I’m never going to be Lord Delingpole. Nor Sir James Delingpole. Nor even a mere James Delingpole OBE. All this would have come as a bit of a shock to my younger self. I know this because I once found a story I’d written, aged about 10, whose dashing hero was Sir James Delingpole VC. Back then I believed, as most people from my background did, that the surest sign you had made it in life was when you became an ornament of the Establishment.

But I don’t think that way any longer. In the latest New Year Honours one of my old friends, whom I’ve known since we were 19 year old freshers at Oxford, has just been made a lord. And I don’t feel even slightly jealous. On the contrary, I feel rather sorry for him because I know the terrible price he will have had to pay for his £361 per day attendance allowance, subsidised dining and agreeably well-located riverside premises on the north bank of the Thames.

Yes, superficially, it would be nice to have one of those wife-pleasing honorifics that impresses the postman, bags you tables in the best restaurants and increases your chances of getting a flight upgrade on those rare journeys where you’re not already travelling free, first class, on some taxpayer-funded fact-finding mission.

Personally, though, I prefer being able to sleep at night.

No, I’m not so high-minded that I’d reject all the above perks if they were given to me purely as a reward for being me. But that’s never the deal. When you get ‘elevated’ to the House of Lords with a peerage it’s not you that they want. It’s your soul.

Time and again I have watched, aching with disappointment, as friends whom I used to think of as spirited, independent-minded, original, courageous, outspoken have been reduced, on attainment of their titles, into cowed, toothless, spavined jades of the Establishment.

I’ve noticed it especially with the ones who used to be vaguely readable journalists. Once they become lords that’s it, game over. Not a word they write thereafter is worth reading because they are so obviously in hock to whichever political party it was that bought them with their peerage and, beyond that, to the pet causes of the Establishment generally.

By ‘Establishment’ I suppose what I really mean in this instance is the Deep State. So, for example, if the Deep State wants to promote the notion that Putin is the new Hitler, that what the world needs more than anything right now to promote peace is more Storm Shadow missiles sent to help the hero Zelenskyyy in his principled struggle against the Russian bear, and that this - rather than say, struggling to pay their bills - is what all patriotic Britons should really care about most, then that’s what you’ll get to read, every other column, delivered without the slightest glimmer of apparent shame.

It’s this lack of obvious embarrassment I find most puzzling. Do these ex-journalists genuinely believe this drivel or is it that their hearts have hardened and that they have simply come to accept that this is how the world works: that now they are officially part of the Establishment one of their jobs is to keep the little people in check by feeding them noble lies?

I suspect it’s a bit of both, though that could just be naivety and wishful thinking on my part. I’m perfectly open to the possibility that everyone in the Lords is a Satanic paedophile and that this is the entry level deal: you go to the party, do your terrible things, get filmed for Kompromat purposes, sign your pact with the devil in blood - and then, in return, you get your ermine. But the Normie sentimentalist in me still wants to give at least some of these people the benefit of the doubt: no they’re not totally evil, at least not all of them; rather they are just tragic victims of their own blind ambition, a bit like Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus.

Doctor Faustus, I think, is a bit of a shambolic play. But one of things it gets absolutely right is the cruelly unequal nature of the arrangement when you make your pact with the devil. The pleasures Faustus gets to enjoy are fleeting, trivial, and tawdry - I don’t think he even gets actually to shag Helen of Troy; only to glimpse her tantalisingly - while the horrors that await him when he is grabbed by demons and sent screaming to hell are eternal.

I’m not necessarily predicting that this is the fate awaiting every single member of the House of Lords. (God can, famously, be merciful on occasion). But definitely if I were in their shoes, I’d be worried. In order to be worried, though, you’d first need a moral conscience which I don’t believe many of these people actually have.

Yes, that’s a jolly harsh thing to say when some of the lords and ladies to whom I refer are old friends or formerly liked and respected colleagues. But here’s the thing: how is it not totally obvious at this late stage in the game that institutions such as the House of Lords do not remotely serve the interests of you and me, only those of an extremely tiny minority of genuinely wicked people?

The House of Lords, like governments across the world, like the corporations, like the big banks, like the academic institutions, like the entertainment industry, like Big Pharma and the rest, is part of the Beast System. Not everyone who works in those institutions is wholly compromised. But those who rise to the top - and that includes anyone made ‘Lord’ or ‘Baroness’ - are compromised by definition. There are no accidents at the highest levels. You are there because you have sold your soul to the forces of darkness.

Selling your soul to the forces of darkness does not have to involve, say, running an adrenochrome factory in tunnels under the Ukraine or being Hillary Clinton. There are myriad less obvious ways in which the devil can ensnare you, many of which involve the ensnared person feeling really quite good about themselves and persuading themselves that they’re making a difference.

I expect that this is the case for a lot of the people in the Lords. They’ve been given their peerages for services to this or that worthy cause - free speech, say, or education - and they imagine that their consciences are salved. Sure, they might find themselves sharing ermined bench space with one or two people who’d be better suited to a maximum security prison than the Upper House, but the important thing is they can now do useful stuff like scrutinising legislation and dignifying committees and steering the nation in the right direction.

No. Sorry. Not buying this excuse. It’s like accepting a job in Hitler’s cabinet and reassuring yourself that because you’ve only been appointed Minister for Frankfurters and Lederhosen you bear no moral responsibility for any of your colleagues’ more nefarious decisions…

I apologise to the Nazis for any offence that may have been caused by that analogy. Of course, I appreciate that much of what’s being done to us all now under the encroaching New World Order is quite literally worse than Hitler. And the reason this terrible stuff is happening - the chemtrailing; the weather manipulation; the population cull through enforced or semi-enforced vaccination; the destruction of property rights; the war on children’s mental health through bad education, occult ritual pop videos, confected confusion over gender identity; the torture, murder and harvesting of trafficked children; the needless, cooked-up-to-order wars; the Gaza genocide; the green tyranny; to give but a few examples - is that the people who ought to be talking about it aren’t talking about it, and the people who are supposed to protect us from it are looking the other way.

Every member of the House of Lords fits into both those last categories. Every one of them has failed us.

And the ones who have failed us most, oddly enough, aren’t the obvious crooks who effectively bought their titles and are only there for the perks and the prestige. No, the far more dangerous ones are those who do occasionally speak up on issues that matter - but only within the boundaries of what their peers might consider to be politically acceptable discourse.

So, for example, on green issues you might get a sceptical lord prepared to challenge the government on the disastrous economics of Net Zero or the flaws in the modelling of its climate forecasts. But what that sceptical lord is never going to say is: “This is a scam, pure and simple. Climate change is a hoax, pushed for decades by families like the Rockefellers, in order to impoverish us, immiserate us and speed the advent of One World Government.”

On ‘Covid’, you might hear one of the edgier lords retrospectively questioning the necessity of lockdown or even promoting the faux-daring (but actually Establishment) narrative that the ‘virus’ was a result of a Chinese lab leak. But you’ll never get any of them to admit: “This was a Cabal-led cull project, co-ordinated by their cronies at the WHO, nodded through by obedient governments, promoted by a bought-and-paid-for media to weaken, disable or kill millions of people and to train them for the draconian restrictions planned for their future.” Nor will any of them admit: “Vaccines are and always were a con.”

On education, you’ll never hear them say: “Home school your child. The entire education system is broken beyond repair - as was always the plan, for the systematic dumbing down and brainwashing of children is how They will reduce the world’s population to slave status.”

On Gaza: “It’s genocide. They staged October 7th to justify it and it has nothing to do with self-preservation but with border expansion and ethnic cleansing and stoking the next world war.”

On child abuse: “It’s rife. Not just among the Muslim rape gangs that the British authorities have long enabled as part of the Deep State’s divide and rule strategy but among many members of this very institution, the House of Lords. Only in the Lords’ case, it often involves Satanic ritual and child sacrifice, which never comes before the courts because too many Establishment figures are involved, including Cabinet MPs, judges and senior policemen, and anyway that’s how the entire system runs: on Kompromat and demonic energy harnessed from Satanic ritual.”

On ‘terrorist’ attacks: “False flags designed to sow fear, justify increased spending on security and more draconian restrictions on personal freedom.”

You might argue that I am asking too much of our lords and ladies. They have to work within the System. They can’t just go and blow the whole damn thing up.

But that’s exactly my point. They didn’t get elevated to the Lords in order to make things better. They were chosen because they could be relied on not to rock the boat. Their job is to prop up the stinking edifice, not to point out how infested it is with rats, maggots and dry rot.

The House of Lords is a Potemkin village. It exists in order to maintain the illusion of normality in a country which has long since lost any claim to be a civilised ‘representative democracy.’ The state is at war with its people. It steals from them, it represses them, it culls them. Everyone, even non ‘conspiracy theorists’, can feel this, even they can’t put their finger on exactly what’s wrong.

And the reason they can’t put their finger on what’s wrong is because the alarm bells have been disabled. The people and institutions - from the media to the political class - who are supposed to warn them and protect them are instead running cover for their oppressors. That includes the House of Lords, of course. Traitors, the whole lot of them.

Do you know what it’s like to be the only panellist on a live BBC TV debate show speaking up about Muslim rape gangs? I do and I still shudder at the memory.

It was on a youth programme called - I kid you not - Free Speech and, as you’d expect of the BBC, the panel was stuffed with a representative selection of modern British archetypes: a leftist; a hard leftist; a green; a Muslim; an ultra hard leftist; a radical Muslim; etc. And then, representing the entire spectrum from conservatism to libertarianism, me.

I can’t say my comments went down terribly well with most of the multi-ethnic studio audience. At least one bearded guy near the front, I remember, was wearing a sweatshirt with “I heart Sharia” on it. When I brought up the Muslim rape gangs I might as well have been talking about unicorns because, to judge by the general response - including from the woke presenters - I was describing a purely imaginary problem.

Obviously I knew I wasn’t because I’d spent a long time looking into it and writing articles about it. I’d read the official inquiry reports, the case studies, the investigative journalists, even spoken to some of the witnesses and victims. It was shocking, horrific, inexcusable - the sort of thing that you might imagine would never have been allowed to happen in a ‘civilised’ Western democracy where the rule of law applied.

Essentially, over a period of decades going back at least to the 1980s, loosely organised gangs of mostly Muslim men in towns all over Britain were predating on mostly white and Sikh girls, most of them underaged, and drugging, torturing and raping them, often gang-raping them, again and again and again. And the system allowed these evil predators to get away it, partly because potential whistleblowers were frightened of being called racist, but mainly because the authorities were complicit. The local councils, the police, even the child protection services either turned a blind eye or, sometimes, actively participated in these crimes.

That’s why I wasn’t afraid to poke my head above the parapet on that TV programme. I didn’t care if the BBC wanted to caricature me as a far-right Islamophobe. What mattered was that we stopped turning a blind eye to this behaviour and that, especially, we stopped institutions like the BBC gaslighting the public into believing that the problem wasn’t widespread.

Anyway, a few weeks later, I felt sort of vindicated. I was hurrying down Oxford Street, about to catch the tube home, when a lovely girl standing outside a pub suddenly grabbed me and gave me a hug. “Thank you for speaking up for us!” she said. She was a Sikh girl and she knew all about the rape gangs.

The reason I tell you all this is not to demonstrate how brave and amazing I am. But rather to offset any criticism I might incur from all those readers who think it’s bloody great that everyone, even people in America, even Elon Musk, is finally talking about those evil Muslim rape gangs.

Indeed, Elon has been trolling the subject on Twitter like a boss.

In one retweet, he has brought to public attention the awful fate of 16-year old Lucy Lowe, raped from the age of 14 by a taxi driver called Aznar Ali Mehmood, then murdered with her mother and her disabled sister in a house fire. (This happened in 2000)

In another retweet, he has shown a picture of UK prime minister Keir Starmer with, superimposed over his face, “I FACILITATE CHILD RAPE”.

In yet another retweet, he has broadcast (to his 210.4 million followers) the following message:

British girls are being sacrificed on the alter [sic] of multiculturalism, and the perpetrators are being protected.

Fight back British man.

Now it’s not that I disagree with any of the sentiment here. Organised rape gangs are an evil and should never have been allowed to get away with it for as long as they have. Keir Starmer undoubtedly has many skeletons in his cupboard from his stint as head of the Crown Prosecution Service where he turned a blind eye not just to child grooming gangs but also to the activities of Jimmy Savile. Yes, multiculturalism has been a disaster (as it was always planned to be).

Rather, my objection is: why now?

The rape gang issue is one that anyone, anywhere could have got worked up about in at least the last forty years. It’s not some new and terrible thing about which the details are only just emerging. And if we’re going to blame political parties, the former Conservative government was at least as reluctant to address the problem as the current Labour one is.

No. There’s an ulterior motive behind all this confected outrage, currently being hyped to the max on social media, Twitter especially.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the global swing to the authoritarian right which has long been planned by the Powers That Be - hence Donald Trump being allowed to win his latest presidential election (where he wasn’t in the election before that), and Nigel Farage very obviously being teed up to be Britain’s next prime minister, leading the fake alternative Reform Party.

And possibly also it is part of the general psyop designed to persuade us all that Muslims are so barbaric and dangerous that we shouldn’t worry too much about the ones currently being genocided in Gaza, or the ones that will die when the West finally gets to enjoy its long-planned war with Iran.

Elon Musk is not your friend. He’s a technocrat; a transhumanist; probably a Satanist; definitely a liar.

If he says stuff you like to hear it’s not because he’s a groovy guy who shares your values. It’s because he thinks you’re a gullible idiot whom he can twist round his little finger.

My podcast guest I’m characteristically excited about this week is Nathan Reynolds. For some of you, Nathan will need no introduction. He is a scion of one of the dark, bloodlines families that rule the world, his personality was fractured MK-Ultra-style by years of sexual abuse from early childhood, and he subsequently trained as one of the Cabal’s assassins. Or so he claims in our two hour chat.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/nathan-reynolds-118209251?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

The bit that particularly gave me shivers was when I asked - as you do, if you have no filter - what was his preferred method of killing someone silently. Without a beat, he replied:

Stabbing someone in the kidney is a very effective way of paralysing the body. It locks the body up, makes it motionless. Then you drain them as quickly as possible.

That nonchalant use of the word ‘drain.’ To me, it’s a verb you’d only use if you’d done this sort of thing an awful lot, to the point where you’d become utterly inured to it.

Indeed, this was part of Reynolds’s training, what he calls the ‘systematic desensitisation to death’, ‘the searing off of connectedness’ and ‘cauterised normal human reactions so that killing becomes as natural as breathing.’

These phrases are what I call ‘tells’. When you are assessing someone as to whether they are genuine you look for clues that confirm the authenticity of what they are saying and how they present themselves. The fact that Reynolds can articulate his mental state, in the course of conversation, in three different, equally arresting and vivid ways suggests that he has thought about this a lot, and also that he is of well-above-average literacy and intelligence.

Now, Reynolds could have read this stuff in a book, I suppose. But to me he sounded genuine. You’re welcome to disagree with my analysis but the onus is on you to give reasons. It’s not enough, as someone tried the other day - before deleting their comment - to suggest that there’s something prurient and clickbaity about talking to such characters, or claiming that James Delingpole used to be a discerning journalist but has lost the plot.

No, I talk to people like Nathan Reynolds because I’m on a mission to understand the true nature of our world. Most of those who set out to do this seriously and unflinchingly come eventually to realise that this world, by God’s permission, according to the Scriptures, is the realm of Satan. Once you understand this, the revelations of Cabal insiders like Reynolds become easier to comprehend if not necessarily to stomach.

By Reynolds’s account, children are the Elite’s drug of choice. They are used for Satanic sex rituals, they are used for Kompromat, they are used for the rejuvenating qualities of their blood. Often, as Reynolds witnessed many times, they are murdered in the process.

You could accuse Reynolds of being a fantasist. But if you did you’d have to explain away the dozens of other insider whistleblowers all saying the same thing. Some are former Illuminati bagmen, some are ex-child-traffickers, some are Satanic Ritual Abuse survivors, some are Satanic high priestesses. They can’t all be lying, can they?

Some people would like to think so - and for understandable reasons. Even among Awake people, there is a clear division between those who take the spiritual realm seriously and those who prefer to think of it as a superstitious metaphor, between those who are comfortable (if that’s the word) broaching subjects like child trafficking, adrenochrome, Satanic ritual abuse, fake suicides, false flags, flat earth, chemtrails, Elite Gender Inversion, cloning and Tartaria and those who want to stick to more obviously verifiable conspiracies like the true nature of the pharmaceutical industry.

Then there are Christians who don’t want to dwell on the seriously dark stuff, citing Paul:

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

There are those, usually non-Christians, who see the notion of a spiritual battle between good and evil as a distraction from the solutions they believe can be found in the material realm - self-sufficiency, non-compliance, and so on.

And there are those - I call them the purple-pilled - who pride themselves on their ‘discrimination’ and who brandish their scepticism towards more outlandish conspiracy theories as a kind of badge of intellectual integrity. Sure the world is not quite as it has been sold to us, they concede. But that doesn’t mean they’re going to fall into the trap of believing everything is a lie or waste time entertaining any ‘conspiracy theory’ they deem outlandish.

My own view is that all three of the above responses are a cop-out. If dozens, perhaps hundreds, of children are being ritually murdered every day to satisfy the perverse cravings of a Satanic elite - and I believe that they are - then we need to address this issue unflinchingly rather than turn our heads away because thinking about those poor victims makes us feel uncomfy or because it puts us somewhat out on a limb in conventional discourse.

If I’m sounding a little tetchy here it’s because, yes, I do get quite irritated when I’ve gone to the trouble of finding a really interesting podcast guest only to be told that I’ve been had, that the guy’s obviously a fake. It’s not the accusation I mind so much as the lack of supporting evidence or argumentation. To declare, Ex Cathedra, that you don’t feel a guest is genuine is not to make your case. It is merely to offer an opinion. And you know what they say about ‘opinions’….

Yes, of course it’s possible that some of the people who appear on podcasts claiming to be Illuminati insiders, ex Satanic high priestesses or Cabal assassins are imposters. But what would the motivation be? I can hardly imagine it’s the money. Does Nathan Reynolds look to you like a guy that is minted? Does he appear on all the TV chat shows? Last time you went into a bookshop, did you see his autobiography Snatched From The Flames piled high in the bestseller section? How much do you think he makes from his YouTube videos like his reading from the Book of Genesis (8.9K views so far) or the one about grinding grain like the ancient Millenites did (over 9K views)?

Are they there, then, to provide disinformation and misinformation on behalf the dark rulers of this world? Again, possibly. But what strikes me about a lot of the characters I’ve spoken to in this shadowy realm is how obscure they are. Their websites have no prominence; their interviews never get much traction; they totally fail the Miri AF ‘If you know their name they’re in the game’ test because it weren’t for dogged obsessives like me bringing them to the world’s attention, not even many Awake people would have heard of them, let alone any Normies. So if they are a psyop, they’re a very niche psyop, serving a purpose that is not immediately obvious given that a lot of what they are saying is corroborated elsewhere.

“Ah but they would have been killed by now. Such people would never be allowed to cross the Illuminati and live!” Yes, I encounter variations on this theme quite a bit. But is it actually true, any more?

I refer you to this wise comment by my friend Mike Yeadon, which appeared on Substack below my podcast with Nathan Reynolds.

As an unusually well qualified person whose testimony is as kryptonite to the perpetrators’ narratives, I have experienced horrible smearing and implied threats but the main weapon used against me is extraordinarily intense censorship. I’m limited to backwaters of the web. There, I can do too little damage for them to be concerned. Also, they have very good surveillance such that if I ever should find a really threatening avenue, they’ll know long before I convert that potential.

I’m alive and free because of their power to limit my reach.

This witness is in a similar position.

Yeadon, I think, is right. Of course They could come and take us all out, perhaps assassinating us in some of the imaginative ways Reynolds describes on the podcast - faking our suicides, say, with special devices designed to give the impression of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. But is it worth Their while when there are so many less messy ways of silencing us, ones which avoid the risk of turning us into martyrs.

If someone like Reynolds were to die mysteriously - especially when he’s so obviously fit and healthy with an excellent diet - it would only draw attention to him and lend credence to his claims that he really is who he says he is. (Or rather, was)

Instead, no matter how earth-shattering his revelations might be, no matter how potentially damaging his testimony to the Rulers of the Darkness of this World, Nathan Reynolds - along with the rest of his ilk - has been rendered toothless by technology.

Imagine if the newspapers and the news channels were to get their hands on the real story as to why London Bridge was shipped over to Arizona in the 1960s. Not the sanitised official version about rich, dumb Americans buying the wrong bridge, or the ‘London Bridge is falling down’ one about it having become a crumbling liability - but the much darker explanation given by Reynolds involving immured sacrificial bodies and a new desert resort granted special legal status akin to that of the City of London so that Illuminati paedophiles could enjoy their vices in impunity.

Well of course you can’t imagine such a thing because it is inconceivable. The news media would never run such story because their raison d’être is to conceal truth from the public and to protect their owners.

Most people still don’t understand this. They find it difficult enough grasping the notion that 9/11 might not have been planned by a man in a cave. So when presented with someone claiming that the world is run by psychopathic bloodline families who gain their power by sacrificing children to Satan, they’re hardly going to go: “Oh right. Now I get it!” Everything in their upbringing, their education, their work, their leisure pursuits, their daily viewing and reading has trained them to dismiss such things as utterly preposterous.

That’s how the game works. It’s not that the information isn’t out there. [If you want detail try this from Cathy Fox https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2020/01/18/the-five-child-trafficking-networks-of-the-illuminati/.] Rather it’s that the people giving out this information have been so discredited, so heavily censored, so marginalised that they will never reach an audience sizeable enough for them to make the slightest difference to anything.