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

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

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

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

Here are some of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delingpod 11:Charlie Kirk - March 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://mileswmathis.com/blarnia.pdf

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

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

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

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

VeronicaSwift.Blog on Substack

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

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Miri’s take here.

Miri’s Massive Missives

Charlie Kirk: Turning Point or TV Plot?

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

Read more

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

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

Is it a real assassination?

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

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

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

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

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

James Delingpole

·

29 October 2023

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

Read full story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VeronicaSwift.Blog on Substack

Lupus Occultus: The Paganized Christianity of CS Lewis.

Read more

2 days ago · 1 like · Veronica Swift

Ditto Charlie Kirk.

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

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

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

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

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

Some people call the Covid scam the greatest crime in history. But I beg to differ. I think the two events that steal the crown are the First and Second World Wars, both of them entirely unnecessary, both of them funded and orchestrated by the same kind of people responsible for the fake pandemic and all the deaths and injuries from those safe and effective vaccines.

The First World War claimed an estimated 15 to 22 million lives, with another 23 million wounded. The Second World War claimed an estimated 70 to 85 million deaths, with another 15 to 25 million wounded. I got these figures from Wikipedia, so they may not be accurate. But I think we can agree that the two World Wars were the most devastating events in history, not only in terms of lives lost or bodies maimed, but also in terms of the social upheavals (marriages destroyed, families torn apart, communities dispersed, borders reshaped, livelihoods disrupted, psyches fractured) and the physical damage caused to beloved homes and irreplaceable architectural heritage.

Given that all this carnage was planned, arranged and successfully executed by a small group of identifiable conspirators - and it was - the question that naturally arises is: how did They get away with it?

Or, to put it another way: if you had been part of the elite circle responsible for massacring and dismembering millions and millions of innocent people, what measures would you have taken to persuade the survivors that this bloodbath was in fact a jolly good thing for which we should all be quietly grateful?

The reason I ask is a fascinating book I’m reading called Two World Wars And Hitler: Who Was Responsible? by Jim Macgregor and John O’Dowd. It convincingly demonstrates that the approved narrative on the world wars and their origins is a pack of lies. No, they weren’t started by nasty Germans with silly moustaches. They were orchestrated by a cabal of English and American financiers, aristocrats, businessmen and politicians who weren’t remotely bothered by the millions of lives that would be lost or the lasting damage that would be done. All this elite secret society cared about was destroying Germany (and, to a lesser extent, Russia) which it saw as economic threats - and then reaping the profits and exploiting the geopolitical gains once the carnage was over.

This isn’t exactly news by the way. It follows on from the work of Carol Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Guido Preparata and, before them, of historians such as the American Harry Elmer Barnes. In his 1926 book The Genesis of the War, Barnes became one of the first openly to question the ‘Germany bad’ narrative and poured scorn on the ‘court history’ of the mostly Oxford-based British academics claiming otherwise.

Barnes wrote:

There is no evidence that any responsible element in Germany in 1914 desired a world war, and the Kaiser worked harder than any other European statesman during the crisis to avert a general European conflagration.

But if this is really the case, how come so few of us are aware of it?

Mainly because the people and institutions who might have told us were already bought and paid for.

One of the key reasons for the success of this secret society - known in the early days as the Milner Group, after one of its more assiduous members, Alfred (later Lord) Milner - was that it controlled the financial system, the media and academe.

If it wanted a politician put in his place or needed the public whipped up into a frenzy on a particular issue, it could rely on papers like the Times (whose editor for 30 years, Geoffrey Dawson, was a close friend of Milner’s) to summon up a thundering editorial.

If it needed any figures of influence to be bribed it could rely on the bottomless pockets of the sympathetic Lord Rothschild (“Natty” to his friends) and his various banking fiefdoms in London and New York.

If it required royal support, it could call on first on the dissolute and profligate debauchee Edward VII (aka ‘Bertie’) and later on his son George V, both of them enthusiastic members of the club.

And when it needed tame stenographers to put a favourable gloss on all these shenanigans, it could call on the so-called ‘court historians’. These were the historians who, often in return for an Oxford professorship guaranteed to burnish their prestige and the virtual certainty of handsome book sales, were happy to prostitute themselves by promoting the official line and never asking awkward questions.

Any bestselling historian you’ve heard of, especially if he has ever held an Oxford chair, is almost certainly a ‘court historian.’

As Macgregor and O’Dowd write:

“It is a sad indictment of many academic historians today that they are all too accepting of the mainstream history narrative [….] Dependent for their salaries, research funding and future careers, the vast majority toe the official line. Those few who deviate from the carefully prepared ‘court history’ script are dismissed, deemed unemployable elsewhere in academia, and their careers and livelihoods effectively ruined.”

So this was the state of Britain - and the US: at the higher levels, they were joined at the hip - in the early Twentieth century. Does it sound or look vaguely familiar? It should do for the world we inhabit now is run by the same kind of people, with the same world domination agenda, using the same social programming/brainwashing techniques.

Once you are familiar with these techniques it becomes much easier to spot them retrospectively. For example, one of the classic tricks in the run up to a pre-planned war is to persuade the populace that war is something that they want and need - or that it is, at the very least, inevitable. The last thing you want is the mass of ‘public opinion’ going: “Wait a second. What’s going on here?? We didn’t ask for any of this.”

Luckily, public opinion is easily malleable. We got a taste of this recently during the Ukraine/Russia conflict, when opinion formers started pronouncing Kiev “Kyiv”, when a coke-snorting, playing-the-piano-with-his-penis comedian with only one green t-shirt in his wardrobe was suddenly being feted in Westminster and in all the newspapers as the world’s most heroic and principled leader, when villagers and trendy vicars who couldn’t place Ukraine on a map suddenly took it on themselves to attach blue and yellow flags to their homes and spires.

Here the mind control experts were employing techniques honed in their preparations for the First World War. Their big challenge in the run-up to August 1914 was that the British people had no particular beef with the Germans. Germany was seen as stolid but civilised, sensible and a nice place to go for your spa treatment. It was the French who were our natural enemies.

But little by little from the early 1900s onward, the British were persuaded by their bent politicians and media that Germany was their true enemy. Dire warnings were issued about the expansion of the German navy (which in reality was only enlarging itself because it could see what was coming); trivial incidents such as the 1911 “Morocco Crisis”, when a tiny German gunboat tried making a feeble protest against provocative Allied manoeuvring in supposedly neutral Morocco, were blown up by the newspapers as acts of inexcusable belligerence. [See also: the ‘Gulf of Tonkin incident’, which the Americans faked as their pretext for starting the Vietnam War]. By the time Britain declared war in August 1914, the populace had been worked up into such a pitch of Germanophobia that furious mobs roamed the streets in search of German targets to destroy, be they Bechstein pianos or, even less excusably, dachshund pets, which in a number of recorded incidents were stoned or beaten to death.

Even then, though, killing their Anglo-Saxon brethren did not come naturally to either side. This was most famously illustrated by the Christmas Truce of 1914 when tens of thousands of German and British troops at points along the Front met in No Man’s Land to exchange cigarettes, drink and souvenirs.

The scene is described here. It’s interesting to note that in most of the contemporary accounts quoted, it appears to have been the Germans who initiated the truce.

“It was a beautiful moonlit night, frost on the ground, white everywhere,” reported Private Albert Moren of the Second Queen’s Regiment. “About seven or eight in the evening there was a lot of commotion in the German trenches and there were these lights – I don’t know what they were.

“And then they sang ‘Silent Night’ – ‘Stille Nacht’. I shall never forget it; it was one of the highlights of my life. What a beautiful tune.”

The image of Germans lighting candles in their trenches and the sounds of their gentle singing drifting across the killing fields of No Man’s Land has become iconic.

Along the line, German soldiers held up white flags, or messages asking the Tommies facing them not to shoot. Men that had been engaged in desperate fighting days or even hours before had begun to feel illuminated by the Christmas spirit.

Soon they were singing together, trading jokes and the odd jovial insult or two.

Marmaduke Walkinton of the London Regiment described the scene: “A German said, ‘Tomorrow you no shoot, we no shoot.’ And the morning came, and we didn’t shoot, and they didn’t shoot.

“So then we began to pop our heads over the side and jump down quickly in case they shot but they didn’t. And then we saw a German standing up, waving his arms, and we didn’t shoot, and so it gradually grew.”

In at least one sector, there was also an impromptu game of football.

“Suddenly a Tommy came with a football, kicking already and making fun, and then began a football match,” wrote Lieutenant Johannes Niemann of the 133rd Saxon Infantry Regiment. “We marked the goals with our caps. Teams were quickly established for a match on the frozen mud, and the Fritzes beat the Tommies 3-2.”

Perhaps it won’t at all surprise you to learn that The Powers That Be weren’t remotely happy with this. They wanted slaughter not mutual love and understanding. Though no punishments were handed down for this unsanctioned fraternisation, measures were enforced to ensure it never happened again. First, the troops were moved to different sections of the line, to reduce the likelihood of their feeling residual kinship with the enemy units posted opposite. Secondly, casualty records across the front were regularly scrutinised so that senior officers could spot mini cease fires.

If one was detected, raids and patrols would be organised to foster the correct “fighting spirit” in troops.

It’s probably worth my reiterating the point that under most circumstances, people - even young men of ‘fighting age’ - would rather have a friendly chat than kill one another. To get them to kill requires relentless conditioning. And that conditioning is not an organic thing that arises from natural circumstances. It has to be directed from above.

Which isn’t, of course, the way we’re taught about war at school. Especially not about the First and Second World Wars which are invariably sold to us as examples of ‘just wars’ which ennobled all those who fought on the ‘right’ side in them.

At my fairly typical English public school, Malvern, this celebration of the glorious dead reached its apotheosis in the annual Remembrance Sunday service, which was taken more seriously than any other event in the school calendar. The school Corps lined up in military formation in front of the college war memorial (St George). A two minute’s silence was observed for the school’s fallen (462 in the First War; 249 in the Second). The Last Post was blown by a bugler from the rooftops. It was all very solemn and quite moving. In my day there were still plenty of Old Boys around who had served in the war, and whom you could see standing stiffly in their British Warms blinking back their tears at memories of the friends they had lost in combat.

What I hadn’t realised at the time is that this ceremonial was and is all part of the conditioning process. Sure we were honouring the dead. But we were also being brainwashed with a number of subliminal messages which I now realise were not just false but dangerous.

I think, for example, of how I would find it impossible to sing, without a catch in my voice, those lines from that classic Remembrance Day hymn, I Vow To Thee My Country. It’s sung to one of the most poignant and moving tunes in the English hymnal, taken from the Jupiter movement of Gustav Holst’s Planets Suite.

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love:
the love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
that lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
the love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
the love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

But wait. What is really going on here?

Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that the author of those lines was a senior British diplomat named Sir Cecil Spring Rice. Shortly before the war, Rice was posted to Washington as Ambassador to the US, his primary mission being to persuade Woodrow Wilson’s administration to abandon its position of neutrality and take sides against Germany. Rice would never have got the job unless he had been entirely sympathetic to the Milner group’s aims.

So here we have an example of one of the (albeit junior) architects of the First World War later being enlisted - a bit like the capable Mr Wolf in Pulp Fiction - to help with the clean up operation. Operation Turd Polish, as it really ought to have been known.

The commission might have gone like this: “Cecil, old boy. D’ye remember that splendid little poem you wrote just before the war, Urbs Dei, about what a jolly marvellous thing it is when a chap dies for his country? We wondered whether you could spruce it up to make it a kind of national anthem for the Fallen. Maybe if you lost some of the ‘thunder of the guns’ stuff in the first verse - still a bit raw, that - and made it a bit more vague and poetic. What we’re after is a proper tearjerker, which chokes you up every time you hear it. But also something that conveys the important message that your country’s call demands unquestioning obedience and that if you do end up getting the chop, well it’s no bad thing because of love, sacrifice, being tested, and all that.”

No. I know it didn’t really happen quite as I’ve described. But I hope you will forgive my poetic licence in pursuit of my broader point, viz: one of the chaps whose job it was to ensure that thousands and thousands more young men (in this case American volunteers) were fed into the meat grinder also wrote the anthem explaining how totally marvellous and noble it was to die in this way.

I’m similarly sceptical of the oft-quoted lines from Lawrence Binyon’s For The Fallen.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

Yes, of course, it’s comforting to think of the war dead being frozen in a state of eternal youth andbeing perpetually memorialised as a kind of perk for having had their lives cut so brutally short. But though I’ve no doubt Binyon’s sentiments are sincere and heartfelt, they also constitute the most spectacular propaganda win for people who actually caused all those premature deaths.

As Horace well knew when he wrote the sarcastic lines “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (which he only survived to write because he’d taken the sensible decision to run away at the Battle of Philippi), dying for your country has nothing to recommend it.

What both Rice’s and Binyon’s verses serve to do is gloss over this fact with a layer of slightly mawkish sentiment. Yes, it’s a lovely thought, and perhaps a way of dealing with loss by presenting sacrificial death as a kind of victory. But it’s also a massive ducking of the issue. All these men, in fact, died for nothing. And anything that distracts from that fact is doing them no favours - but is participating in the cover up.

Another example of this collective cover up by the cultural Establishment are those neat graveyards, lovely maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, with their uniform headstones in Portland stone. These were devised by committees of the great and the good, including three of the most eminent architects of the day Sir Herbert Baker, Sir Reginald Blomfield and Sir Edwin Lutyens, with Rudyard Kipling as literary adviser and Gertrude Jekyll as garden designer.

Immaculate, dignified, striking, enduring: yes. But also yet another element in the ongoing, massive and all-encompassing snow job operation to erase from the world any sense that those wars might have been a criminal act planned by the very class of people who dreamed up all those magnificent memorials (the Menin Gate, etc) and picturesque cemeteries.

Why do I know about the Menin Gate, even though I’ve never been there? Because it’s one of the myriad aspects of the First World War which has been thrust relentlessly into our consciousness in the years since. For any half-way educated European certainly, the First World War has been inescapable.

Here are some of the various ways in which the First World War has entrenched itself in my own thoughts over the years: thrilling to the memoirs of Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves; grinding in school English classes through the eloquent misery of the War Poets, few of whom survived; not knowing much about the 60s anti-war musical Oh What A Lovely War! except that it was a Thing and had something to do with Joan Littlewood; blood-bathing in the Götterdämmerung war porn of Ernst Junger’s Storm of Steel; feeling very melancholy after exposure to RC Sheriff’s Journey’s End and again by its Royal Flying Corps movie version Aces High; being frustrated by the very sketchy details of Jay Gatsby’s mysterious war service past; “Lions led by donkeys”; knowing that the survival time of a second lieutenant on the first day of the Somme was shorter than a May fly’s; meeting Harry Patch, the machine gun battalion veteran who outlived them all; never getting round to reading All Quiet On The Western Front for fear of being too depressed, especially in the scene where they bayonet one another; putting on a bad Australian accent to recite the ‘How fast can you run?’ ‘As fast as a leopard’ lines from Gallipoli; exploring the impressive reconstruction of the trench section once captured by a young Lieutenant Rommel in what is now Slovenia; getting cross with Jon Snow, the silly leftist news presenter, for wearing a white poppy instead of a red one; feeling sorry for the brave horses in War Horse; laughing at the slug-balancing act in Blackadder Goes Forth; spotting anachronistic black people about to go over the top in Sam Mendes’s 1917; trying to track down poppies at the last minute for various Remembrance Days; recommending my father in law to go to see Days of Glory - about North African units fighting for the French - and him having accidentally gone to see the comedy Blades of Glory by mistake; relishing the fantastically cynical, horribly realistic Royal Flying Corps quartet of novels (Goshawk Squadron, etc) by Derek Robinson; watching various politicians on the TV news laying wreaths at the Cenotaph memorial in Whitehall; finally getting round to seeing Kirk Douglas in Stanley Kubrick’s Paths of Glory; trying on my military re-enactor brother Dick’s French infantryman’s horizon blue uniform, including the Casque Adrian helmet; feeling rather sad that Alain-Fournier, author of one of my favourite novels, hadn’t survived to write any more because he was killed in the trenches…

For something none of us ever experienced, the First World War has taken up an awful lot of our collective headspace. You could argue that this is no more than the fallen deserve - and that is certainly what we have been trained to think. But I now wonder whether it hasn’t also been a case of what the CIA calls ‘flooding the zone’: overwhelming the target audience with so much disparate information that they are rendered incapable of processing it.

What I notice about all the examples I’ve given above - whether they invite us to focus on the ugly details of trench warfare or the exhilaration of survival or the sense of futility and waste or the incompetence of the commanders or the insufficient reverence of public figures or military tactics, uniforms and equipment - is that not one of them, not a single one of them, vouchsafes the only information that really matters.

The First World War (the Second too) was a blood sacrifice staged by our Satanic elites to kill as many of us possible while increasing their world domination. And the supposed goodies - the ‘Allies’ - were in fact the baddies.

I don’t remember being told that in any of my school history classes. Do you?

What I do remember quite clearly, though, is how puzzled I was when first exposed to the official narrative on “How the First World War started.”

The reason the flower of England’s youth were sent in wave after wave to drown in mud, get mowed down by machine guns or blown to smithereens by shells was that a student from a far-off Central European country that no one gave a toss about had assassinated some Archduke and his wife in a place called Sarajevo.

Sorry? Excuse me? Nearly a million of my countrymen were sent to die because of that?

It made no sense to me when I first heard it, around the age of 13. I suspect I probably wasn’t the only child to have that initial gut-reaction. That would explain why the English school curriculum at the time spent so many hours of history classes on the First and Second World origins narrative: to grind all that scepticism out of you, and wear you down to the point where you’re like: “Yeah, whatever. All right. I surrender. The Germans started it all, for reasons I still don’t quite understand. We were the goodies. These were just wars. Can we move onto another subject, now?”

Anyway, I think there are some useful lessons we can learn from all this. Here are some of them.

The People Who Run The World Are NOT Incompetent

They’d love you to believe otherwise. That’s why They gave you “Hanlon’s Razor”, the apocryphal aphorism that urges “Never attribute to malice that which adequately explained by stupidity.”

But conjuring two World Wars out of nothing is no mean feat. And subsequently persuading the world that they were just, necessary and the other side’s fault must surely earn our grudging respect as an achievement of diabolical genius.

Yes, Everything Really Is A Conspiracy

Usual disclaimers apply - but essentially: Yes. If it’s in ‘the news’ it’s probably a psyop.

The ‘purple-pilled’ get very upset when you tell them this. Consider the recent furore in Awake circles over the vexed question of whether ‘Lucy Connolly’ was a crisis actor/intelligence services operative or just an ordinary mum who happened to have been unfairly banged up in prison for an unfortunate tweet.

“Not everything is a conspiracy,” the “She’s just a lovely, ordinary mum” faction crossly insisted. They accused the “She’s a spook” camp of being divisive and paranoid and over-imaginative.

But there’s a problem with this ‘divisive and paranoid’ slur. In order for it carry weight it would have to be demonstrably the case that conspiracies by malign elites against the people are rare, indeed exceptional. All the evidence shows, however, that such conspiracies are in fact the norm.

What all the evidence also shows is that the elites’ primary control mechanism is collective mind manipulation, so that ordinary people are continually fooled into believing stuff that isn’t true. Stuff like, say, “It was the Germans who started the two World Wars but it’s OK. The good guys won.”

To persuade the public of such untruths, against all evidence, required devilish ingenuity, massive resources and deception on an almost unimaginable scale.

Are we now supposed to believe that once the two wars were over, the people responsible suddenly decided: “Well that’s all our naughtiness worked out of our system. We’re going to behave nicely from now on. No more lies; no more killing; no more psyops…”?

Politicians were never on our side

There’s a widespread delusion - call it the “Where are the titans of yesteryear?” fallacy - that if only we had better politicians, like the selfless, principled grandees from the good old days, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.

This delusion is the product of bad historians and short memories. Look at the various MPs in the Conservative and Liberal governments in the run up to World War I, for example, and you discover they fit into two basic categories: stupid and evil.

The majority were the stupid ones had no idea whatsoever that a tiny, elite, Anglo-American secret society was pushing their country into a war no ordinary person wanted or needed. So were useless when it came to preventing it.

The minority were the evil ones (such as Sir Edward Grey, Herbert Asquith and Winston Churchill) who were more or less fully aware that they were doing the bidding of the secret society. But they didn’t mind one bit, either because they shared its aims, or because they were going to be rewarded for it, or both. So they lied, cheated, dissembled, faked, postured and backstabbed till they effected their controllers’ desired outcome.

That was early 1900s. Nothing has changed since.

If You Know Their Name, They Are In The Game

One of the great disappointments when you look into true history, as opposed to fake history, is realising how thoroughly compromised were most of the people you used to admire. Churchill is the obvious example. But there are plenty of others.

Take the author John Buchan. His The Thirty-Nine Steps used to be one of my favourite adventure yarns. But with hindsight that book is the purest Milner group propaganda. The hero, Richard Hannay, a veteran of the ugly South African wars (in which the British invented the concentration camp) uncovers on the eve of the war a dastardly plot by an evil German spy network which has penetrated deep into the British Establishment. Buchan, who had been Milner’s private secretary in South Africa, was employed during the war to produce a propaganda magazine called Nelson’s History of the War dispensing fake history.

I have my doubts too about the author of another classic novel of that period, The Riddle of the Sands. Erskine Childers was an upper class Irishman and fanatical British imperialist who served in the Boer War, but who later turned against the Empire and was shot by firing squad for having supplied guns to the Republican rebels during the Easter Rising. But there’s something deeply suspicious about the plot of The Riddle of the Sands in which two English sailors exploring the shallow waters, mudflats and secret inlets of the Frisian Islands accidentally stumble upon an imminent seaborne invasion of Britain by a concealed fleet of German tugs and barges.

The book was published in 1903: eleven years before the outbreak of war, at a time when almost no one - apart from the Milner Group conspirators - saw Germany as a threat. Childers himself described it as “a story written with a purpose” written from “a patriot’s natural sense of duty.” It clearly did the trick because it was frequently cited by Churchill an excuse to build up British naval power. But who planted the plot idea in Childers’ head?

All ‘Freedom’ Movements Are Co-Opted

There’s a good example in Paul Cudenec’s superb essay Wars, Resets and the Global Criminocracy.

During the First World War, one of the groups wheeled out to support the criminocratic agenda was a wing of the Suffragette movement.

Apparently in return for agreeing to stop their militant activities, Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst were handed a government grant.

Emmeline declared her support for the war effort and began to demand military conscription for British men, while Christabel Pankhurst demanded the “internment of all people of enemy race, men and women, young and old, found on these shores”. [15]

And the suffragettes were among those women who handed white feathers to males not in uniform, including teenage boys as young as 16.

They Are Psychopaths

In May 1915 the British passenger liner RMS Lusitania was sunk without warning in breach of international by a German U-boat off the coast of Ireland with the loss of 1200 lives, including 128 Americans. The resultant furore at this ‘brutal act of wanton slaughter’ was what turned hitherto reluctant US public opinion in favour of joining the war with Germany.

Which was the plan all along. The ship - in breach of US law - had been secretly loaded with munitions beforehand. And the British Admiralty, which had cracked German naval codes, deliberately sent Lusitania at reduced speed into an area where U-20 had already sunk two ships.

Five days before the sinking of the Lusitania, as Fergus O’Connor Greenwood recounts in 180 degrees: Unlearn the Lies You Have Been Taught to Believe, the US Ambassador to the United Kingdom Walter Heinz Page sent the following note to his son:

“If a British liner full of Americans be blown up what will Uncle Sam do? That’s what is going to happen?”

The US later used the same playbook at Pearl Harbour, allowing eight of their battleships to be sunk or damaged and over 2000 of their service personnel to be killed in the ‘surprise’ Japanese attack which would hasten America’s entry into the Second World War.

See also: 9/11

They Invent The Lies; But We Do Their Dirty Work for Them

During ‘Covid’, lots of Awake people expressed astonishment that our doctors, whose job it supposedly is to care for our health and to ‘first do no harm’ instead chose to push on the unwitting populace an unnecessary experimental drugs procedure that would end up killing them or injuring them.

But it’s not just the doctors who betray us. So too does every other ‘prestigious’ profession. Bankers conceal the corrupt nature of the financial system; politicians routinely lie about everything; scientists promote fantastical bollocks about climate change; accountants cook the books for evil corporations; media types regurgitate Cabal propaganda as ‘news’…

…And the historians. Surely not them as well? What could be more innocuous than a career delving into the mysteries of the past and, through diligent research, explaining to students and other readers what really happened?

Few historians do this, though. Certainly not the ones who get the professorships and sell books in quantity. The price they pay - and are more than happily prepared to pay - for success is to cover up for their dark overloads.

It is thanks to historians, more so perhaps than to any other profession, that the psychopaths responsible for the worst crimes in history continue to get away with murder.

Nihil Sub Sole Novum

But perhaps the most important lesson of the Two World Wars is this: everything you thought was new and shocking They’ve been doing - and getting away with - for years.

Psyops did not begin with “Look him in the eyes and tell him the risk isn’t real.”

Conspiracies did not start with JFK.

False Flags did not begin with 9/11.

Confected atrocity stories about beheaded babies in Gaza or murdered children at ‘Taylor Swift’ ballet classes in Southport? Just consider all the stories circulated in the Allied media in 1914 about evil, spike-helmeted Teutons raping nuns and bayoneting nurses.

Wear a mask? A carbon copy of “Always carry your gas mask” in 1939. As Carol Quigley recounts in Tragedy & Hope, the threat of airborne gas attacks was a chimera. The purpose of ubiquitous and enforced gas masks was to psych the populace into a state of anxiety and obedience.

False flags like 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, 7/7, etc? Both World Wars were rife with Allied false flags, including attacks by Allies dressed up as Germans in Poland and, of course, the ‘allow it to happen’ variant as used more recently in Gaza, at Pearl Harbor.

As well as being arguably the worst crime in history, the First and Second World Wars were also perhaps its biggest and most successful brainwashing exercise. They were the testing ground for all the psychological manipulation techniques still fooling us - most of us - today.