impatience with those who don’t share his point of view - Christians most especially - appears to think he knows all the answers. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And if his sources are as obviously tainted as, say, a pamphlet published in the 1920s by a freemason with an obvious axe to grind and no evidence to back up his claims, I can’t say I’m terribly convinced.

In his documentary Where Does David Icke Get His Ideas?, White gives several other examples of Icke’s sketchy sources. The lizard headed stuff, for example, appears to have been relayed to him via the testimony of a mind-control victim - by definition an unreliable witness - named Arizona Wilder. Some independent confirmation might have been nice, do we not think?

David Icke has been right about many things in the past and continues to be so. But this is no reason to give him the free pass he often gets from his cultish acolytes who appear blind to the possibility that he might be pushing an agenda inimical both to their interests and the cause of truth - not to mention of their immortal soul.

Not only is at least some of his research slipshod but when challenged on detail he is often evasive and defensive. These are not responses which bespeak honesty and integrity. In my experience, at any rate, researchers promoting a contentious point of view which goes against the grain of mainstream thinking are only too happy to be questioned on their thesis. That’s because they are on a mission to explain and elucidate - and evangelise.

In Icke’s defence, it might be argued that he is not a quick fire intellect, and that his curmudgeonly demeanour is the product of all those wilderness years he spent being dismissed as a tinfoil hat lunatic. But those days are long since past. He has a large, appreciative audience for his books and live events, an internet TV show - Ickonic - and the satisfaction of having many of his predictions vindicated by events. At this point, his continued playing of the victim card looks to me suspiciously like a passive-aggressive defence mechanism designed to ward off honest criticism. This was certainly my feeling in the aftermath of our live event. The main priority of Icke and his family was not to respond to the criticisms I made - but rather to try to blacken my name as a rude, insensitive, pushy, lying (“You’re like Tony Blair, mate” - I was told) arriviste who, under false pretences, had taken cruel advantage of a noble freedom fighter and truth seeker whose boots I was not fit to lick.

I’m not buying it. Most especially I am not buying Icke’s spiritual philosophy which he pretends is antithetical to the binding strictures of ‘religion’ - but which is clearly just a warmed over version of the theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the New Age, which in turn are just an update of the Babylonian Mystery Religions followed by our ruling elites since the dawn of tyranny.

This is why I titled this piece David Icke’s gingerbread cottage. It’s an analogy which I think answers the obvious question: “If Icke is really working for the Enemy how come he has been allowed to do so much to expose them?” All those bang-on predictions, all those juicy revelations, are just the bait…

community logo
Join the James Delingpole Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
3
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Why I Want You on My Website (Not Here)

Subscribing via my website — https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk — brings everything together in one place.

You’ll get full, immediate access (at least 24 hours before any other platform) to everything I publish: my articles, as well as my Delingpod, Psalms podcasts - including material that never appears on Substack, Patreon, Locals or anywhere else.

More than that, it gives you a direct line in. You can engage properly - like, save, comment etc - and ask questions that actually get answered.

Most importantly, it supports my ridiculously honest, no-holds-barred independent truth-seeking without relying on evil, big tech, third-party platforms.

If you’re already supporting me here or elsewhere, thank you - it genuinely means a lot. But the best place to do that now is my website.

https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Support/

00:02:00
A prayer request

Please can you all pray for a miracle with my finger. I’ve had the wire out but unfortunately the bone is refusing to knit. Unless a miracle happens in the next fortnight I’m facing a much bigger, nastier op…. So you’ll see why, on balance, I prefer divine intervention and the more of you that pray the easier you make God’s job.

00:01:04
James and Dick’s CHRISTMAS Special 2025

Featuring Dick. And James. And Unregistered Chicken. And possibly some other special guests.

Not included in ticket price but available so you don’t starve/die of thirst: nice pizzas out of wood-fired ovens; street food.

VIP Tickets - £120 including bell-ringing lesson, walk with James, front row seats, church tour

Location is: My neck of the woods. Northants. Nearest stations, Banbury/Long Buckby. Junction 11 of M40.

Friday, 28th November 2025. Starts at 5pm

https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/?section=events#events

00:02:47

Posted by Tom Woods this morning. I concur! Breakfast is for farmers.

post photo preview
James's Big Birthday Bash - August 1st. Be There!

Because I love you all and want you to be happy, I’d like few things more than if you were ALL able to join me at my James Delingpole Birthday Bash on August 1st.

Unfortunately, numbers are strictly limited. So please don’t be one of those people - I’m the procrastinating type myself, so I know whereof I speak - who sends me a pleading message a few days before the event saying: “Can you squeeze me in?” Because tragically I might not be able to help.

Here’s why I think you’ll enjoy it. The main event is me doing a live Delingpod with Bob Moran and the conversation is going to be great. You know it is. Apart from my brother Dick - who’ll also be appearing, obvs. - there’s probably no one with whom I have a greater rapport than Bob. And, gosh, do we have a lot to talk about: chemtrails, death jabs, dinosaurs, Satanists, the New World Order etc. All the stuff, basically, that you can’t discuss with your Normie friends, but which here we’ll cover freely and frankly because, hey, you’ll be ...

post photo preview
Christianity 1 New Age 0

If you haven’t already - I’m a bit behind the curve here - I urge you to watch this car crash encounter between Christian apologist and scholar Wes Huff and ‘ancient civilisation’ researcher Billy Carson.

It’s an excruciating experience - probably best to watch it on double speed - for a couple of reasons. First, the hapless podcast host/debate moderator Mark Minard is somewhat out of his depth and is also clearly embarrassed at having one of his guests (Carson, sitting right next to him) eviscerated in front of him by his other guest. This causes him to interrupt the debate at intervals and expound well-meaningly but not very interestingly on his own half-baked views on the mysteries of the universe. You feel a bit sorry for him but you do rather wish he’d shut up.

Second, and mainly, it’s painful to watch Carson being outclassed and outgunned by someone who knows and understands his purported field of expertise so much better than he does. Carson was reportedly so upset by the encounter that he ...

post photo preview
Rod Liddle Was a Licensed Jester of the New World Order

Rod Liddle would have loved the headline of this piece. He would have delighted in its (as he would have seen it) risible preposterousness. He would have relished the attention-grabbing contrarianism. And, above all, he would have appreciated the tastelessness of the timing - just days after his death, aged 66, while all his other old friends and colleagues were still being nice about him and saying how wonderful he was, ‘the greatest journalist of his generation’, supposedly.

But though I liked Rod very much, found him entertaining company and loved a lot of what he wrote because of his crass insults, naughty jokes and delicious turns of phrase, I don’t believe he was nearly the rebel he imagined himself to be. He was an Establishment prop not a thorn in its side; a licensed - and very well paid - jester in the Enemy’s employ.

I’ll explain why in a minute, but first let me tell you how we met. It was while Rod was editor of the Today programme, the BBC radio’s flagship current affairs programme. He rang me out of the blue during a general election to ask whether I fancied going on prime minister Tony Blair’s battle bus for the day and to report on the Labour campaign.

This was a typical Liddle commission: risky and mischievous. Liddle, a former Socialist Worker and punk - ‘energetic but obnoxious’, as he described himself - had been given the job to make the show livelier. Perhaps he thought that as an outspoken right-winger I was more likely to cause trouble and annoy Blair’s bullying chief of staff Alistair Campbell; or that as someone with no broadcasting experience I might at least cock up entertainingly. Anyway, it was flattering to be talent-spotted in this way and I’ll always be grateful to Rod for this act of suicidal generosity.

We only met in the flesh years later, probably at some Spectator event, because by then we were both columnists on the magazine. Because we lived not too far from one another in London we would meet occasionally for a drink or dinner, where we would argue about our respective tastes in music. Rod thought that my taste was shit. I thought - and maintain to this day - that his taste was shitter. I considered his political insights to be about on par with his aesthetic judgements, but there was never any rancour in our disagreements. If Rod considered you simpatico you remained his friend, come what may. That’s why I don’t think he’ll much mind my slagging him. “All part of the game,” he’ll think. “And anyway I probably deserve it.” This was one of Rod’s most endearing features. However scabrous he could be about politicians and celebrities and liberals generally, you knew that the person he loathed most - albeit in a lugubriously amused ‘well what can you do?’ way - was himself.

But the fact that Rod Liddle was both lovable and well-loved by his readership does not let him off the hook. On the contrary, his popularity and ubiquity are what made him a menace so inimical to the interests of the mass of humanity he affected to represent. In the years when we were mainstream media colleagues and allies this suggestion would have struck me as outrageous. “Rod’s brilliant. And funny. He’s continually sticking it to the Libs!”, I would no doubt have argued in his defence. But that was before I had begun to understand the true nature of the MSM and the role played by star columnists like Liddle in promoting its noisome interests.

Rod Liddle was a columnist not just in the Spectator - house journal of the Conservative Party - but also in Rupert Murdoch’s biggest UK publications, his tabloid newspaper the Sun and his best-selling broadsheet, The Sunday Times. Even a decade ago, Liddle’s journalism was earning him north of a million pounds a year. You do not get that sort of money by being anti-Establishment. Rather it’s your blood money for propping up its rotten, stinking edifice.

Liddle’s reputation as an outspoken contrarian derived largely from his barbs and diatribes against ‘liberal-left’ causes. To sum up his schtick: “I’m an old fashioned socialist. But even I can see the absurdity of our kowtowing to radical Islam and to the transgender brigade, and the ridiculousness of Labour politicians like Diane Abbott.” In this way, he got to have his cake and eat it: maintaining his street cred image as a bibulous, chain-smoking, sexually incontinent old Labourite while yet reaping the benefits of playing to the prejudices of a small c conservative readership he cordially despised (especially over issues like fox hunting).

He did it very well. But what I don’t think he ever quite appreciated - “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it” - was his role in The System. Rod Liddle wasn’t really speaking truth to power in a world rendered mad by political correctness. His real function, not unlike that of his fellow Sunday Times star columnist Jeremy Clarkson, was to act as a containment figure, designed to promote the illusion that we’re living in a democracy in which we’re still, just about, able to speak our mind and make tasteless jokes about sacred cows and protected minorities.

But while his adoring readership was chortling affectionately over Liddle’s latest burst of irreverence, congratulating themselves that ‘it’s still a free country’, they were in fact being herded into a containment pen. Liddle’s supposedly brave, outspoken position on fundamentalist Islam - endless jokes about evil, hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza, etc - relentlessly pushed a narrative key to the interests of the Predator Class: the idea that Britain (and everywhere else) is being overrun by bearded, child-grooming terrorists hell bent on turning every pub and church into a mosque or a madrassa, banning sausages and making burkas the new dress code on Ascot Ladies’ Day.

I’m not arguing that some of this stuff isn’t happening, nor that Mirpuri Pakistani immigrants are a model of benign social cohesion nor that it isn’t a total disaster that boatloads of fighting-age men from some of the world’s ugliest hell holes are being imported and housed at the expense of the native populace to act as some kind of future UN containment force or death squad. But the more closely ‘conservative’ attentions are focused on these helplessness-inducing, rage-baiting details, the more likely they are to be distracted from bigger questions like: “And who is ultimately responsible for this stuff?”

One answer that you would never get from a passionate Zionist like Liddle is “Israel.” And by “Israel” I don’t mean specifically the Middle-Eastern state currently run by Benjamin Netanyahu, but rather the international Military Occult Banking Syndicate (as Mathew Crawford calls it), of which Israel inextricably a part.

Had you put this theory to Rod while he was alive, I’m sure he would have dismissed it, with a string of entertaining comical epithets, as the ravings of an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist. He would have believed it too because that’s how everyone in the right-wing MSM thinks. As I remember myself from the days when I was part of it, you believe these things quite sincerely as an article of faith - and would never think to question your position because to do that would guarantee instant rejection from your tribe. It’s the same with subjects like 9/11. Rod Liddle believed that the Twin Towers were brought down by mad Muslims on the orders of a bearded man in a cave not because he had ever once looked into it but because he already knew the answer: only sexually-deprived keyboard warriors living in mum’s basement think 9/11 was an inside job.

Sometimes, when Awake purity-spirallers - or intelligence services bots - want to finger me as Controlled Opposition, they cite my refusal to pour vengeful bile on former MSM colleagues like Rod. But I just can’t see the point. It’s not that I’m bosom buddies with them all - I’ve not seen any of my Spectator columnist colleagues in years, apart from one at a funeral - but that I don’t see them as culpable evil agents of the Beast System so much as its pitiable, useful-idiot dupes. If I’m wrong, and they really do know that they are acting on behalf of a child-sacrificing, Satan-worshipping elite that wants to kill us or enslave us, then God will judge them and their punishment will be far worse than anything I could ever inflict in a few vituperative sentences. The thing that makes me think I’m right is that unlike my critics, I’ve spent time as an MSM insider and know - or think I know - how people who work in it think. As opposed to how paranoid, embittered, self-aggrandising, vengeful fantasists imagine they might think based on no evidence whatsoever.

Rod Liddle - I may be wrong: one always has to allow for that possibility in this world of mirrors - belonged to the useful-idiot dupe camp, rather than the evil agent one. This would acquit him of much of the moral responsibility for the damage done by his work - just as well, really, since Rod was a staunch Christian - but it doesn’t let him off the hook intellectually. “C’mon Rod,” I shall certainly be saying to him next time we have a pint in the Angels’ Wings or the Pilgrim’s Progress, or whatever the pubs are called up there, if they have pubs up there, and if one or other of us isn’t in the Other Place, “For someone described as the greatest journalist of his generation you were a pretty bloody useless journalist.”

And if asked, ruefully, what exactly I mean by that, I shall go on: “Journalism isn’t just about writing entertaining sentences, which both of us can do, with our eyes closed and our hands tied and a shark strapped to our backs. It’s about being curious; about getting to the bottom of what really makes the world tick. And on the latter score, mate, as our children might say, you were a total fail.”

As Exhibit A, let me provide another example of something - besides hook-handed clerics [all intelligence services stooges, btw] and Israel - that Liddle was inexcusably wrong on. Here is a Spectator piece he dashed off in 2010 titledThe Politically Correct James Delingpole.’ Even though I’m biased, I’d say it’s not one of his best because it exposes the woolly nature of his thinking and the inconsistency of his posturing. Liddle always wrote as if he were speaking on behalf of the ordinary, common sense, bloke-in-the-pub-with-the-Milwall-scarf but here he is acting as glib, unwitting PR agent for that man-in-the-pub’s Satanic oppressors.

The piece is Liddle’s take on a short film released in 2010 by an environmental campaign group called No Pressure. It quickly went viral on YouTube because of its arresting imagery. Gillian Anderson from X-Files plays a teacher in a classroom full of children whom she executes one by one by pressing a button which causes their heads graphically to explode. This, apparently, somehow illustrates the urgency of the climate crisis. The children Anderson executes are the ones who have shown insufficient enthusiasm for remedial climate action. So their appropriate punishment - at least according to the morality of this campaign video - is death.

I was writing a blog for the Telegraph at the time and christened the incident Splattergate because to my mind the video had exposed the green movement’s true colours: not as the cuddly, caring nature-lovers they pretend to be but as psychopathic, population-culling Malthusians. Rod’s hot take was that I was making a lot of fuss about nothing and suffering a sense of humour failure. If it had featured famous climate activists being exploded, he claimed, I would have been ‘howling with laughter’. Also, he added parenthetically, “I don’t see what’s wrong with cutting carbon emissions, regardless of whether you sign up to AGW.”

Global warming, evidently, was yet another of those big issues that Liddle felt happy to pontificate on without the need to put in any research. Nothing too shocking about that necessarily: it’s what star columnists do. But setting aside his lamentable ignorance about the origins and nature of the climate change industry, it was an odd position for a gun-slinging freedom fighter to take. That No Pressure video had been filmed by one of the world’s most bankable film directors, Richard Curtis; the campaign had been promoted by everyone from fashion designer Nicole Farhi to food writer Delia Smith to prime minister David Cameron. For anyone with eyes to see, it was another assault by the rich, ruthless and unaccountable Climate Industrial Complex on those ordinary people who selfishly want to be able to afford to heat their homes and maybe take the odd foreign holiday. Yet here was Rod, not fighting for the underdog but rather sticking the boot in on behalf of the Eco Nazi behemoth.

Climate Change wasn’t Rod’s most costly positioning error, though. That honour goes to his championing of the vaccines during ‘Covid.’ By the time of the ‘Pandemic’, Rod and I had pretty much lost touch with one another, having moved to different parts of the country. But he still thought of me, on occasion, because in at least a couple of his columns I noticed him having a dig at me for thinking I knew better than the ‘experts’ on Covid and vaccines and generally mocking my batshit crazy flight from reality. (I wish I could find the actual quotations but they don’t seem to come up very easily on search).

It wasn’t hurtful because it was done in Rod’s playful, bantering, ‘you’re a mate so I can take the piss out of you’ spirit. But it was bloody annoying. And disappointing. In the days when we used to see more of one another - the Brexit campaign years, for example, when we were both Brexiteers - I saw Rod as both an ally and a kindred spirit, the sort of person you’d want next to you in your foxhole. We might disagree on a lot of things ideologically, I thought, but his heart was in the right place: he was as much against ‘The System’ as I was. Well, during Covid he tested that illusion of mine to destruction. Here was the closest either of us had got to living under totalitarianism. But instead of giving it both barrels, calling it out in all its monstrousness and absurdity, Liddle’s take was nuanced, measured, balanced when it needed to be bilious and vituperative. His position, more or less, was: sure the authorities might be overstepping the mark, somewhat - but are they any worse than those idiots trying to stop us getting those safe and effective vaccines?

During the ‘Pandemic’ - ie when it mattered - Liddle was a fierce critic of anti-vaxxers, whom he described as ‘people who have had their brains removed with a soup spoon and replaced with crushed Ranch Dipped Hot Wings.’ Amusing, sort of; except that this would have reached an audience of at least a million readers and you do wonder how many of them fell under the influence of that soft pressure, stifled their instinctive scepticism, and went on to take the jabs that top medical influencer Rod Liddle clearly believed to be a good thing. I see - AI is keen to tell me this for some reason - that in May 2024, Rod recanted his position somewhat. “Doubters should never have been branded doollaly,” he generously conceded. But this was surely too little too late. First, by that stage, people had long since made their covid vaccine decisions and lived - or in some cases, died - by them. Second, it was in the context of a very dubious opening claim to the effect that the “Covid-19 vaccine saved millions of lives.”

Liddle’s death at the really-not-that-old age of 66 has inevitably led to speculation that it might have been his multiple Covid jabs which speeded his demise. The excuse often made when people from louche professions (rock stars, actors, journalists) die young - as, you may have noticed, an awful lot have been lately - is that it’s just those years of hard living taking their toll. Well maybe. I know that Rod used very much like to drink and eat and smoke a lot in his middle years. But I also know that in more recent ones he preferred to enjoy a quiet life in the rural North with the wife and children on whom he doted, going to church and going for long walks with the dog. I know furthermore that one of the effects of those Covid jabs was to exacerbate existing medical conditions. So, for example, if you’d been suffering on and off for years from a cancer that had gone into remission, you’d find that after your multiple Covid shots that cancer would come back with a vengeance.

Presumably - fingers crossed: this is what I hope happens when we die - Rod has now reached the stage of his celestial journey where Everything Is Revealed. In which case, he will by now have been given the shock news that, yes, his fox hunting dickhead old mate James was right and that, incredible but true, the world really is run by an evil Cabal of bloodline Satanists whose power largely derives from lies and deception, promulgated in places like the mainstream media. [Mind you, as a Christian he ought to have known this. The Bible does offer one or two clues]. What Rod will also have deduced are the implications of this: that far from being merely an innocent prankster who has made a tidy living cracking near-the-knuckle jokes about how drunk you’d have to be to want to shag former Labour MP Harriet Harman he has in fact spent much of his career propping up the same corrupt, hypocritical, ungodly system which 2000 years ago consigned his Lord and Saviour to crucifixion.

I hate it that this should be my last word on Rod Liddle. We spent many happy times together, he was a lovely bloke, adored by his friends and family, and I despise all the amphibious swamp creatures now crawling out of the slime to caricature him as a vile, racist, transphobic, homophobic bigot. Most of the creatures spewing this bile will be fully jabbed up, will have slavishly worn their masks during Covid, will be fully behind open borders and Net Zero and are at least as naively indulgent of the creeping New World Order as Rod ever was. But as Rod would well have understood, for any half way decent hack the concept of de mortuis nil nisi bonum just doesn’t, or shouldn’t apply. No one wants to read a critique of someone eight or nine months in the grave. You need to write this stuff, as Rod might have put it with his characteristic sensitivity, while the body is still fresh.

And my take on Rod is also, I hope, slightly more nuanced, sympathetic and informed than that of those in the Awake not-a-community who see his death as some form of poetic justice for the early position he took on the Covid jabs. The point that Awake folk are too often inclined to overlook in their righteous zeal is that the MSM, toxic, lie-machine tool of the Satanic elites though it is, is largely populated with dupes who aren’t in on the secret. If you’re tempted to expostulate “But how could they not know? It’s so obvious!” just try to remember how you were before you woke up, how susceptible you were to all the false narratives that the ruling Cabal imposes on us from cradle to grave. Liddle would never have gone anywhere near those kill shots if he’d known the truth. I rest my case.

 

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
Did Anthony Fauci Kill Freddie Mercury?

I only couched it as a question in order to evade libel tourism.

Can you imagine how galling it would be if one of the most loathsome, punchable faces on the planet, with the blood of millions on his (possibly) adrenochrome-stained talons, flew over to England on a private jet probably belonging to the kind of people who were regulars on Epstein island, and took me to the cleaners in the notoriously tyrant-friendly English libel courts just because I had forgotten to stress that it’s not 100 per cent certain that he killed the lead singer of Queen, but only a reasonable likelihood?

Anyway, while we’re there, I wonder whether it’s not also possible that Anthony Fauci may have been responsible for the deaths of tennis player Arthur Ashe, famously heterosexual movie star Rock Hudson, rapper Eazy-E, pretend psycho murderer Anthony Perkins, Australian swimming trunk decorator Keith Haring and restrained, austere and quietly macho pianist Liberace, and loads of other gay and not-gay people besides.

I mean if AIDS was never real - and it wasn’t; and if the repurposed, insta-kill, failed-cancer-cure death drug AZT was what really finished off all those supposed AIDS victims - and it was; and if Anthony Fauci was not only the charlatan behind the whole AIDS lie but also the fraudster who promoted AZT as the cure - and he was - then surely it isn’t a huge stretch to argue that it was he (and not an innocent, probably never-even-existed ‘virus’ called HIV) that wiped out all those celebrities?

Does this get me off the hook, libel lawyers? I jolly well hope so.

Anyway, if I’ve got it wrong the person who really should be sued here is not me but RF Kennedy Jr. He was the one that wrote the book exposing all this information, The Real Anthony Fauci.

I remember reading it - or rather wading through it: it was a doorstopper of a behemoth and it really needed an editor - when it came out in late 2021 and thinking: “Wow! This stuff is DYNAMITE! And so well-sourced and lavishly referenced! No way is the slimy quack going to escape justice this time. Not when he’s got the dogged, brave and tenacious RFK Jr on his case! Not if ever Donald Trump gets back into office and discovers just how badly he was misled about Covid and the vaccines…"

As perhaps you can tell I was a bit more innocent in those days. I still believed that there were plucky White Hats out there - people like RFK Jr who were of the Establishment but not necessarily with the Establishment - who might yet save the day with the Sword of Truth and Justice.

But that was five years ago. Since then the scales have fallen from my eyes, somewhat, as I suspect they have for most of you.

Which is why I find myself a bit puzzled to read all the outraged reactions on social media, from the Awake and Unawake alike, to the ‘news’ that wicked Dr Fauci has somehow managed to evade all those checks and balances there to protect us all from wrongdoing in public office and that, yet again, the conniving weasel-creature has managed to escape scot free.

I mean, I get it from the brainwashed, who believe the ‘news’ is real. But surely by now people who purport to be Awake ought to know better than this?

Trump, Biden, RFK Jr, Fauci, Rand Paul: they’re all members of the same Big Club that we’re not in. Of course they’re going to protect their own because that’s what members of the Big Club do.

Freddie Mercury was in that Big Club too, as likely were all the other dead AIDS celebrities I mentioned earlier. That doesn’t mean I think he deserved to die, not at all. Bohemian Rhapsody was part of the soundtrack of my youth. And how can one not have a sneaking admiration for a man who threw parties in which dwarfs with silver salvers of cocaine balanced on their heads (did I get this detail right?) munchkinned their way among the throng, offering nasal solace to anyone who fancied a Colombian pick-me-up?

But why reserve our sympathy only for famous dead people whose pop songs we quite liked? If we’re going to rue the costs of AIDS then we should properly feel aggrieved on behalf of EVERYONE who lived through that era, for there was almost no one that this faked-up crisis didn’t affect, in one way or another: everyone from the young singles forced to treat each new sexual encounter as if it were a game of Russian roulette to the manufacturers of and shareholders in the slimming drink suddenly forced into an expensive rebrand to consumers of all culture, both high and low, thereafter obliged whether they liked it or not to worship at the shrine of any creator brandishing their gay credentials - Armistead Maupin, Tony Kushner, Larry Kramer, Keith Haring, Robert Mapplethorpe, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, thence all the way to Russell T Queer As Folk Davies - because now the AIDS crisis was the only game in town and if you didn’t like having erect willies rubbed in your face you were now a vile homophobe.

If anyone thinks I’m being tasteless or insensitive here, I ought to stress that that previous paragraph is not one I would have written had AIDS genuinely been the result of an actual virus which appeared out of nowhere to wipe out the ‘gay community.’ My sarcasm and bitterness derives wholly from my irritation that here was yet another elite psyop which forced on us cultural and behavioural shifts that would never have been necessary if we’d all just said: “No”.

I’m angry not with the people who fell for it but with the people who staged it - the Usual Suspects - in order to mess with our heads, kill a few more of us, and shift our culture in a direction that was useful to them. AIDS, it now seems obvious, was staged to do for homosexuality what the Holocaust did for the Jews. It rendered beyond criticism. People - probably the majority of people in those days, because the programming was far from complete - who felt uncomfortable by what gay men do to one another in bed (and elsewhere) found themselves in a position where they could no longer grumble because harrowing picture of skeletal, once-handsome and fit man, breathing his last in hospital and then having vital new campaigning charity named after him. Suddenly, to have friends who happened to be homosexual was no longer to have a friends who happened to be homosexual but a badge of honour, a statement of virtue. “Some of my best friends are gay!” Get you!

This is not meant, in any way, to make light of the suffering of the poor kids, most of them male and gay, who were persuaded by the prevailing propaganda to take a medical treatment they didn’t need for a disease they didn’t have. And then died as a result.

If that sounds familiar it’s because, with hindsight, as well as being the Gay Holocaust the AIDS scare was also a dry run for the Covid scare. They picked young Fauci to launch the Eighties beta testing model. Then they used old and now even-more-heavily-embedded-in-the-system Fauci to roll out the finished article in the early 2020s.

Note that ‘They’. At no stage was Fauci ever really in charge of anything. He was just a puppet of the Predator Class, as most of the annoying and despicable people whose names we know - Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein, Piers Morgan, etc - are.

I’m not saying that Fauci isn’t hateful. How could anyone, reasonably argue so absurd a proposition? What I’m saying is that hating him is a waste of your energy. Your home got torched - and your hapless pets fried - on the orders of a vicious, unimaginably evil Mafia cartel. But instead of focusing your ire on the cartel, you are getting angry with the dumb kid they somehow cajoled into spilling the gasoline and lighting the match.

This is exactly why They want you to get angry with Fauci. And why, when you do so, you are doing Their work for them. It distracts from the real reason ‘AIDS’ appeared and the real reason ‘Covid’ appeared. Both were just marketing devices for the next round of kill shots.

Like all psyops, the latest pantomime starring Fauci serves a multitude of nefarious purposes, all of them wearisomely familiar because they have been used repeatedly by the Predator Class throughout history to maintain their grip over the mass of humanity.

  1. Disillusionment

We are taught in school, in fiction, in the media, in the movies, in academe that The System is there to protect our interests. We have been brainwashed to imagine that the Authorities, though flawed and occasionally corrupt and incompetent, are essentially well-motivated and responsible. We are assured that there are these things called ‘checks and balances’ to ensure that wrong-doing in public office will eventually be found out and punished.

Then we see someone like Fauci quite literally getting away with murder and our hopes - yet again - are dashed.

  1. Division

The Covid psyop (not unlike its predecessor the AIDS psyop) split us into a number of bickering factions. The virus was a natural mutation which escaped from Wuhan market and may have had something to do with bats or pangolins/the virus was bio-engineered in the labs - aka the official conspiracy theory/the virus was faked/the virus was faked and anyway viruses don’t exist. The vaccines were safe and effective and saved millions of lives/the vaccines were rushed and though quite effective nevertheless killed and injured some unlucky people because of insufficiently rigorous protocols/the vaccines were never meant to work because acting as kill shots was always their real purpose. etc.

  1. Misinformation/disinformation

Suddenly even those of us with non-medical backgrounds became an instant expert on cytokine storms and spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles. Get people focused on the irrelevant details and they ignore the bigger picture: there was no medical justification for those ‘vaccines’. They were a weapon of war created and promoted by the Predator Class to be used against us. That was always their primary purpose.

If you still have any doubts about this, I recommend you read the work of Katherine Watt. This podcast I recorded with her three years ago is a useful primer. Watt has since retired from the game but her research lives on: essentially since at least the Second World War, US Congress has passed legislation making it easier and easier for Big Pharma to kill us with impunity. Vaccination is, quite literally, a military operation against the people.

Then, for confirmation, read the work of Sasha Latypova. Sasha too has nailed it.

Due Diligence and ArtThe Fauci Show: don't take the bait! Today is the day! Rand Paul is going to grill Fauci as part of his ongoing investigation of the “origins of COVID-19” and “the coverup of the gain-of-function research” and other super exciting stuff. Are you going to be glued to your computer listening to this historic moment of finally getting justice and accountability for covid crimes…Read more3 days ago · 401 likes · 247 comments · Sasha Latypova

She’s good on the specifics of the Covid scam. And equally strong on the true purpose of vaccines generally. They are not there to help you in any way. We discuss this on several of the podcasts we have recorded together, such as this one.

  1. Energy Harvesting

This is probably the hardest thing for most people to grasp because we have been raised in a culture which has taught us to scorn the supernatural and reject the spiritual. So the idea that every time you hate Anthony Fauci - or Piers Morgan; or both - you are feeding the demons that prey on negative emotions might sound implausible.

But it’s true. That’s why I occasionally write pieces with titles like Don’t Feed The Demons.

https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Writing/Articles/don-t-feed-the-demons

As I say in the piece I find it very hard to take my own advice. But that’s the nature of the Fallen World we live in. It is, among other things, a massive energy harvesting operation in which demonic forces continuously egg us on to get cross about stuff because then they get to eat. Of course it’s tempting because THEY make it tempting.

One of the people I find particularly hard to avoid hating is the aforementioned Piers Morgan. But that is because he is so brilliant at his job, which is to goad us, bait us, mislead us and be generally smug and loathsome. It’s worth remembering this next time you’re tempted to post something on Twitter pointing out, say, his outrageous inconsistencies over Covid. You might think you are chastising him but actually you are giving him a pat on the back.

What I find helpful is to remember that Officially Designated Hate Figures like Morgan and Anthony Fauci are not ‘real’ in any meaningful sense of the word. They have no inner life, no hinterland and certainly no conscience or soul. Rather they are comedy villains - evil ones, certainly, but not ones worth getting worked up about. Think of them, if you like, as characters like the naughty crocodile in Punch & Judy shows who comes to steal the sausages. Yes, he IS a very naughty crocodile. But he’s still only a puppet.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Traitors Of Arnhem
How Operation Market Garden Was Sabotaged by the New World Order

Before I went down the rabbit hole I was really into my military history. So much so that I tried to make a career of it and began a planned series of novels, set during World War II, about the adventures of fictional hero Dick Coward.

Book two of the series - Coward At The Bridge - was set during one of the most controversial operations of the war, Market Garden.

This was the doomed venture that gave us the phrase “a bridge too far.” In a quixotic plan dreamed up by Britain’s Field Marshal Montgomery, the cream of the Allied military - British, American and Polish airborne troops - were dispatched on a daring mission to capture and hold a number of bridges behind German lines, the last of which was in the Dutch town of Arnhem.

Had the operation succeeded, the war would have been shortened by several months. A British armoured corps would have surged over the captured bridges, like Blitzkriegin reverse, and cut the Germans off from the industrial Ruhr heartland so vital to their war effort. The war would have ended because Germany would have had nothing left with which to fight it.

Instead, the operation was a costly failure. The conventional historical narrative tells us that this was because it was too ambitious. It placed too much hope on everything going perfectly (which obviously didn’t happen); it failed to factor in certain key potential drawbacks, most notably - as the Polish commander General Sosabowski famously put it at one briefing - “the Germans.”

But what if - (as per) - the conventional historical narrative is lying to us? What if Market Garden was actually a brilliant idea which failed not by accident but by design? What if all the excuses we’ve been given, such as faulty wirelesses and unexpected panzers in the landing area and strategic incompetence, were just a cover for the real reason it ended in disaster: it was betrayed, at every stage, by the Elite establishment.


This is the thesis of former BBC journalist Tony Gosling in his short book The Traitors of Arnhem?. I’ve meant for ages to have him on my podcast to discuss it because it’s such an extraordinary story with such an implausibly diverse cast of characters, from Churchill, Montgomery and Hitler’s private secretary Martin Bormann to the future NATO Secretary General Lord Carrington, the novelist Daphne Du Maurier, the actress Audrey Hepburn, James Bond creator Ian Fleming and even, latterly - read on for further details - the bestselling author of sex-laced Cotswolds potboilers, Jilly Cooper. And also because his thesis makes so much sense of the otherwise inexplicable.

When you visit the bridges at Arnhem and Nijmegen (scene of an heroic assault by 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne) and the landing grounds at Oosterbeek, you cannot but be struck by how close the operation came to succeeding. No thanks to useless senior officers like 1st Airborne Division’s commander Lt General ‘Boy’ Browning, but through sheer determination and heroism against much more heavily armed SS Panzer units, the paratroopers and glider troops very nearly achieved their goal. They captured the necessary bridges and could just about have held them for long enough for the armoured breakthrough by XXX Corps.

But XXX Corps never appeared. This was dramatised in the movie A Bridge Too Far, in the scene where Captain T Moffatt Burriss (portrayed in the movie as ‘Major Cook’ by Robert Redford) confronts a stationery British tank crew. Burriss and his men have just gone through hell crossing the River Waal in inflatable paddle boats under heavy fire to secure Nijmegen Bridge. They’ve done the hard part. Now all those Sherman tanks of the Guards Armoured Division have to do is roll along the virtually unprotected road to Arnhem and come to the rescue of the beleaguered British airborne troops at the bridge, led by the magnificent Lt Col John Frost. But the tank crew, per the movie, are too busy drinking tea and won’t be persuaded to move under any circumstances. Burriss/Cook is apoplectic.

The scenario is more or less accurate, except that the tank crews haven’t simply stopped because they fancy a brew. They’ve been given express orders not to advance by their commander General Horrocks. Horrocks is widely considered to have been one of the better British generals - “a man who really led, a general who talked to everyone, down to the simplest private soldier”. He appears to have had a conscience too because in later years he entrusted to his friend Leo Cooper, publisher of the military book imprint Pen & Sword, a letter which was only to be opened after his death. The letter, he told Cooper, would give the real reason why he gave the order to halt the advance for a total of 17 hours. It was restarted one hour after the beleaguered paratroops had surrendered, by which time of course it was too late.

This posthumously-released confession would have been dynamite. Imagine, if you were a publisher of military books and you had in your possession a written testimony which solved one of the biggest mysteries of the war. You’d keep it in a safe place, right? But Leo Cooper didn’t. According to his wife, Jilly - yes, that Jilly Cooper - he was simply disorganised and it got lost in all his papers, never to resurface. Which is possible, I suppose. But is it not equally possible, indeed more likely given the magnitude of the secret being revealed, that the document was lost on purpose? Perhaps the intelligence services became aware of it, broke in, and destroyed it. Or perhaps Leo Cooper opened the letter, took advice on what to do with his bombshell, and decided to bury it rather than stir up a hornet’s nest.

The excuse given by mainstream historians for the halt is that it was considered too dangerous for the tanks to advance. The road to Arnhem lay on top of a single, elevated causeway through a marshy floodplain, so tanks had no room for manoeuvre and could easily be picked off. Just one 88 mm gun, one Panzerfaust even, would have been all that was needed to take out the lead tank, blocking the road for all the vehicles following behind. But as 10 SS Panzer Division General Heinz Harmel admitted after the war to author (and paratroop colonel) Robert Kershaw: “If they had carried on their advance it would have been all over for us.” The route was undefended.

So what was the real reason for the halt? One person who may have known but forever kept schtumm was the commander of the leading tank troop, Captain Peter Carington, later to inherit the title Lord Carrington. If he did know, then Carington was richly rewarded for his discretion. He went on to enjoy a stellar career in business and politics - chairman of the General Electric Company, chairman of the Lancaster House conference which transformed Rhodesia into Zimbabwe, Foreign Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet during the Falklands War, Secretary General of NATO. Quite impressive for someone described by his Eton housemaster as “a really stupid boy.”

But perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised. The Caringtons go back a long way. Here is a detail I picked up from a fascinating Substack deep dive by Golden Nuggets into the curious history of the Scilly Isles, one of King Charles’s favourite haunts, and in particular into the family that runs one island, Tresco, as its private fiefdom, the Dorrien-Smiths. Here is the relevant paragraph:

This supposed ‘fiction’ of the Smiths' noble ancestry was first propagated by the Robert Carrington, Augustus Smith’s cousin, who adopted that surname as a nod to acclaimed descent from a certain Knight Templar and standard-bearer to Richard I during the Third Crusade — Michael Carington. The story holds that this Michael Carington played a key role in the siege of Acre by scaling the wall and opening the city gates for the crusading forces, earning great honours from Richard the Lionheart. From there, the Carington family name is said to have endured until the 15th century, until one of Sir Michael’s descendants changed his name to ‘Smith’ or ‘Smyth’ to keep a low profile following the Wars of the Roses, going on to reside at Cressing Temple, the largest of the old Templar holdings. The 19th-century Robert Carington sought to claim this lineage via a Cavalier branch of the clan.

So Carington was descended from a Knight Templar. That would explain a lot. During his time in government, I remember, he was presented to us by the media as a stiff but capable eminence grise, a war hero to boot, who lent experience, backbone and class to the Thatcher cabinet. But this was just a cover. Clearly Carington’s true role was as a very high level fixer for what I suppose you might call the Black Nobility, or for the bloodline families, of which he was a high ranking member. We can infer this from the fact that he became president of the Pilgrims Society, was chairman of Bilderberg, was a Garter Knight, Royal Institute for International affairs president, and - according to Executive Intelligence Review - mentor to Henry Kissinger.

If those details don’t ring enough alarm bells, then try this essay by Patrick O’Carroll, which John Waters ran on his Substack. Here’s a taster:

The record shows that the Irish ‘Troubles’ of 1968-98 were masterminded, run, stoked, and finally wound down by ‘Illuminati’ Agent Peter Carington (‘6th Baron Carrington’), who was the British defence secretary in 1970-74, the secretary-genocidal of NATO in 1984-88, and the chairman of the Bilderberg Steering Committee in 1990-98.

Carington was a high-level ‘Illuminati’ Agent FAR-ABOVE everyday politics (i.e. above the Punch & Judy Show in which Rothschild-Tory pretends to ‘oppose’ Rothschild-Labor). The ‘Illuminati’ trusted and authorised its agent Carington not only to make reliable and autonomous decisions regarding northeast Ireland, but also decisions on the decolonization of Rhodesia, and the waging of the Argentine-Malvinas Conflict (‘Falklands War’) in 1982.

O’Carroll goes on to accuse Carington of having masterminded the Ballymurphy Massacre, when the British Army shot dead eleven unarmed Catholic Civilians in Belfast. And the Bloody Sunday Massacre in Derry, when the Army killed thirteen unarmed Catholic Civilians. Carington was also identified by British Home Secretary Merlyn Rees as the man responsible for introducing methods of torture as British policy in Northern Ireland. Later, as NATO Secretary General, he would certainly have been involved in Operation Gladio. O’Carroll also fingers him as a ‘warlock of the Order of the Garter,’ which he describes as a ‘witchcraft coven.’

That last detail may be a bridge too far even for some Awake readers. But no matter. Even if you don’t believe that Carington was literally a warlock, he was certainly a high ranking member of the Satanic elites which rule the world through secret societies like Bilderberg and Le Cercle, and through supranational bodies like NATO. What are the chances, do we think, that such a key figure in the Elite hierarchy should also have been the tank commander at the very tip of the spear of the relief column on which the success of Market Garden would stand or fail?

It seems to me, re-examining the military history phase of my life from my Awake perspective, that there were, in fact four world wars. There are the two we read about in all the history books and which get explained for us in TV documentaries and which get dramatised in all the war movies. And then there are the two we don’t get to hear about because we were never meant to. These were the wars fought by people like Peter Carington and Victor Rothschild (who worked for MI6 but also, simultaneously, for Soviet intelligence and, later, Mossad) and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands - and, indeed, Bernhard’s close pal Prince Philip, with whom he later founded the World Wildlife Fund. At these people’s level, the distinctions between Allies and Axis were all but meaningless because they were all members of the same Big Club that the rest of us aren’t in. For them, this wasn’t the epic confrontation between fascism and freedom that Allied propagandists sold in the newsreels and Churchill in his speeches. Rather, for them, it was just business as usual: a more extreme form of the disaster capitalism which the Predator Class use as a control mechanism, as a population suppressant and as a business model.

Understood on these terms, Market Garden makes a lot more sense. It explains some otherwise inexplicable incidents in the operation, such as the fate of the intelligence officer, Major Brian Urquhart, who on the eve of the drop, spotted two SS Panzer divisions lurking in the landing zone. (Urquhart was promptly sacked). It explains apparent cock-ups in the planning, like the bizarre decision to carry out the landings over two days rather than one (losing the advantages of concentrated force and surprise) and not nearly close enough to the bridges (in contrast, say, to 6th Airborne’s remarkable coup de main at Pegasus Bridge on D-Day). The reason, argues Tony Gosling, was that Market Garden was sabotaged right from the start.

It’s likely that among those who sabotaged it was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Before he married into the Dutch royal family, this thuggish German aristocrat was an enthusiastic Nazi and an officer in the SS. Bernhard may have run cover for the Dutch resistance leader Christiaan Lindemans, a German double-agent who worked under the code-name King Kong, and betrayed the Market Garden plans to the German Abwehr. None of this would have been possible, Tony Gosling believes, if the betrayal and the post-war cover up had not been approved at the highest level in the Allied military. In other words, the most senior Allies and the most senior Germans were in cahoots.

This cosy relationship became notably apparent during the top secret operation in 1945, ‘masterminded by Churchill’s personal assistant Desmond Morton and financed directly by King George VI, assisted by Naval Intelligence commander Ian Fleming’, to spirit Hitler’s treasurer and Nazi party chief Martin Bormann. A secret squad of 150 of Britain’s best commandoes, along with a 100 strong German Jewish contingent commanded by Major Israel Bloom, snuck Bormann out via canoe under the noses of the Soviets. Bormann - like so many senior Nazis: see Operation Paperclip - was too useful an asset to the Illuminati class to be allowed to slip through the cracks.

Whatever court historians may tell us about the ‘whys’ and ‘what ifs’ of Market Garden, the real reason it failed - according to Gosling’s persuasive account - is that it was too good an idea to be allowed to succeed. Once the Elites grasped what a potential game-changer it was in shortening the war they had to stop it in its tracks because they just weren’t ready yet for the war to end. They needed to extend it those extra few months so they could tie up a few business ends and transition smoothly into the Continuation Nazi post war years.

As Gosling puts it:

“For the lofty ‘higher ups’ this war was but a game of chess. While brave men thought they fought and died for their different countries, and causes, right or wrong, the highest echelons of the ruling classes were using the war to redraw the world map to their advantage, consolidate their control and raise money for their organised crime networks.

As former CBS correspondent turned Nazi hunter after the war Paul Manning and others have documented Nazi party chief Martin Bormann created 750 companies after the war into which he secreted former SS staff, the laundered millions of WWII Nazi loot, and recruited Jewish individuals to front these companies so nobody would believe they could be Nazi funded and inspired. The biggest organised crime network in history was spawned.”

Bilderberg was a key part of this process. It was named after a hotel in Oosterbeek, close to where some of the landings took place, and was founded in 1954 by the Nazi Prince Bernhard, with many former Nazis among its senior members. This continued plans formulated in 1944 at the Red House meeting convened by Martin Boorman to arrange for a Fourth Reich to be formed after the war where, as Gosling puts it, ‘banks would replace tanks as a means to acquire the factories and farms of all educated and free-thinking enemies with the moral fibre to stand against them.’

Knowing all this, I would have written a very different World War II series of novels from the one I started: one much darker, more cynical and certainly less beholden to the romantic idea I had when I was young that war could, on occasion, be glorious and noble and just.

But that doesn’t mean I have remotely lost my admiration for the ordinary fighting men who took part in it. I met one or two of them while researching the book, including Tony Deane Drummond, who spent 13 days hiding in a cupboard, sometimes with Germans in the same room, before escaping across the river; and Mike Dauncey, the glider pilot who narrowly missed a VC for a string of acts of almost suicidal heroism, including disabling an SP gun with a Gammon grenade having just been shot in the scalp with a sniper’s bullet and half blinded with a grenade splinter. Like most people, they had no idea that they were living in a world run in the interests of a tiny elite which sees them as no better than cattle. They’d been given a job to do and they did their best. No one told them that the mission they’d been sent on was meant to end in failure. That’s why, against impossible odds, they almost won.

 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals