James Delingpole
Politics • Culture • Writing
Most Journalists Don't Realise They Are Working for Satan
November 26, 2025
post photo preview

Sometimes my wife’s newspaper tricks me into reading it. I hate it when this happens, still more so when, as it did the other day, it reduces me to a state of apoplexy.

The story that enticed me was headlined: ‘I Went Off Grid At The End Of My Garden To See If I’d Cope After Armageddon.’ It was accompanied by a picture of the author in woollen hat and anorak, looking glum, superimposed onto a still from one of those post-apocalyptic movies where all the ruined tower blocks are now overgrown with weeds. Well, you can see why I was tempted…

What infuriated me was the very first paragraph:

The Russians have invaded. That’s the most credible scenario, though we can’t rule out a climate catastrophe, deadly pandemic or, indeed, nuclear Armageddon.

‘You bastard!’ I swore at the author, one George Chesterton. ‘You despicable traitor to the human race!’

Possibly this was unfair of me. Chesterton will have been given his brief - ‘Keep it light!’ - and probably thought he was just doing his job. It may well be that, being very likely of a Normie persuasion, he didn’t even notice what he was doing here.

But I noticed.

There is nothing remotely ‘credible’ about the ‘scenario’ of a Russian invasion of the UK. Nor, indeed of a ‘climate catastrophe.’ Nor yet, of a ‘deadly pandemic.’ As for ‘nuclear Armageddon’, for that to happen nukes would first have to exist as viable weapons of mass destruction, which I’m not at all convinced that they do.

Every conceit of that opening paragraph is a lie - and an abominable lie at that because each one of them reinforces in the public imagination a premise which has been designed by some very bad people, the worst in the world, to scare us, to manipulate us, and to exploit us.

This piece is a perfect example of why I so loathe and despise my old trade, print journalism. In the guise of innocuous entertainment, it reinforces our Enemy’s mendacious scare narrative.

People reading that article will have done so with their defences down. “Here’s a bit of fun,” they’ll think, as they approach it, recognising from the comical illustration and the positioning of the article not in the main body of the newspaper but in the lighter-read pull-out supplement that this is not to be taken too seriously.

When you’re relaxed you are much more vulnerable to subliminal messaging. The subliminal message here is: “Russia is a threat. Probably the main thing you should worry about right now. War with Russia is very likely. If it weren’t likely the Swedes wouldn’t have produced this booklet called ‘Om Kristen Ellen Kriget Kommer’ - ‘In case of crisis or war’ - which we are now promoting in this light-hearted piece. So when war with Russia comes, don’t say we didn’t warn you.”

What I find particularly objectionable about this - it’s probably the reason I got so cross - is that I’m still in the midst of reading Two World Wars And Hitler - Who Was Responsible? by Jim Macgregor and John O’Dowd. And what that book makes abundantly clear is that neither the First nor the Second World War started by accident. Both wars were orchestrated by the same kind of people - the Anglo-American Establishment, loosely speaking - who are now pushing us inexorably towards the hot stage of the Third World War, perhaps in the Middle East, perhaps in the Ukraine, using the same methods they used to promulgate the first two wars in their long-planned series of three.

Here, in case you missed it, is my long-read take on that subject.

https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Writing/Articles/how-to-murder-100-million-people-and-come-out-smelling-of-roses

Short version: none of us actually wants war because war is horrible and stops us doing all the much nicer things we’d prefer to do with our lives like having a family, making a home, and not having our friends killed or our limbs blown off. That’s why They - the Predator Class for whom war is a primary business model - can only get us to participate in Their wars through trickery and cajolery and subterfuge.

Subterfuge like that article I just mentioned above. It’s pretending to be a light, frothy, amusing read. But what it really is is pro-war propaganda.

Same goes for the cartoon the same paper - The Daily Telegraph - ran the next day. The cartoon showed someone in a rowing boat flying the white ensign of the Royal Navy shouting through a megaphone “We see you, Putin. We’re ready.” Meanwhile, beneath the waves, in a sinister submarine with some grabby claws at the front, lurks Putin, ready to destroy Britain’s puny defences.

If you went back about 175 years you’d see British newspapers running similarly unfunny cartoons, probably featuring a giant bear (with ‘Russia’ written on it) sneaking up on a lion or a unicorn or maybe a woman draped in a Union flag (with ‘Britannia’ written on her). Plus ça change.

I complained at the beginning about being ‘tricked’ by my wife’s newspaper into reading it. But quite often, if I’m honest, I don’t need to be tricked. As often as not, my incentives are a mix of morbid curiosity and masochism.

When I read the papers, especially The Telegraph where I worked for many years briefly as a specialist news reporter (Arts Correspondent) and mainly as a feature writer and commentator, I feel like a betrayed wife trawling her memory banks in search of all the instances where she should have noticed her husband was having an affair but failed to do so.

Like the injured wife, I now know that my former partner - the mainstream media - is not the decent upstanding chap I thought he was but a creature of monstrous depravity and evil. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether the media isn’t more wicked than even Hollywood or the music industry. Without the media’s relentless lies and social conditioning, after all, we would not be nearly so susceptible to the machinations of our dark overlords. The press is what allows our enemies to get away with murder.

But I didn’t know this at all in the decades I spent working for it. And the question I often ask myself is: “How could I have missed what now seems so obvious to me?”

The answer, I think, is that as with the NASA space programme, only a handful of people need to be in on the secret. The vast majority of NASA employees, I’m sure, genuinely believed that they were sending men to the moon. The vast majority of mainstream media employees, I’m equally sure, believe (or at least have persuaded themselves) that they are speaking truth to power without fear or favour, getting to the bottom of what’s really happening in the world, being the first to ‘break’ ‘the news’, and so on. In both cases, the innocent dupes are so focused on the minutiae of their specific tasks they don’t have time to consider the bigger picture or ask questions like “But whose agenda am I really serving here?”

Consider the place where all the biggest lies are originally promulgated. The news room. If you’re the kind of person who reads my stuff you’re probably the kind of person who knows already that most of what appears in the news pages is literally fake news. “Terrorist” outrages, for example.

Just recently, there was a story all over the UK media - to which I paid little attention because it was all over the UK media - about some immigrant black person on a train going rogue and stabbing lots of people.

“Bollocks!” was my instant mental reaction when my one of my kids told me about it. Miri AF smells a rat too.

https://miri.substack.com/p/on-a-knife-edge

Let’s assume that our hunch is correct and that the entire story was fake, that the participants were all crisis actors, that it was yet another false flag devised by the intelligence services to ramp up fear, justify more state monitoring and regulation, and usher in the planned Nigel Farage/Reform regime… Surely that must make all the news reporters who wrote up the story complicit in the crime?

Well, no. At least not knowingly complicit. When a terror incident story breaks, the chances are that none of the news reporters who write it up initially will be anywhere near the scene. They will be stuck in the newsroom in London - and under pressure to get the ‘story’ out for ‘edition’, ie in time for it to appear in tomorrow’s print edition of the newspaper.

Therefore, in the first instance they will do little if any additional investigation of the story. They will take their stories from ‘the wires’, that is from the various press agencies, Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP). All the press agencies are owned and controlled by the Cabal. Their job is to put out the official narrative, as dictated to them by The Powers That Be. But there’s no reason why the grunt hacks who take their stories from ‘the wire’ should know this. As far as most journalists are concerned, the Press Agencies are the gold standard, with bigger budgets, bigger staff, more access to information than anyone. No need to query their ‘facts’ either because all your competitor newspapers will be using the same information, which is all that really matters: consistency.

As the story develops there will be room for more active reporting: human interest stories about the experiences of the ‘victims’, a site trip to the location of the incident perhaps incorporating descriptive colour and the reactions of local people, etc.

But any independent reporting will be heavily constrained. Suppose, say, reporters had wanted to visit the Huddersfield train to see for themselves the blood-stained carriage. Well they wouldn’t have been allowed on board, most likely, because the police would have declared it to be a ‘crime scene.’ Same with access to the ‘victims’: it would be rendered impossible, for any number of reasons, from ‘too traumatised’ or ‘unwilling to speak’ or ‘being treated in hospital.’ So really, why bother? Why not instead do what news rooms do and rewrite stories from the wires….

This explains something I often noticed as a journalist but could never quite put my finger on: why disaster stories always felt slightly unreal and the reporting on them always a bit unsatisfactory.

I remember, for example, the incident in 2013 when a British soldier called Lee Rigby was supposedly beheaded in the streets of London by Islamist terrorists. This is quite an unusual and dramatic and frankly hard-to-pull-off thing to occur. How did they spot him if he was in civilian clothes? How come no one intervened as the baddies were busily chopping his head off? Why were the eye-witness accounts so mysteriously sketchy? Why wasn’t there more blood - I mean isn’t there LOTS of blood when you chop someone’s head off?

Neither on the day when I read the ‘news’ - nor in the subsequent follow-up reports, did I get any sense that what purportedly had happened really had happened. This didn’t mean that I discounted the story. For years afterwards, I trusted - because the newspapers wouldn’t lie, I thought - that there was a soldier called Lee Rigby and that he really had been beheaded in the street by two Islamic terrorists. But something about it just didn’t feel right and it was only years later that I realised why: that the whole thing was another bollocks, staged, false-flag operation.

When The Powers That Be are setting up fake news stories like this, one thing they are careful to factor in is repetition. That is, in order for the Big Lie to embed itself in the public consciousness it has to be repeated over and over again until even the very stupid people at the back of the class have taken the Big Lie onboard. One way the media effects this with news stories is to drip out new pieces of information each day, supposedly reflecting the diligent further inquiries of reporters, but really just reflecting how the lie narrative has been storyboarded: Day One: the sketchy, bare bone facts as the story breaks; Day Two: the shocked aftermath, prayers and tributes; Day Three: tales of heroism and tragedy from plucky survivors and grieving relatives.

With the Huddersfield train story, one of the ways they kept it alive was with human interest stories about passengers who had heroically fought back. A story in the online regional newspaper Nottinghamshire Live, later picked up by all the big league tabloids such as the Mail, told of a “Huntingdon train hero” who had been planning to watch his football team Nottingham Forest play at an away game in Austria. Cruelly and unforgivably, according to the story, the airline Ryanair had refused to refund his flight.

Further down the report is the interesting detail that ‘an online fundraiser via JustGiving’ has been created in the hero’s name ‘with the hopes of financially supporting him while he recovers from his injuries.’ Already, we learn, ‘more than £50,000’ has been raised.

I’d lay £50,000 that no reporters on any newspaper will have been there to examine the scars when he pulled off his bandages. As we journalists used to joke back in the day - and as quite possibly they still do - ‘never let the facts get in the way of a good story.’

Everyone who doesn’t work in the media assumes that everyone who does work in the media must be knowingly complicit in the lies that the media spews out every day. My contention, as a former insider, is that this ain’t necessarily so.

So who does know? I suspect by the time you get to the level of editor - or just before you are offered the job - that it is made clear to you what the deal is. Editors, even now that no one buys newspapers, get outrageous pay packages, often including perks like chauffeur-driven cars daily from their agreeable country homes. They also get to become figures of influence. It’s possible that shilling on behalf of evil Satanic elites and destroying their people and their country wasn’t what they signed up for when they started out as cub reporters/got fast tracked to the leader page editorial team thanks to their Oxbridge degree. But big money makes nasty conscience problems go away.

Lower down the feeding chain, it’s hard to say who is genuinely compromised and who is just a useful idiot of the corrupt system. But I’d say that the vast majority of hacks fit into the latter category. One reason I’m pretty sure of this is that I know journalists to be incorrigible gossips. In my day, a lot of them used to drink quite heavily too. What do you talk about over a pint? You talk about work. You trade inside information. And I can assure you that never once in my years as a journalist, including several years as a newspaper staffer, did I ever hear a news hack say anything like: “Well you realise that Diana was still alive and able to walk when they pulled her out of the vehicle. A Merovingian blood sacrifice, that’s what it was, orchestrated by Prince Philip” or “Head chopped off in the streets of Woolwich? You’re bloody kidding me, aren’t you? Everyone in the know knows that this was another MI5 false flag.” Nor, ever, did I hear a hack on the foreign desk intimate that 9/11 was an inside job.

The fact is that most journalists actually believe the crap that goes under their bylines. News reporters, certainly, because most news reporters don’t do any actual reporting. Rather they collate and lightly edit the information that has been handed to them by trusted authorities - the emergency services, the news agencies, etc. Their main sin - and it’s a venial one, not a venal one - is to be far too trusting of their sources. And too lazy - or time pressed - to make independent inquiries.

Because I was never myself a proper news reporter - being Arts Correspondent doesn’t really count because all it involves is going to theatrical first nights and writing about arts funding crises and such like - I don’t consider myself responsible for any of the disgusting Cabal propaganda the Telegraphran in its news pages while I was working for it.

But that doesn’t quite let me off the hook. Earlier I described the news room - though strictly speaking I should have said ‘editorial conference’ - as the place where all the biggest newspaper lies are originally promulgated. It’s the opinion formers, though, in the comment and editorial sections who do the worse damage, in my view. And since I was one of them, I feel I owe you an explanation. But that will have to wait till the second part of this piece…

community logo
Join the James Delingpole Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
2
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Why I Want You on My Website (Not Here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

00:02:00
A prayer request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, 28th November 2025. Starts at 5pm

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

00:02:47

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

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

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

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

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

post photo preview
Christianity 1 New Age 0

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

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

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

post photo preview
How Not to Lose It at Your Dad's Funeral

“How did you manage to keep it together at your Dad’s funeral?” some sympathetic souls have kindly asked. This was in response to a recent piece I wrote on the experience of delivering my father’s eulogy. I thought, rather than reply individually, that I would turn into it into another article which some of you might find helpful.

  1. Celebrate the life rather than mourn the death

When I was planning my father’s funeral service, my immediate thought was to choose lots of appropriately sad music: Elgar’s ‘Nimrod’; poignant hymns like The Day Thou Gavest, Lord, Is Ended; and so on. Luckily I realised that this would probably be a mistake.

At a funeral, the congregation is already sad enough that someone they love has died. You really don’t need to twist the knife by tormenting them with music guaranteed to reduce them to tears: the tears will flow quite naturally anyway.

So for the intro music, I chose something jaunty: The Dambusters March by Eric Coates. As well as being an affectionate nod to my Dad’s National Service career (when he served in the RAF), it’s a popular, jolly, sturdy tune that puts a smile on your face. This made wheeling the coffin down the aisle much less painful.

You probably need one solemn, slow hymn to acknowledge the gravity of the moment. My father had already settled this by naming Eternal Father, Strong to Save as his chosen hymn in the Death Book we gave him to fill in, at his leisure, while he was still alive and well. (Death Books are very useful. Every elderly person should have one: they’re your last chance to declare how you want to be buried, who you want delivering your eulogy, etc. They also forestall family arguments after you are gone: your wishes having been expressed, the decision already made).

But one depressing hymn is enough. The others should be rousing ones that offer everyone the chance to sing their hearts out and relieve some of that pent up emotion. We agreed on Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer and Jerusalem. We did wonder whether it was really appropriate to include two such belters. But Gary, the excellent vicar at Christ Church, Malvern, confirmed them as suitable choices. A funeral service, he explained, needs to move in waves: a quiet, contemplative, mournful bit in the middle, book-ended by outbursts of life-affirming, death-conquering exultation.

We played the old man out to the tune of JSB’s Sheep May Safely Graze. I mean, it’s such a classic why would you not?

  1. Keep Your Eyes on the Prize

From the moment I woke up on the day of my father’s funeral, I knew I had but one mission: to give my beloved Daddy the send off he deserved. Just writing that word ‘Daddy’ has brought tears to my eyes, which is why it certainly wasn’t going to be allowed to sneak into my eulogy. My job was not to feel sorry for myself but to deliver an oration worthy of the man.

Also, I’m the eldest sibling. When you are the first born - of five - it’s a job for life. No matter how much your brothers and sisters may subsequently eclipse you in terms of fame, fortune or distinction, whenever you gather together you will always instinctively observe the pecking order you had as children. Therefore, as top dog, you have to set an example. You have to be like a Napoleonic-era naval captain on the quarterdeck of his ship-of-the-line. No matter if there is carnage all around you as your decks are swept with grape, your masts are shattered and your ensign is shredded into a tattered rag. Others may fall but you must keep a cool head.

  1. Pretend It’s Not Happening

Of course, keeping a cool head is easier said than done. But for me it seemed to follow quite naturally from my decision to prioritise my delivery of the eulogy. I entered a kind of trance state in which I felt at one remove from the events around me. When the hearse rolled up with my father’s coffin inside, for example, I quickly fought off thoughts like: “Oh no. That’s my dead Pa in there and he’s not coming back.” Instead, I thought, “Gosh. This is all so intense I’m not even going to try to process it. I’m going to act as if it’s more like a dream.”

It works really well as a strategy, I find. The only problem is afterwards when you realise you haven’t really dealt with any of the emotional issues that might have been alleviated had you allowed yourself to sob and weep. Just now I had a relapse of my various ongoing health problems. Michelle, my wonderful osteo, said my cranial rhythms were so constricted it was as if I were suffering from concussion. She ascribed this - because she had come across it before with other patients - to unresolved grief.

  1. Be a Christian

You should try this sometime, if you haven’t already. Having a strong Christian faith makes SUCH a big difference to how you see death. Not for one second, no not for one fraction of a second, have I imagined that I’m not going to be reunited with my father again at the Resurrection. This is a great comfort to me.

I realise that to an atheist this will seem merely like a delusional cope. But crazy as it may seem, we Christians genuinely believe this stuff. It’s not a position we’ve merely adopted because the Bible tells us so or because we find it to be an agreeable way of dealing with the fact that we’re all gonna die. No. Knowing that there’s an afterlife, that death has been conquered through Christ’s sacrifice, is the essence of everything we think and do. We don’t feel superior to those who think otherwise. Just a bit sorry for them because, goodness, it must be hard living in a world as increasingly demanding as this one and believing that this is all there is.

  1. You Need Dick

Among the qualities I didn’t inherit from my father were a meticulous attention to detail and ability to organise things. Luckily my brother Dick did, which is why things went so smoothly. In military terms, I would be the greenhorn platoon commander desperate to find new ways of getting all his men shot; Dick is the grizzled sergeant who makes sure they don’t.

I had just two jobs - funeral service; eulogy - while Dick took upon himself at least a dozen, from collecting copies of death certificates, informing the various utilities, and booking the church and the grave slot, organising the wake - and the music and photos and sound equipment for our Dick and James tribute - to the tricksy business of dealing with a landlord who, understandably, would much prefer it if the estate went on paying rent for all eternity.

This is the advantage of coming from a large family where there is a range of children with different skill sets. I always knew that having lots of brothers and sisters was a blessing. But I never knew quite how much till my father’s death brought us all together more closely than ever.

So that’s my final piece of advice. If you can and it’s not too late: have lots of children!

Read full Article
post photo preview
How to Deliver the Most Important Speech of Your Life
First, Throw Away Your Script...

I have just delivered the eulogy at my father’s funeral. Was it the most important speech of my life? Well, definitely up there. You only get one shot at giving your old man the send-off he deserves, so you need to get it right.

The temptation on these occasions - and this applies equally to events like daughters’ weddings, best man’s speeches etc - is to make your excuses in advance. “People will understand if I don’t deliver. These occasions are so fraught. You never know how you’re going to react,” you may tell yourself. Sure. But do you really want to spend the rest of your life castigating yourself for how much better you could have been?

You could, of course, play for safety. Type out your speech in advance and read it from a script. This will skirt a lot of potential pitfalls: you can rehearse it so you feel comfortable with it; you’ll have timed it so it won’t overrun; you’ll know you’re not going to say anything clumsy or embarrassing because, perhaps with the help of a trusted adviser, you will have carefully edited it in advance; you (or your paid speechwriter) will have tailored it perfectly with a beginning, middle and an end.

But you will never deliver much more than an average speech. This is first because, unless perhaps done by professional actors, scripted readings never sound as natural or engaging or easy-on-the-ear as unscripted ones. Second because a first-rate speech is a living, breathing thing which responds to the moment. And third because nothing is quite so stimulating to the creative impulse nor thrilling to the nervous system nor makes a speech so exciting to deliver as the terror of going out before an expectant audience and not knowing quite what you are going to say.

Obviously, you’ll need some idea of what you’re going to say. If you don’t know roughly what you want to say you shouldn’t be giving a speech. But this isn’t such a problem as you might think because you do already know what you want to say. What you want to say is the single most important thing that needs to be said about the given topic.

In the case of my father, for example, the important thing was this: he was very special.

But almost every one thinks their Dad is special. What I then had to do was work out what exactly made him so special. Otherwise, I would be in danger of regurgitating a splurge of platitudes and, worse, failing in the one job you have when delivering a funeral oration: capturing the measure of the man (or woman) whose life is being celebrated.

A few ideas came to mind. His bloody mindedness. His pathological aversion to following rules. His insatiable curiosity. His joyous discovery in 1965 when the first of his children was born was that his main purpose in life was to build an empire of Delingpoles.

My father loved being the Delingpole patriarch. (It’s a niche role. There really aren’t many of us). And he liked the idea that rather than preparing his children for the world, it was the world’s job to adapt itself to Delingpoles. Though his five children were all very different, they were very recognisably of the species.

That was my next conundrum. What does a Delingpole look like? I decided they had two defining qualities. One, a very distinctive sense of humour: sometimes warped, often inappropriate, invariably piss-taking. Two, a stubborn determination to be themselves regardless of the personal cost in terms of embarrassment, financial security or ability to gain social acceptance.

Now I had my main theme. I make it sound easy but this is only because I am writing about it after the event. What I haven’t yet mentioned is the hours and hours - and hours - of time I wasted, thrashing about in my head and devising all manner of extraneous verbiage which would end on the cutting room floor.

If I’d read a piece like the one I’m now writing, I could have saved myself an awful lot of trouble. The thing you need to keep in mind when you are constructing a speech is how little time you have to say what needs to be said. So there’s no room - or very little - for anything that is not essential to the main theme.

Oh, and don’t worry about jokes. Or off-the-cuff digressions. Or topical remarks. These will all occur to you naturally in the moment, once you’ve had a chance to assess your audience and the general mood. They don’t need to be worked up in advance: indeed they shouldn’t be because then they turn into darlings. And the only thing to do with darlings, you may remember, is to kill them.

With speeches - as with essays - you won’t go far wrong if you stick to the old, basic, tripartite structural rule:

First, say what you are going to say; then say it; then say what you have just said.

Rules are made to be broken, as we’ll see in a moment. But that one keeps you honest and focused on the task in hand, viz, not skittering around like a crazed dog looking for more exciting new ideas to cram in, but finding ways to amplify your main point so as to enable your audience more fully to appreciate it.

Remember, unlike you, your audience haven’t been living with this speech for the last umpteen weeks. This is their first exposure to it. So what may seem to you like overkill may to them feel more like light understatement bordering on incomprehensibility.

And given that your audience are mainly the people on whom the success of your speech stands or falls, you want them onside. This means not just giving them a line of argument they can clearly follow - even if they are elderly and half deaf, which is not uncommon among funeral congregations - but also making them feel wanted and part of the occasion.

That’s why, early on in my address - but not before I’d got over The Hump - I told everyone present that they were part of the family. “Today you are all honorary Delingpoles”, I said. And I meant it because the fact that they’d all turned out to say goodbye to my father on the hottest day of the year told me all I needed to know: that all of these people were discerning enough to have recognised something special in my father; likely he felt the same way about them. It’s worth remembering that at funerals when you’re not close family you can feel a bit of an imposter. “Should I really be here among so much private grief?” you wonder. A quick acknowledgement from the lectern is a reassuring thing to hear.

Now you’re wondering what The Hump is. This is the name given by my old - and now sadly deceased - friend Brian Robinson for the nasty part at the beginning of a speech which you always dread and somehow have to get past. Once you’ve over The Hump, you’re cooking with gas. And The Hump itself need not be a problem, Brian (a former actor turned professional speech coach) advised. You just need to acknowledge its existence and tackle it head on by preparing for it and dealing with it rather than ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

My biggest challenge, I decided, would be to find an anecdote which simultaneously grabbed the audience’s attention, set the tone of the eulogy (affectionate, amused, upbeat, funny not sad) and didn’t outstay its welcome.

On these occasions - seriously: try it! - I find that appealing to God makes all the difference. I prayed for His help in delivering a eulogy worthy of my father. And God came up trumps by supplying me with the perfect anecdote.

It went roughly like this.

“The first time I realised my father was different was 52 years ago when I was sent off to board at a prep school only about half a mile from where we are now. All the other eight year olds knew how to kick a football, pass a rugger ball and catch a cricket ball. I could do none of the above because my father had never shown me. But I was the only boy who knew the Latin name for the common European wall lizard.”

The reason it works is because it’s funny (well I think so), it hints at the theme which will be enlarged on in the body of the eulogy, it makes a geographical connection with both the location and the audience, it doesn’t last more than a minute, it’s easy to remember (as deep-seated personal recollections always are) and it ends with a clearly defined punchline.

But you’re still not over The Hump just yet. First you must make the transition from your grabby intro to the speech proper. This isn’t easy because you’ve likely paused to allow the audience to appreciate the punchline of your opening anecdote, giving them a chance to laugh as they’ve probably been gagging to do because funerals can be so tense. So how do you do this?

Well the solution I came up with, more or less on the spot because at this point I was letting nervous energy and divine providence take care of the heavy lifting, was to acknowledge what an awesome privilege but also a terrifying responsibility it was to be the one who has to deliver your father’s eulogy. I then observed how very much my father would have disapproved of my trying to do it without any notes, it being such a huge risk to take at an occasion so important - and surely, I ought at least to have a safety net ready just in case.

“But it’s your fault, Pa,” I said. “You bred us this way!” Which is true. He did. He never stopped trying to give us advice on the courses we should take in life but we never ever listened to him and I think he took pride in our utter obliviousness to his wishes. It was a sign that we were the free spirits that he wanted us to be and hoped we would be.

From that point on it was almost plain sailing. All we needed now was a pay off: something to reward the audience for their patience and give them the sense of a speech satisfyingly concluded; but also, more importantly, something that left you with the feeling: “Yes. This was truly special man we’ve just been celebrating. And we’re all going to miss him greatly.”

I decided to break the “Say what you’re going to say; say it; say what you have just said” rule by introducing a sub theme. This was because I had belatedly realised that I had something else very important I needed to say about my father. It had only occurred to me in the weeks after his death when my head was suddenly awash with memories of him and I was trying to make sense of them, trying to work out who he really was. You think you know your father when he is alive but you don’t because you are too busy taking him for granted. Only when he has gone do you start asking yourself: “Who actually was this person whom I’ve now irretrievably lost?” When he’s alive he’s your dad and this relationship colours everything you think about him. But when he’s gone you find yourself trying to understand the world as it might have been from his perspective instead of from yours.

What stood out for me was what a blinder he had played with the cards he’d been dealt in life. Anyone - well, almost anyone: probably not my father who was never much cop at bridge - can win a hand when they’re holding all the Kings and Aces. But it’s how you play the average hands or the shitty hands that are the truer mark of character. Though my old man was born to a life of relative privilege - it was neither easy nor conventionally successful. He suffered bouts of depression; he was cruelly cut out of his father’s will; his first two marriages ended in divorce; his business ventures failed; he had never wanted the career that was forced on him by his father and would have been much happier, probably, as an academic or some kind of maverick, independent researcher or author. Yet no one in that church would have considered him a failure for one second. Because he wasn’t. On the contrary, he repeatedly turned what could have been disaster into triumph by resolutely focusing on the main prize.

And what was this main prize? Hard to define, exactly, but we all had a sense of it in our hearts because it was why we were all there celebrating the life of a man who in his various ways had meant so much to us. As I wrote in my Spectator tribute - which, rather sweetly, the undertaker Georgia placed in his coffin so he could digest it at leisure - I grew almost weary of being told by people who had met him what delightful company my father was. He was both interesting (RAF Chinese language specialist; racing driver; guppy breeder; reptile and amphibian collector; inveterate traveller; etc) and interested, always curious in other people, always wanting to find out more. That’s why on his gravestone, we shall be inscribing one of his favourite catchphrases: “What else do you know?” His desire for new information was insatiable.

This led naturally to my conclusion. I quoted the epitaph on Sir Christopher Wren’s tomb. A bit of a cliche, but apposite. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. Wren’s epitaph referred to his greatest creation, St Paul’s Cathedral. My father’s to the place he occupied in the memories of all those people - perhaps 150, not bad for a 91-year old who’d outlived all his friends - who’d come to the church to see him off.

Goodbye Pa. We’re going to miss you terribly. But you’re going to live on in all sorts of ways that you could never have imagined. This piece, for example. Someone, somewhere is going to find it useful or comforting or even inspirational. And it’s you they should thank for that, not me.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Don't Feed The Demons!

The other day someone wrote something infuriating on the internet which required an angry rebuttal. This happens to me quite a lot, as I suspect it does to you. I had many pressing things to do that morning which demanded my attention - a tribute to write for the Spectator about the death of my beloved, favourite hunter Carpenter; arrangements to make for my father’s funeral; and any number of urgent gardening tasks to fulfil in order to keep my wife happy.

But really this angry rebuttal could not wait. So, poisoned keyboard at the ready, I set about my work. The problem was that no matter how hard I tried, I could never strike a sufficiently satisfying note. I tried cattily sarcastic; then loftily superior; then cool, restrained but implacable; then charming and conciliatory but not really. Numerous drafts and far too many minutes later, I was still no closer to my goal - probably because I wanted to achieve too many contradictory effects simultaneously. On the one hand I wanted to crush, humiliate, mock and destroy. On the other I wanted to set the facts straight in such a way as to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that The Truth was on my side. I also wanted to show myself to be the better person: the good guy in this ugly feud with whom everyone reading it should identify.

https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Writing/Articles/why-we-can-t-all-get-along?preview=1

Then suddenly I realised - “****!” - I’d just missed the first fifteen minutes of my gym class. So carried away had I been my righteous desire for vengeance over something ineffably trivial and forgettable that I had stopped myself doing something that was actually good for me; something I had been looking forward to all morning; something far more valuable and life enhancing than getting involved in yet another silly, pointless, worthless row with some nonentity.

At times like this, I’m reminded of the words of David in Psalm 37.

Leave off from wrath; and let go displeasure; fret not thyself else thou shalt be moved to do evil.

Nothing useful would have been achieved had I responded to the person who had irked me. However cunningly I had phrased myself, they would have still taken umbrage and would have been confirmed in their view that I’m loathsome, arrogant, entitled, petulant, controlled opposition, closet MI5 etc.

This is because many - though not all - of the people who have a go at you on social media are not doing so in good faith. They’ve already made up their mind what they think about you. At this point, even if you were to walk towards them across a lake, heal their genital warts and transform all their bottles of Tesco plonk into Chateau Cheval Blanc ‘47, they’d still have you down as an obvious Wrong ‘Un.

Again, the scriptures have some invaluable words to say on this subject.

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Yes, specifically this is Jesus - in Matthew 10:14 - advising His disciples how best to spread the gospel. But like so much in the Bible - which I consider to be an instruction manual on how to navigate a fallen world - it carries many broader, practical implications.

Nobody is universally liked. Not even Jesus. (Indeed, especially not Jesus). So there’s no point trying to win battles with the people who hate you because all it does is leech away the valuable time you’d be better off spending on the people who like you and are receptive to your message.

I’ve written already about the destructive spats which have arisen of late in the Awake Not-a-Community. No doubt they feel incredibly important to the people participating in them. But the majority - I suspect, the vast majority - of Awake types are thinking: “What IS this crazy shit? Why do we have to take sides in this argument that is being thrust in our face like it’s the Wars of the Roses and we have to declare for the Yorkists or the Lancastrians on pain of death? Why can’t we just have another podcast or post where we learn something useful about the real baddies we’re facing in this epic struggle between good and evil, either that or one that’s fun and where can at least have a laugh?”

So it’s to this majority that in future I shall try to direct my energies. Note that word ‘try’, because I doubt very much I will always succeed. The problem with these little hate-fests is that they are so incredibly seductive. We all need our dopamine hits - the Cabal have trained us to do this by giving us iPhones and social media and so on - and just as the Normies have their kickyball to get them all worked up, distracted and controlled, so we in Awake world have our periodic witch-hunts and bouts of purity spiralling and hanging-drawing-and-quarterings.

And sometimes it’s FUN being bitchy and spiteful and appearing to win. I look at some of Milo’s ripostes on Twitter and think: “Go Milo! You so totally OWNED that awful person!” Owen Benjamin, another character I admire, is pretty good at this stuff too. But it requires a lot of dedication and effort. You have to be perpetually on it if you want to keep the whole swarm of those pesky mosquitos continually swatted. And what I’m wondering is: is it really worth the time and energy?

What I also wonder - hence the title of this piece - is: “And isn’t it just feeding the demons?” Whenever I’m tempted to pile into one of these spats, I hear a voice in my head going: “But what’s the point of reciting Psalm 37 every day if you’re going to treat it like empty words which you can casually ignore?” Then I hear the counter argument in my head which goes something like: “Oh come on! You’re allowed a bit of leeway. Spiking people who deserve it is satisfying and fun. Your fans love it because it shows you being witty and on-brand. You’re not a monk, for goodness sake. You’re a high class edge lord.”

I trust the first voice, though, more than I do the second. What I know about demons - which I believe are totally real, of course - is that they feed off negative energy. They love generating rows and they have several millennias’ worth of experience to show them exactly which buttons to press in order to achieve the desired effect. If they can lure you into the fray by saying “Hey - it’s naughty but you’re good at it and you know you love it!” then that’s the bait they’ll use. But they’re equally adept at appealing to what you think is your better nature, viz: “My motives are pure. I am a selfless servant of the truth and it matters not how many people I upset nor how much glorious martyrdom I suffer at the hands of those doubters who think I have gone too far, for I am the paladin of justice and right is on my side.”

Of course, having made this argument I recognise I have now made myself an open target for those mosquito swarms. “Yeah but last month you said this…!” or “But you’re always accusing people of being Controlled Opposition.” True but - re-read the piece, moron! [sorry God] - I never said I was a saint. I do aspire to be one, for that is the Christian ideal, but being a sinner I fail more often than I succeed. That’s one of the reasons I have to write pieces like this one. I need to remind myself, and anyone else who will listen, that this spiritual battle we are fighting ought to be front and centre of everything that we do and think; and that the moral and behavioural restraints that Christianity seeks to impose on us are not there (as the devil would pretend) to turn us into sanctimonious prigs in thrall to a capricious sky fairy. Rather, these restraints are there to help us and protect us and make us better.

That is what I meant earlier when I talked about the Bible being a practical survival guide. It’s an advice manual full of tips that really work in day-to-day life. As an example of this let me tell you what happened recently after someone really had a go at me in the comments on Substack. He called me out as a liar, a fraud, a ‘Chaos Agent’, implied I was only using scripture to give myself a kind of fake ethical legitimacy, that I was making a mockery of my audience, etc etc. It could have been quite hurtful. Actually, it was quite hurtful - especially coming from someone whose intelligence and scholarship I admired, and with whom I’d hitherto had friendly dealings on my podcast.

So, naturally enough, my immediate urge was for dire vengeance. In my feverish, injustice-traumatised brain I began working on the perfect killer riposte.

Then I thought. “Wait a second. Those demons really are desperate for your attention and you’re in strong danger of giving it to them. Surely there is a better way?”

And there was. Listen to my latest podcast with Robert Frederick (aka Hidden Life Is Best). I think you’ll love it because it’s really, really good. But it would never have happened if I’d fed those demons.

https://locals.com/jamesdelingpole/feed?post=8012229

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