One of the drawbacks of waking up to realise how truly evil the world is is that you can no longer enjoy watching television. Any television.

For a while, you soldier on thinking: “Oh come on! There must be at least some stuff out there which I can watch without the sensation that I’m being slily programmed to accord with some sinister elite agenda.”

Then comes your watershed moment when you realise: “No. Even the good stuff is tainted.”

For me, that watershed moment came while watching an old episode of It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia. I put it on to show my awake and TV-averse sister how incredibly funny it was. But something had clearly changed between the occasion when I first saw it and this repeat viewing. Instead of making me laugh it made me shudder.

If you’ve never seen It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia let me try to contextualise it. It’s America’s longest running sitcom - launched in 2005, it’s about to start its seventeenth season - but though it’s clearly hugely popular it has a cultish quality which makes you feel special that you discovered it.

It is set in a failing Irish-themed pub in South Philadelphia owned by a bunch of sociopathic, lazy, paranoid, amoral, incorrigible friends who spend most of the time scheming and plotting against one another. A bit like Married With Children or Rick and Morty it is so devoid of sentiment or pathos, it feels like the antidote to all the American TV you have ever watched.

But that’s how They get you.

In the days when I used to be terrified of sharks - I even wrote a novel on this theme: Fin - I noted that one of the problems with sharks is that there is a man-eater for every occasion. So, if your ship sinks in open water - as famously happened to the USS Indianapolis, the inspiration for Quint’s monologue in Jaws - the sharks that will get you are Oceanic Whitetips. If you’re in a river, it’ll be bull sharks which can survive in fresh water. If you’re in the tropics, it will be Tiger sharks. If the water’s a bit cooler, it will be the Great White.

TV works in much the same way.

If you like to think of yourself as a serious, informed person, you’ll unwittingly take your brainwashing from your daily or hourly ‘news’ fix. If you’re a sensitive, flower-hugging type you’ll be endlessly gulled by the eco-fascist agenda underpinning shows like David Attenborough’s documentaries and, in the UK, the appallingly propagandistic Springwatch with the unspeakable Chris Packham. If you belong to one of the lower socioeconomic groups you’ll have your brain remodelled by game shows and soap operas - or, indeed, by the biggest manipulator of them all: Sport.

Ah, but what about us sophisticated media consumers who don’t get swayed by adverts and who have the kind of cynical, sceptical, wryly quizzical mindset that renders us immune to anything mainstream and enables us to spot a hidden agenda a mile off?

That’s where shows like Always Sunny come in.

Probably the most revered episode in the Always Sunny canon is the one where the characters, known as The Gang, randomly decide to put on a musical called The Nightman Cometh.

It features an incredibly catchy song, with so-bad-they’re-good lyrics, called The Dayman.

“Dayman! A-a-aaaa! Fighter of the Nightman. A-a-aaaaa. Champion of the sun. A-a-aaaa!/You’re a master of karate and friendship for everyone.”

Listen to it here and tell me you don’t love it. It’s an ear worm that will stick in your head all day. It’s loveably kooky. It’s surreal. It’s funny, even if you’re not quite sure why.

And whoever crafted that tune really knows how construct a hook. I’m not a musicologist, so I’ve probably not got my terminology right. But there’s something about that unresolved cadence on the word ‘sun’ which creates a feeling of yearning and pent up elation, so that you just want to hear more, more, more!

What I found less enjoyable on second viewing was the plot. First time round, I just thought of it as pleasingly surreal, satisfyingly tasteless and classic Always Sunny. Charlie decides to write a rock opera to try to seduce a deeply uninterested waitress. It emerges, during rehearsals, that what Charlie imagines to be a musical about self-empowerment sounds more to everyone else to be about a boy being serially molested. Danny De Vito, who plays a character in the musical called The Troll, sings “You gotta pay the troll toll if you want to get into that boy’s hole.” We’re told that the words Charlie wrote in the script were ‘boy’s soul’ not ‘boy’s hole’ but for some reason which isn’t totally clear, the De Vito character prefers the more rapey version.

Now I suppose you could try to explain all this away by telling us that it’s all about comedy of misunderstanding. Here is how Charlie Day, who plays Charlie, rationalised it in an interview:

A rape joke is not remotely a funny thing; a man writing a musical that he thinks is about self-empowerment, and not realizing that all his lyrics sound like they're about a child being molested, is a funny thing. The joke is coming from confusion and misunderstanding, which are classic tropes of all comedy.

Well, yes, possibly. That’s certainly the kind of argument I might have bought in the days before I was aware just how rife paedophilic sexual abuse was in the entertainment industry. “C’mon, guys. This is just edgy comedians, joshing around, saying the unsayable, going where others do not dare. And that’s why we love ‘em!” I might have thought.

But when you re-watch those scenes with Awake eyes, it doesn’t quite wash. You realise these scenes operate on several levels. One, yes, is the ‘edgy, fearless, surreal comics being edgy, fearless, surreal’ level. But another is redolent of that moment when the comedian Adam Sandler and the chat show host Ellen DeGeneres bantered awkwardly about ‘pizza parties.’ You get the feeling that a subtle, mocking message is being sent out to the world by the Members of the Big Club that We’re Not In.

(“Pizza”, as a lot more of us are now aware than at the time of that 2019 The Ellen Show recording, is the codeword used in celebrity and political circles for the children that are trafficked for sex. Hence: “Pizzagate”.)

I’m not suggesting that anyone involved with Always Sunny is into sex with small children. What I am saying is that it’s a racing certainty everyone involved with Always Sunny has full Big Club membership. You don’t get to be a star of Danny De Vito’s stature (lol) unless you’ve signed the pact. You don’t get your own FX sports documentary series where you buy up a failing Welsh football club and chuck money at it till it succeeds, as series creator Rob McElhenney has done, unless you’ve signed the pact. You don’t even get to the level of the most obscure cast member unless you’ve signed the pact.

Part of the deal when you sign the pact is that you’re required to show your allegiance through gestures and symbols. Just as good Christians are enjoined, in every thing they do, to remember that all their blessings come from God, so it is with those on the other side: in return for their worldly success they must never forget to pay obeisance to the Prince of the Air.

If you look closely, you can spot some of this going on in The Nightman Cometh episode. Though I’m no expert on occult symbolism, I’d lay money that the battle between Dayman and the Nightman - which poses as just some crappy idea that Charlie thought up randomly - also has some kind of clever Luciferian subtext designed to go right over the heads of the profane audience.

The scene though that my Awake sister Hel and I found most telling was the extraordinarily revealing one where Deandra (Kaitlin Olson) expresses concern to Charlie that the lines he has given her character make her look like some kind of paedophile.

“Tiny boy, little boy. Baby boy, I need you. Little boy, I want to make love to you while -” sings Deandra (aka Dee) in rehearsals, before breaking off.

She says: “Hold on a second. Charlie. Are you goddamn kidding me? […] You’re wanting me to say I want to make love to a little baby tiny boy?”

There then follows an extended sequence of comedy business in which Charlie throws a prima donna tantrum about the primacy of his lyrics and various other characters try to seize the opportunity to grab Dee’s only song, or even her role, for themselves. This culminates in Charlie reading the riot act to Dee. If she doesn’t want to perform his song exactly as he has written it, then she won’t get any song at all.

As a send up of showbiz egomania this sort of works. It’s also on brand, inasmuch as you always expect the characters in Always Sunny to scheme against one another. But there’s something about the way it’s played that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and kills all the humour.

The Charlie character becomes shriekingly aggressive in response to Dee’s reasonable request.

“So let me tell you something, Dee. Let me break down a scenario for you. I could cut the song, OK, because I wrote it. I could have Artemis do the song because you did not write it. Or I could strap on a wig and do it myself. So you tell me, Little Miss All That, what you want to do? What do you want to do? SONG or NO SONG?”

Dee is completely broken by this.

She replies in a pitiful whisper: “Song.”

“Song?” says Charlie, milking his power trip, relishing Dee’s capitulation.

“Yeah, song” says Dee pathetically.

“So you want to sing a song,” says Charlie, twisting the knife.

“I never - I never wasn’t going to sing the song,” says Dee.

“You were excited about singing a song and you want to sing a song,” says Charlie, in mock sympathy.

“Yeah. I would like to sing a song. I’d like to do it,” says Dee.

“Goooooood”, says Charlie, as if he is the reasonable one who has been tested beyond endurance by Dee’s outrageous demands. “So back up on your podium you go. Thank you.”

This is not funny. Not remotely. This is a brutally enacted struggle session, the bully triumphant. It goes through the motions of being funny but what we’re really being given here is a sharp lesson in the mechanics of the entertainment industry. “You wanna be a star, yes? Well being OK with the child sex stuff is not an optional extra. It’s part of the deal. So suck it up - or accept you’re never going anywhere.”

That is another of the curses of being awake. Once you know, you can never not know. You see stuff that goes right over the heads of the Normie audience who are all still under the spell and think it’s just entertainment.

It was the same with Clarkson’s Farm, which I analysed last week. I’m not saying it’s not entertaining because it is, very. But the entertainment is not so much an end in itself as the delivery mechanism, the sugar coating on the pill, for the underlying propaganda message.

I’m reminded of the story someone once told me about the final advice given to them by someone who had spent his life working for the intelligence services. “Don’t. Watch. TV.”

The late, great Alan Watt used to talk about this a lot on his podcasts. Television, he explained, is an unusually effective programming device because it induces the alpha waves which put the mind into a relaxed, susceptible state. That’s why, for many decades, the BBC has operated as an unacknowledged propaganda outlet for the Deep State. Netflix - founded by the great nephew of ‘Father of Public Relations” (ie your friendly neighbourhood Goebbels) Edward Bernays - performs a similar function.

So why, given that I so obviously should know better, do I go on watching this stuff.

Well partly it’s down to laziness, habit and the need for a dose of soma between dinner time and bedtime.

And partly it’s because, in common with most of us who have made the heroic journey, I’m continually having to negotiate the difficulty of living in two worlds simultaneously.

When I’m in Awake world, sure, I can talk to my heart’s content with my fellow rabbit holes about all our favourite topics, from chemtrails to the death jabs to ‘what’s really going on in Antarctica?’

But a lot of the time I have to exist in Normieland where such topics - not that I don’t introduce them occasionally, because I’m naughty that way - tend to go down like a cup of cold sick. TV helps keep you grounded in Normieland: you can stay in touch with their current preoccupations; you’ve got something in common that you can safely talk about; also - and most importantly, from the Awake perspective - you get to monitor the sundry ways the Normies are being programmed by The Powers That Be.

Sure I could opt out of the system altogether, abandon my friends and family, head off somewhere remote and off grid, and slowly starve to death while I write the odd handwritten newsletter about permaculture and rabbit breeding.

My view, though, is that as Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians 12, we should work with the particular set of skills God has given us. In my case, this isn’t providing top expert advice on survivalism but the possibly rather less useful ability to analyse and deconstruct social phenomena.

You may decide that watching TV is not for you and you may well be right. But for me it’s part of my mission. I’m here - among other things - to wake people up to the deceptions that have been, and are, perpetrated against them by the shadowy Cabal that runs the world. But if you’re going to persuade people, you need to provide them with evidence. It’s no good claiming that TV is a giant brainwashing machine if you can’t come up with some examples of the ways in which it manipulates its audience. And in order to find those examples you need to watch TV. Boasting that you haven’t watched a TV in years and that you don’t understand why anyone who’s awake still does may make you a superior human being. But it also makes you a useless TV critic.

What I do when I write about TV is, I hope, a bit like what Penn & Teller do when they deconstruct famous ‘magic’ tricks. Once you understand how a trick is done it no longer has any power over you. The ‘magic’ is revealed to be an elaborately crafted illusion.

I love Clarkson’s Farm. I love Kaleb. I love Gerald and his fake impersonation of an impenetrable rustic accent. I love Lisa. I love Cheerful Charlie. I love Richard Ham the runt piglet. I love that new tractor-driving TikTok nurse girl they pretended to find at a farmer’s recruitment agency - yeah right - while Kaleb was away being a celebrity. I love the theme tune. I love the crappy Lamborghini tractors.

But just because I love Clarkson’s Farm doesn’t mean I think it’s our friend. Because it’s not. It’s not going to save farmers. It’s not going to save the English pub. And it’s not going to save any of us from the encroaching New World Order because Clarkson’s Farm, regrettably, is part of the problem.

How could something so charming, rebellious, sweary and fun possibly be our enemy?

The short answer is that it’s on Amazon - owned by the not notably un-evil Jeff Bezos - and is enjoyed by millions and millions of viewers around the world, including in China, where it has landed a 9.6 out of 10 rating on the review website Douban. You don’t get to achieve that level of popularity, anywhere, ever, unless you’re part of the enemy’s plan.

But the longer answer is more complicated because on the surface, I concede, Clarkson’s Farm looks very much like the kind of programme our Dark Overlords wouldn’t want you to see.

It supports farming. And They hate farming. (And farmers).

It hates Political Correctness. And They invented Political Correctness.

It stands up for the English pub. And They want to close down all the English pubs.

It loathes bureaucracy. And bureaucracy is one of Their primary control mechanisms.

It stars the man whose entire career is founded on his love of the internal combustion engine. And of course They hate the internal combustion engine almost more than They hate anything.

And it’s funny. Which They hate even more than They hate the internal combustion engine because They have no sense of humour.

This, though, is the nature of all psyops. On the surface, it all looks very convincing. It’s only after you’ve looked under the bonnet that you begin to realise you’ve been sold a lemon.

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes - red shoes probably - of the wicked Cabal that runs the world and consider how a show like Clarkson’s Farm might serve their interests.

They’re not stupid, these people. They - or predators like them - have been successfully running the world for at least the last 6,000 years. And one of the key insights they’ve gleaned in that period is that the most effective form of slavery is the one where all the slaves imagine themselves to be free.

This is the form of slavery which has prevailed in the West over the last few centuries. It works best because when you are a slave who doesn’t know he’s a slave you're much less inclined to rebel against your masters. “I’m Spartacus,” said no one, ever, in the ‘Free World’ because in the ‘Free World’ you don’t even know you’re living under the Roman Empire.

Remember - if you’re old enough - how sorry we used to feel for all those hapless Eastern Europeans with their terrible mullet haircuts trapped behind the Iron Curtain? We had branded denim; cars that weren’t Ladas; ubiquitous groovy pop music; McDonalds. They had nothing but donkey gristle and empty supermarkets because unlike us they had failed to win the lottery in life by being born in the Free West.

Well that, I’m afraid, was another psyop. In reality, we in the Free West were little less in thrall to the Predator Class than our counterparts in the Eastern Bloc: our democratic rights were just as much of a sham; our lives were considered just as valueless by the people poisoning our water and our food, stealing our wealth and sending us off to die, when they could arrange it, in their pointless, fabricated wars. Unlike those downtrodden Commies, though we were too busy stuffing our faces with hamburgers, lusting after Blondie, and hankering after Porsches to notice.

So long as you give people the illusion of freedom of choice, our Dark Overlords have worked out, you can get away with murder.

Jeremy Clarkson, first with Top Gear, now with Clarkson’s Farm has long played a small, but not totally insignificant part in promoting that illusion.

Which isn’t to say he isn’t a very talented writer, an inspired TV comedy character act or a decent, likeable bloke.

On the last score, I’ve met him, and I don’t think there’s a bad bone in his body. What you see of Jeremy on TV is very much what you get in real life. There’s no side to him, for if there were I doubt he would have become the success he has, authenticity being a key part of his appeal. Clarkson’s schtick is to be a curmudgeonly, old fashioned sort who is not afraid to say the stuff you’re not allowed to say any more. He has cornered this market, almost singlehanded, in the otherwise gag-inducingly bien-pensant, parochial, up-its-own-arse world of British television. He does it very well. And I don’t begrudge him a penny of the tens of millions of pounds it has made him over the years. He works very hard and he deserves it.

But it’s quite possible to be doing the Enemy’s work for them without knowing you are doing the Enemy’s work for them. Indeed, that is largely how the system runs.

Clarkson, like everyone else in the public eye, is resolutely Normie in his outlook. When, for example, I met him at a party in the Covid era, he was recovering from the full set of jabs. I cannot remember now whether or not I broached the subject of how the Plandemic had been a massive scam designed to blackmail us in to taking kill shots - he was more interested in asking about my latest TV recommendations - but I do know that had I done so I would have been wasting my breath.

It’s not that Clarkson is stupid or allergic to any opinions but his own or even averse to the general notion that the System is out to get us. Rather, it’s that like everyone else who operates in the sphere of media/politics/entertainment, Clarkson knows instinctively where the edge of acceptable opinion lies. So he’ll be happy to take a risk on something as faux-edgy - and on-brand - as using a dated, almost defunct racial pejorative (‘slope’) to describe an oriental person on a bridge on a Top Gear Burma special because he knows all it will get him is a slap on the wrist from the regulator Ofcom which will only boost his reputation as TV’s loveable naughty boy. But what he won’t ever do is be caught entertaining the kind of opinion - say, Covid was made up; vaccines are designed to kill us; the government knows this - that might jeopardise his career in the mainstream.

There have been times in the past when I have thought him a coward. His continual flip flopping on ‘climate change’ - depending on whether he is being interviewed by the Guardian or bantering on Top Gear - seems especially pusillanimous given that he must know it’s the excuse They are using to get rid of his beloved V8 engines. But I don’t think his positions on the subject are sufficiently thought-through to qualify as full blown cowardice. He probably feels in his bones that climate change is bollocks but has made a tactical decision not to investigate too deeply because then he’d end up nailed down to a position he would have to defend. And Clarkson is an entertainer, not a campaigner, let alone an activist.

Because the fashion these days is for everyone on TV to be seen engaging in activism - from Chris Packham and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall to Jamie Oliver and the Whispery-Voiced Gorilla Botherer himself - the complicit media has affected to believe that that’s what Clarkson is doing too. In the early seasons of the series, he was accused of being the saviour of British farming; now - because he has opened a pub - he has been accused of trying to save the British pub.

“Can Clarkson’s Farm Save the Great British Pub?” a feature in the Telegraph the other day was actually headlined.

I can answer that: “No”.

In fact Clarkson’s Farm is more likely to hasten the demise of the Great British Pub - and for the same reasons it is more likely to hasten the demise of the Great British Farm.

First, and most obviously, it portrays farming and pub-owning in such a dispiriting light that no one in their right mind would choose to do either. For those currently in these industries, it will confirm that they are right to be considering quitting. Those who might have considered replacing them will quickly change their mind when they realise how overburdened with bureaucracy they will be and how impossible they will find it to make any even a subsistence income.

Yes, of course Clarkson’s Farm has done much to raise public sympathy for farmers - and pub owners. But it does so by presenting their plight in the context of a battle that has already been lost. “Not even Jeremy Clarkson with all the cushioning of his Amazon money and his Sunday Times and Sun column money can make a living out of these businesses,” runs the subtext.

The predominant mood of the show - heavily reinforced by the editing, choice of music, etc - is elegiac. Sure there are some jaunty moments too. But it’s jollity-in-the-face-of-insuperable-odds jauntiness. It’s spirit of Dunkirk jauntiness. It’s yet more of the cultural programming to which the British have been relentlessly subjected since at least Captain Scott’s doomed mission to the Antarctic (1912). “We might no longer great. But we’re still world beaters at heroic failure,” it reassures us.

Even more dangerous than the show’s subtly demoralising tone, though, is its continual misdirection. One, fairly basic example of this is the way Clarkson’s endless difficulties with planning restrictions, environmental regulations and suchlike are presented as the creation of faceless bureaucrats and overzealous jobsworths.

Among the show’s betes noires is West Oxfordshire District Council, whose representatives were responsible for such kill-joy behaviour as voting against Clarkson being permitted to open a restaurant in a disused barn, in the middle of his land, next to his farm shop.

This is fair enough, up to a point. Local councils are indeed full of tinpot dictators whose powers have gone to their head. Some councillors are corrupt, stupid, incompetent or all three. Sometimes they make decisions which are clearly against the interests of the council-taxpayers that they are supposedly there to serve.

But like their counterparts in national government, they are merely functionaries, who take their orders not from below (as the notion of ‘democracy’ gulls us into believing) but from much higher up the food chain. Ultimately, the people calling the shots are the ones who set the global agenda at secretive institutions like the Bilderberg Group, the Committee of 300, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome and, a bit lower down in the pecking order, the World Economic Forum. These are the bodies that invent concepts like Sustainable Development Goals, which are then introduced the regulatory system by shadowy ‘Steering Committees.’

Just because these bodies are secretive and shadowy, though, does not mean they are invisible. You only have to look at the Sustainable Development Goal badges - colour wheels worn on the lapel - sported by all the world leaders at their various summits to understand that this the true source of all our rules and regulations. Like the proverbial concentration camp guards, our leaders are only obeying orders.

This might be - indeed it is - a conspiracy. But it is not a theory. It is a conspiracy in plain sight. Which means that no one, such as Clarkson, with a journalistic background and a duty to the public whose opinions they shape can blame their ignorance of the problem on lack of available information. If they are ignorant it is because, for whatever reason, they have chosen to be ignorant.

The word ‘chosen’, though, covers a multitude of possible sins. Yes, it could be that Clarkson knows EXACTLY what is going on and is deliberately concealing it because his wicked paymasters have ordered him to do so. But I think it far more likely that the sin here is the venial one of negligence. Or sloppiness. Or laziness. Or going along to get along. Or, ‘wanting to keep my partner and family in the style to which they have become accustomed.’

And think of the circles in which Clarkson moves. When he’s not busy farming or filming or writing his various columns, he’ll be hanging out either with the Cotswolds smart set or with London media luvvies. Neither of these groups is notably Awake. Like most people, they have been programmed to think that anything that looks like a ‘conspiracy theory’ is not worth investigating, let alone entertaining, because that will render you beyond the pale of rational human discourse. Ergo, even if you do have doubts about the weird weather we’ve been having, best to blame ‘climate change’ - as all the newspapers, including the ones that host your two lavishly paid columns, are doing - rather than ‘geoengineering.’

Still, Clarkson does know about geoengineering. He must do because he once researched a feature item for it on an old episode of Top Gear, where he demonstrated the effects of a rain-making machine.

“NASA is playing God. It’s making its own weather!” he enthused.

Does he imagine that NASA has since lost the technology, a bit like it lost all the telemetry data of its various missions to the moon?

Does he have a very short memory?

Nope. I think much more likely what we have here is a case of Schrödinger's Clarkson - the phenomenon, common among public figures, where you can keep two contrary ideas in your head simultaneously.

So, yes, Clarkson knows that They have the technology to do whatever the hell They like to the weather - and have done probably for decades.

But he also knows that the torrential, worst-in-73-years rain that ruined the harvest at Diddley Squat Farm and every other farm in Britain last year couldn’t possibly be the result of geoengineering because, well for starters, They just haven’t got the technology…

See how it works? We’re back to that Upton Sinclair dictum: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Personally, I think it’s quite painfully obvious that last year’s weather a) had NOTHING to do with the totally made up, Rockefeller-invented concept of ‘Climate Change’ and b) that it was definitely artificially generated by HAARP, NEXRAD, cloud seeding and other Cabal geoengineering devices with the express purpose of crushing the spirit and destroying the finances of British farmers.

But I think it’s equally obvious that never in a million years are you going to get a figure of Clarkson’s level of celebrity or a programme with the reach of Clarkson’s Farm admitting any of this.

This is because the primary purpose of all so called screen ‘entertainment’ is not to entertain you but to brainwash you. The ‘entertainment’ bit is just the delivery mechanism; but the propaganda points are the actual purpose.

Clarkson’s Farm, like all popular TV, is chock full of such propaganda points but most viewers are so busy being amused by Clarkson’s banter or Kaleb’s haircuts or the cuteness of the piglets they don’t notice.

They include:

• Gerald getting cancer, Alan the builder having to have quadruple bypass surgery, and Clarkson’s next season near-death collapse - these are just normal things that happen to the over-fifties and nothing whatsoever to do with the vaccines.

• Sure all the pubs are closing in Britain. But it’s all to do with little local difficulties like staffing and infrastructure and planning regs and tight margins. Nothing whatsoever to do with a deliberate and concerted plan by the elites to destroy one of the few remaining institutions where people can congregate, drink and talk about the state of the world.

• Covid was just another of those things. It just was. Nothing to see there.

• Your vet is a lovely, knowledgeable, practical bloke who wouldn’t be given all the animals those jabs if he didn’t know it wasn’t good for them.

• Supporting British producers by selling only locally grown produce, bought direct from farmers so as to cut out the middle man, is a great idea in theory but in practice modern supply chains can’t cope.

• Regulations - on rewilding, on the kind of seeds you are permitted to sow, the kind of crops you must grow, on what you can and cannot do with your land and buildings, on everything else besides - are just (resigned sigh from Cheerful Charlie) stuff you have to face up to like a grown up and are probably all to the good of the environment. They have nothing whatsoever with the elites’ deliberate and concerted plan to kill property rights, drive farmers out of business and force us all to starve.

• This awful weather: even if you didn’t believe in Climate Change before, you can’t not do after this, can you, Clarkson fans?

• The world is going to shit. But hey, if TV can’t necessarily save us it can at least give us a few wry laughs on the way out.

If you’re tempted to respond that “well of course, Clarkson’s Farm can’t say any of the edgy, dangerous stuff you’d really like it to say, because then it would never have got made”, I’d say: “Thank you for making my point.”

All TV is enemy propaganda. But the most effective enemy propaganda of all is the stuff that tricks you into thinking it’s the exception to the rule.

Who really runs the world? It’s a question I’ve asked before and no doubt will again. But I think Catherine Austin Fitts has got about as close as any of us are likely to get with her latest explanation.

Previously, she has defined the problem somewhat evasively as ‘There’s a committee at the top which makes all the big decisions. My nickname for it is Mister Global’.

Now, on a podcast with Danny Jones, she gets down to specifics.

“I think you have intergenerational pools of capital. And right now they are over-influenced by the occult. You have inter dimensional intelligence which is operating. Demonic intelligence. So I think this thing about good and evil is real.”

Yes. I’ve long suspected something similar. But when it comes from me it sounds like so much woo, whereas coming from someone with the bottom, gravitas and deliberative caution of Catherine Austin Fitts it’s much more of a bombshell revelation.

With her background in finance and government - she was managing director of Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co and served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing in the George HW Bush administration - Fitts is just about the last person you’d expect to be talking about the reality of demons.

Why would she put her credibility on the line like this if she didn’t have good reason to believe it were true?

Well there are, of course, various dismissive explanations in conspiracy circles - most of them to do with the idea that Catherine Austin Fitts isn’t really ‘one of us’ but some kind of Limited Hangout or Gatekeeper, a deep cover Establishment agent whose mission is to infiltrate the Awake community and sow misinformation.

Amazing Polly on Twitter, for example, is sceptical. Brandishing Fitts’s CV - Member, Advisory Board, Arlington Institute; etc - she asks, not unreasonably:

“Is this the CV of your typical deep stater or do we give some people a pass bc they do the rounds on podcasts?

Wharton, Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT

Learned Mandarin in HK.”

Good question. I do not know the answer. There are lots of reasons to be suspicious of Catherine Austin Fitts but then, as one or two commenters are wont to point out, there are quite a few reasons to be suspicious of me.

But I’m not sure this criticism is relevant here. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that Catherine Austin Fitts is another wrong ‘un, I still find it pretty remarkable that someone so Establishment - or ex-Establishment, depending on your point of view - should state the case for supernatural involvement in the current horror show quite so unequivocally.

Better still is the distinction she makes between demons and aliens, whose significance quite a few Truther commenters have misunderstood.

“So I’ve just reading a book called Final Events by Nick Redfern and it’s an explanation of a group of military intelligence in the United States called the Collins Elite. And they came to believe that the ET phenomenon was a demonic phenomenon. It was not people from another planet. It was demonic intelligence.

And one of the things he discovered was that the Collins Elite apparently discovered that in many ET abduction events if you called on Jesus Christ it would stop.”

I’m amazed - though perhaps I shouldn’t be - how many David Icke fans have misunderstood this as an endorsement of their guru’s theories.

“David Icke has been saying this stuff for years”, one or two commented on Twitter.

No, he hasn’t. This is the exact opposite of what he has been saying. Icke’s theories concern extraterrestrial beings and planetary forces which have trapped us all in some kind of ‘simulation.’ He violently rejects the Christian schemata being proposed here by Fitts. And he certainly wouldn’t agree that you could ward off ‘aliens’ by calling on Jesus Christ because in at least one of his books he argues that Jesus Christ never existed.

I am not a fan of Icke. I have no problem with people who are but I do think there are one or two key questions they need to ask themselves about his philosophical position and its sources.

https://delingpole.substack.com/p/david-ickes-gingerbread-cottage

The other criticism being levelled by certain Awake types against Fitts is that by blaming - or at least partly blaming - supernatural forces, she is somehow absolving all the usual suspects (the bloodline families; the Black Nobility; the Jesuits; the ‘Jews’; the World Economic Forum; etc) of responsibility for their nefarious deeds.

No, she’s really not. She’s just pointing out that ‘the intergenerational pools of capital’ are working as a tag team with the supernatural forces of darkness. Which I think they probably are because I don’t think they’d be capable doing what they do without them.

If you read the Old Testament, you’ll find lots of moments where God makes it clear to the Children of Israel that without Him they are nothing but that with His help anything is possible. Gideon’s victory over the Midianites with an army of just 300, for example.

As Psalm 33 puts it: “There is no king that can be saved by the multitude of an host; neither is any mighty man delivered by much strength.”

Well similar rules appear to apply to the followers of Satan, who has a habit of ripping off all God’s best ideas. Sure, thanks to generations of cultivated psychopathy and repeated practice, his servants have developed all manner of skills and traits that make them really good at running the world: cruelty, ruthlessness, arrogance, deviousness, brutality, trickery, manipulativeness, and so on. But the icing on the cake is the supernatural fire support they get from Satan and his fellow fallen angels.

Can I prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that the world is swarming with largely invisible demons and evil junior gods and princes of the air and Nephilim, all manipulating the affairs of men in the service of Satan? Well ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is a bit of an ask. The problem with the spiritual realm is that it is by nature occluded. You’re not going to have demons rolling up on your doorstep and going: “Now do you believe James?” As with so many other conspiracies, a lot of it is down to intelligent inference, based on piecing together different scraps of evidence.

So, from scripture you have everything from the appearance of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 (“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown”) to Jesus (and later his disciples) casting out demons. Then you have the various occultists and mystics through the ages who claim to have experienced the demonic realm through visions or the use of grimoires. In modern times, we have the testimony of exorcists, not to mention lots of videos on social media of people who are quite possibly possessed. We also have interesting characters like Jerry Marzinsky, the Arizona psychiatrist who discovered that the voices in his mental patients’ heads were demonic, not self-generated. (The two podcasts I did with him here and here are well worth a listen). And this won’t necessarily convince you but it does me: I have a very good friend who was born with the gift of being able to see demonic entities (though only the lower tier, bottom feeder variety) feeding on victims’ negative emotions.

But I think the two best reasons for believing Catherine Austin Fitts’s theory can be derived from observation of the people who run the world. The first of these is their spooky levels of super competence. Most committees could scarcely run a bath, let alone a global conspiracy. Yet this handful of psychologically damaged, brain-fractured, sexually abused, psychopathic plutocrats are so next level genius at planning and executing their very long term schemes they can conjure fake phenomena - global warming! - out of thin air, and even stage entire World Wars to their advantage. Do you reckon they could achieve such things without supernatural aid? I don’t.

The other reason, as we’ve heard from whistleblowers like Ronald Bernard, is that these Elites are utterly obsessed with the occult, including stuff like ritual sacrifice of children. They do it in homage to the evil deities they worship - the same ones, historically, worshipped by the Canaanites and the Edomites and the Phoenicians and all the other tribal groups that practised child sacrifice. In return, the evil deities grant them their earthly wishes, a bit like the genie in the bottle. They are given power, success, fame, even on occasion special skills that render them superhuman, as former Illuminati bloodlines hitman Nathan Reynolds explained on a podcast we did together. Are these evil deities just figments of the Cabal’s wicked imagination? Well maybe. But if they are, these non-existent beings have a pretty damn powerful placebo effect…

https://delingpole.substack.com/p/nathan-reynolds

Now I concede that what I’m saying here would seem utterly far fetched to any Normie reader. And that includes Normies who are Christians, by the way. I was a little surprised to read when I previously wrote on this subject some comments saying: “Christians know this already.”

Er, actually, no most of them very much don’t. In my various picturesque, rustic local churches on Sunday, I take communion with a number of decent, God-fearing country folk, and I doubt a single one of them understands that the world is run by Illuminati bloodlines types in league with the actual Devil and his crew of demons. These people, I’d say, are much more representative of your typical Christian than us crazy, Christian, rabbit hole awake types. Sorry. I wish it were otherwise. But most Christians are Normies.

Personally I have no beef with the Normies. a) I used to be one myself and b) it’s not their fault that they think the way they do because they’ve been put under a huge spell.

But the Awake have no such excuse. At least those among the Awake who resolutely insist that there’s an earthbound explanation for everything that is happening in the world right now and that we need to focus our attention on the human perpetrators and on resisting such iniquitous impositions as Central Bank Digital Currencies.

Well of course we should be resisting CBDCs and digital passports and the World Health Organisation. Of course we should be growing our own vegetables, rearing unregistered chickens and taking our children out of Their brainwashing education system. No one is saying we shouldn’t.

But I’m not buying the fatuous argument that if we talk about the supernatural stuff it somehow ‘discredits our cause’ or that it lets the Du Ponts and the Van Duyns and the Russells and the Orsinis and the Payseurs off the hook or - particularly absurd this one - that it credits our Enemies with powers They don’t have.

Really? These people have been running the world for a good 6,000 years. And you’re trying to tell me that we shouldn’t overestimate how powerful and evil they are because that’s a counsel of despair? If that’s what you think - though perhaps ‘think’ is a bit of a stretch given how little thought you’ve obviously given it - then you really need to look up the phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’, and maybe try to understand it this time.

I totally get that Normies won’t go there because they’re Normies and that’s fine, it simply does not compute for them. But the Awake people who refuse to accept the spiritual dimension of this war we’re fighting I do not get at all.

My question to these Awake supernatural deniers is this: where was it, exactly, that you decided to draw the line under your researches down the rabbit hole?

So you got as far as JFK, and 9/11 and maybe the Moon Landings. You’ll have worked out that most of the history that’s sold to us is fake and that the entertainment, music and media industries are giant brainwashing exercises and that the people in government are just puppets of a predatory, parasite class with a one world government agenda. But once you’d got that far, did not your curiosity pique you to research the whys and wherefores?

What did you make it of it when you got to DUMBs, underground tunnels, adrenochrome, Satanic Ritual Abuse and child trafficking being one of the world’s richest black market industries?

Did you shrug your shoulders and go: “Nah. Too unpleasant. So I’m going to tell myself that this stuff doesn’t happen?” Or did you accept it does happen but choose to play down its ritual occult connotations by telling yourself: “Hey, it’s just what Elites do. They’re a bunch of pervs. Oh and also, they find it useful for collecting Kompromat and enforcing blackmail.”?

And when you were engaged in all your researches down the rabbit hole did you impose on yourself some kind of arbitrary rule, where you decided: “I’m fine with stuff that points the finger at the Venetians, or the City of London, or the Jews or the Jesuits or the freemasons. But I’m absolutely not going to engage with anything esoteric. So I don’t want to know about the Kabbala, or the Babylonian Mystery Religions, or John Dee, or miracles, or demonic possession, or exorcism, or Aleister Crowley, or any of that mumbo jumbo?”

Oh, and the Bible. What about the Bible? It’s the bestselling book in history by far and it has influenced quite a few people, some of them not stupid, so it must have something going for it. Did you just discount the whole lot because you were satisfied with the claim you read somewhere on the internet that it was all just made up as some kind of control mechanism to keep mankind in check or that Christianity was invented by the Jews or the Romans or something?

I read the Bible every day, partly, yes, because I’m a Christian. But partly because it really ought to be a sine qua non for any half way decent conspiracy theorist. That’s because the Bible, more than any other book I’ve read, supplies a coherent explanation for what’s happening in the world right now. Most helpfully, it explains the baddies’ motive.

They’re not in it merely for the money, power, helicopters, volcano island lairs, perverted sex and 33 Club membership, though obviously those are some of the perks. They’re in it, above all, because they hate God and want to make Him redundant - just like in the Tower of Babel story - by showing that anything He can do they can do better. Sure it’s a bit more complicated and nuanced than that but that’s the basic deal. In particular, the baddies hate God’s creation - which is you and me - and so take great delight in torturing us, immiserating us, enslaving us, killing us etc.

Well this is the explanation that I personally find most intellectually persuasive. It makes intuitive sense; the internal logic is coherent; it is an understanding of the world which has been shared by many of the cleverest people who ever lived - over many generations.

But I have absolutely no problem with people who disagree with me. We’re a very disparate bunch, we Awake folk and we’re all at different stages of our journey. I don’t expect everyone who is down the rabbit hole to share my Christian outlook. All I do insist on is that if you ARE going to try inflicting on me your competing theory - whether it’s the Annunaki or ‘We’re all in a simulation’ or ‘Christianity is a Jewish plot’ or whatever - you at least present me with a coherent argument and show me your sources. [“I read it in one of David Icke’s books” won’t cut it, I’m afraid, because his own sourcing, as I establish in my essay, is abysmal].

I believe, for example, as Catherine Austin Fitts seems to do that the creatures flying around in flying saucers and beaming up unsuspecting humans to give them anal probes are NOT aliens from Outer Space (which in my view is fake and gay) but demonic entities related to the fallen angels. Feel free to go: “No. You’re wrong. They’re definitely aliens from outer space” - but first I’d like to see your evidence for outer space actually existing, and secondly I’d like you to explain to me who you think it was that made these aliens and why? (And I’m not buying Big Bang, which was a Jesuit invention).

So yes: a combination of demons and bloodline families is the hill I’m currently prepared to die on.

And because I quite like Catherine Austin Fitts - even if I’m not ruling out the possibility that she might be an Enemy Agent - I’m taking her statement which elides with my own position as a ‘win’ for the cause of truth, justice and general Awakeness.