That’s the official narrative.

Except that, well, official narratives are almost always either fabricated or an outright lie.

And if you argue that everything is a lie, then you need to be consistent.

I need to make it clear that this kind of podcast episode doesn’t mean I or my guest support communism or Stalin. I don’t know what or who my guest supports. It’s about finding out what’s true—no matter where the evidence leads. Ideology shouldn’t get in the way. Plus, if I’m going to question what I know about Hitler, contagion, 9/11, Jesus, and everything else, then I might as well stay consistent when it comes to Stalin—and even Mao.

That I feel the need to add the above disclaimer is a sad indictment of where we are today.

But here we are.

My podcast guest

Professor Grover Furr is an American academic known for his ‘controversial’ defence of Stalin and the Soviet Union, while also teaching Medieval English literature.

He has written a number of books on Stalin.

An important thing to understand is that most English-language books about Stalin, of which there are thousands, have been written from a Western perspective using similar and often overlapping sources.

Most English-language books on Stalin are indeed written from a Western perspective and frequently draw on overlapping or secondary sources rather than original Soviet archives. This creates a recycled narrative that reinforces established Cold War-era views. Scholars like Grover Furr have pointed out that few Western authors engage deeply with primary Russian documents, which limits the scope and challenges the accuracy of mainstream interpretations. As a result, alternative viewpoints based on untranslated Soviet materials often remain marginal in English-speaking discourse.

In other words, almost all English-language Stalin books rely on a narrow set of Western sources and perspectives repeating the same narrative.

Does it mean that everything Grover says is true?

No.

But it certainly means that not everything we’ve been told about Stalin is true.

Give it a listen

Here’s my UK Column conversation with Grover. Before knee-jerking, remove your ideological lens through which you view the world.

Of course, you can listen on most podcast apps. If you use Apple, consider upgrading to the paid subscription to remove the ads.

Better yet, access my premium podcast which has no ads and includes additional, exclusive content.

Morley is a former hospital executive who walked away from the system after realising it had his own diagnosis backwards.

Basically, his core argument is that chronic disease is a mineral dysfunction problem, not a germ problem, centred around:

• too little copper and magnesium to regulate iron,

• too much unregulated iron accumulating, and

• a medical system that keeps treating the downstream symptoms.

This is such an interesting angle because it goes to the absolute root cause, as per the name of his protocol.

In his conversation with me, he mentioned Antoine Béchamp’s work, which sadly most people don’t know about. He was a contemporary of Louis Pasteur — who was a fraud, according to a book I read called Béchamp or Pasteur? — and essentially argued that it’s not the germ that causes disease, but the terrain. The internal environment of the body — its mineral status, its cellular energy, its ability to regulate iron — determines whether you get sick, not the presence of a pathogen.

Béchamp believed that microorganisms arise from within the body when the terrain is compromised, rather than being the primary invaders from outside that Pasteur made them out to be.

In other words, fix the terrain and the germs become irrelevant.

This is a view held by numerous guests on my podcast, thankfully.

🎙️ Podcast episode

You’re welcome to listen to the following conversation with Morley on most podcast apps.

This conversation was recorded for my UK Column show.

Currently, as I type this, I’m not banned anywhere. If you use Apple, upgrade to the paid subscription to remove the ads, or use my premium podcast to remove the ads and get additional content.

I recorded this in early 2025 and decided to share it again.

When somebody is as heavily censored as David Duke, I assume that he’s probably over the target.

According to ChatGPT:

David Duke is a controversial figure known for his involvement in white supremacist and far-right politics. He is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan and served as a Louisiana state representative from 1989 to 1993. Duke has also run for various political offices, including the governorship of Louisiana and the presidency of the United States. His views and actions have been widely criticised as racist and anti-Semitic.

It appears that my assumption is correct.

I might add that the term ‘far right’ doesn’t mean anything. I’ve asked many times for a definition and nobody can give me one. The phrase is completely meaningless because it’s been weaponised as a propaganda tool, overused to describe anyone the establishment dislikes, and is based on a left-right political spectrum that doesn’t actually work in the real world.

And it varies widely, depending on where you are in the world.

So, ChatGPT is just parroting establishment nonsense. Surprise surprise.

KKK?

Before recording this conversation with David, I didn’t know much about the KKK. The extent of my knowledge came from bastions of historical accuracy like Hollywood and TikTok.

Oh, and cartoons.

Comparing Trump to the KKK doesn’t make any sense, but there you go.

Anyway, I’m not saying I’m a fan of the KKK, but understanding its history helps a lot.

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was established in Pulaski, Tennessee in late 1865 or early 1866 by six Confederate veterans who came to be known as the “Pulaski Six.” The founders initially created the organisation as a fraternal social club for former Confederate soldiers seeking camaraderie and community in the aftermath of the Civil War. The name was derived from the Greek word “kyklos,” meaning circle, combined with “clan” to suggest a band of brothers. The group was originally formed as a social group to provide amusement and break the boredom of their small town, offering a space for veterans to connect with one another.

Sounds fine to me.

So what happened?

The KKK’s transformation began in 1867 when the organisation shifted from its original purpose as a social fraternity for Confederate veterans to what historians describe as a political force responding to Radical Republican policies during Reconstruction. Under the leadership of former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the group became more organised and began campaigns of intimidation targeting African Americans and white Republicans, leading to federal crackdowns via the Enforcement Acts of 1870-1871.

After declining in the 1870s, the organisation was revived in 1915 by William Simmons, expanding its focus to include Catholics, Jews, and immigrants, with membership reaching millions by the mid-1920s.

A third wave emerged during the 1950s and 1960s in response to the Civil Rights Movement, particularly following the 1954 Brown Supreme Court decision.

Today, the organisation exists as several independent factions rather than a single cohesive entity.

Basically, the KKK today is a distant memory of what it once was.

Nevertheless, David’s involvement was decades ago and it shouldn’t define him today.

Talking points

• Jewish influence and communism

• Jewish supremacism’s role in global conflicts

• The KKK and understanding its historical context

• The rise of the KKK and the role of carpetbaggers

• Usury and the influence of Maimonides

• The Talmud versus Jesus’ teachings

• Pornography, abortion and mass immigration

🎙️ Podcast episode

Read more

⚠️ This is a podcast episode I recorded in 2023, but I’m sharing it again because it’s uplifting and inspiring. Too many people are obsessed with doom and gloom.

Brittni De La Mora, previously known as Jenna Presley, was a top-tier porn star for seven years, ‘starring’ in over 250 films.

Growing up in a troubled home, she turned to stripping and pornography at 18 to find validation (which seems to be a common theme). Her life spiralled with drug addiction and trauma, including witnessing her boyfriend’s murder.

In 2012, while reading a Bible that she was given on a flight, she felt a spiritual calling to leave the industry. She quit that day, embraced Christianity, and began attending church.

Now married to pastor Richard De La Mora, she co-leads Love Always Ministries, helping girls exit the porn industry and promoting a life of purity.

I find this a beautiful and inspiring story, particularly as I don’t think I could marry a woman with such a high body count and, I'm guessing, a lot of baggage.

Porn drives sex trafficking—minors and coerced adults are filmed, with profits funding criminal networks.

— Siddhant Adhikari, anti-trafficking advocate

Some quick stats

I used Grok AI to generate the following bullet points, but they do appear to be fairly accurate and unbelievably disturbing:

• 88% of porn scenes contain physical aggression, 49% include verbal aggression, often normalising abusive behaviour.

• 69.1 million images of child sexual abuse reported in 2019, up from 45 million in 2018.

• 84.4% of US males and 57% of females aged 14–18 have viewed pornography, average first exposure at age 11.

• Porn industry deeply tied to sex trafficking, with coercion and exploitation common, making consensual content hard to verify.

• Former porn actors report abuse, humiliation, high STI rates, drug addiction, depression, and suicide.

• 46.9% of users escalate to extreme pornography, linked to increased aggression and distorted sexual expectations.

• Porn use increases marital infidelity by over 300%, tied to higher divorce rates and reduced trust.

• Searches for ‘teen sex’ rose 60% from 2004–2006, with legal sites often depicting young-looking women, eroding taboos around child exploitation.

• Global porn industry worth $97 billion, US share $12 billion, surpassing major entertainment industries.

• US businesses lose $16.9 billion yearly due to employees accessing porn at work.

In US dollars, the global porn industry is valued at approximately $97 billion annually, while Hollywood’s total annual revenue is around $74 billion.

Something is very wrong.

Porn warps intimacy—studies show it doubles divorce risk by setting unrealistic expectations for real relationships.

— Samuel Perry, professor of sociology

Basically, there is nothing good about pornography.

🎙️ Podcast episode

Brittni shared her journey with me. It was easier for her than for me, mainly because I don’t usually chat to random women about their sex lives. 🤣

Read more

➡️ I recorded the following conversation in early 2025, but I’m sharing it again because it was so interesting.

The Beatles have sold between 600 and 800 million units—albums, singles, or digital downloads—making them the most successful pop band of all time.

They were a brilliant band and definitely among my favourite acts.

But what if they neither wrote nor recorded much of their music?

I’ve heard it said they didn’t play their own instruments—rubbish, but it’s true some early tracks leaned on hired hands.

— George Martin, record producer

HELP! They need somebody!

Mike Williams is a musician who runs the Sage of Quay website, which is packed with research and in-depth analyses of not only The Beatles but also the broader entertainment industry.

Basically, Mike argues that The Beatles—whether they knew it or not—weren’t the organic counterculture heroes they’re portrayed as. He suggests they were deliberately shaped by forces like the Tavistock Institute to serve a hidden cultural agenda, and a bunch of their music wasn’t even written or recorded by them.

As he notes, they weren’t particularly skilled musicians. Suddenly, they soared to fame, almost as if a deliberate media campaign propelled them.

If The Beatles and other bands had ghostwriters and session musicians, who were they?

Phil Spector and The Wrecking Crew.

It doesn’t end there.

Eric Clapton recorded the guitar for ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’.

Remember The Monkees? Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart wrote their songs, with The Wrecking Crew recording the music.

Most of Pet Sounds, by The Beach Boys, was written and recorded by The Wrecking Crew.

The Beatles didn’t play half the instruments on their records—studio pros did, and the writing was a group effort with suits calling shots.

— Alex Constantine, journalist

So, if it’s accepted that session musicians and ghostwriters were (and still are) common, is it really such a stretch to think The Beatles had help?

And is it such a stretch to consider they might have been a cultural project of the Tavistock Institute—a London-based organisation known for its work in psychology, social engineering, and elite influence? It’s a theory that doesn’t just challenge the myth of the band, but the very machinery behind how pop culture is manufactured.

🎙️ Video episode

Mike spent some time on the Rubber Soul album, and also chatted about the ‘Paul is dead’ theory, which has lingered for decades. (I don’t know if I’m persuaded by that theory, though.)

Read more

Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications.

Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union’s Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women’s own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience.

Put another way, home births are not ‘more risky’ than hospital births, and they do not lead to more things going wrong.

In fact, hospitals lead to extra interventions, each with risks and complications pregnant women don’t need, making hospital births less safe in many cases.

Just to be clear, when I talk about home births, I am including the presence of a midwife.

Think about the following.

Quick comparison

What medical interventions occur with a home birth?

Pretty much none.

What medical interventions occur with a hospital birth? Well, here’s a list I copied and pasted:

• Continuous fetal monitoring: Restricts a mother’s movement, which slows labour and increases the likelihood of unnecessary C-sections.

• IV fluids: Can cause fluid overload in the mother and low blood sugar in the newborn, while tethering the mother to a bed.

• Artificial rupture of membranes: Often fails to shorten labour but increases the risk of infection and fetal heart rate irregularities.

• Pitocin: Can cause ‘hyperstimulation,’ leading to dangerously intense contractions that may cut off oxygen to the baby or risk uterine rupture.

• Epidurals: Often cause low blood pressure, limit mobility, and significantly increase the odds of needing forceps, a vacuum, or a C-section.

• Frequent vaginal exams: Can increase infection risk, are invasive, and are often used to justify further interventions based on arbitrary timelines.

• Episiotomy: An outdated practice that can cause more pain, slower healing, and deeper, more severe tearing than natural stretching.

• Forceps or vacuum extraction: Used to speed up a ‘stalled’ birth, these tools pose risks of scalp injury, bruising, and nerve damage to the baby.

• C-section: Major surgery carrying risks of infection, heavy bleeding, and organ damage, while complicating recovery and future pregnancies.

And those are just the common ones. There are many more, all of which don’t happen in the comfort of the mother’s quiet, warm home.

And the thing that Dr Stu emphasises is that childbirth is not a medical condition.

If childbirth is not a medical condition, then why do most childbirths occur in hospitals?

Money.

Think about this again.

Why lie on your back?

Why are humans the only mammals that give birth in a hospital? Elephants don’t go to a hospital to give birth. Neither do lions. Nor do dogs.

Moreover, why are humans the only mammals that lie on their backs to give birth?

It makes no sense.

But it makes cents.

Lots of cents.

Did you know?

Women lying on their backs during birth became standard in the 17th–18th centuries, largely thanks to male doctors wanting to have a look, a voyeuristic French king, and the invention of forceps — none of which had anything to do with what’s actually best for the mother (and baby).

• For most of human history, women gave birth upright — squatting, kneeling, or sitting on a birthing stool. Gravity does the work. It’s faster, less painful, and opens the pelvis wider.

• King Louis XIV — who fathered 22 children — liked to watch his mistresses give birth, and the lying-down position gave him a better view. Midwives went along with it to keep the king happy.

• Then male doctors took over from midwives. As medicine became professionalised, men pushed midwives out. The lying-down position suited doctors— it was easier for them to examine, intervene, and use instruments to prod and poke.

• The invention of forceps in the 17th–18th centuries required the woman to be flat on her back for the doctor to use them. The ‘lithotomy position’ (back flat, legs in stirrups) was originally designed for removing gallstones, not giving birth.

None of it is for the benefit of the mother and baby.

All of it is for the benefit of the system.

🎙️ Discussion

Dr Stu and I have known each other for years, so this was a great catch-up. Of course, I also recommend our conversation from 2024.

Please subscribe and listen to my podcast on most apps. If you use Apple, upgrade to the paid subscription to remove the ads. Or use my premium podcast to listen without ads and get additional, exclusive content.

This is such an important topic, in my opinion.

By extension, therefore, he maintains that nuclear weapons simply don’t exist. Or if they do, there isn’t any convincing evidence.

It’s certainly a head-scratcher, especially since we’ve been programmed our whole lives to believe that nukes are real and that the only reason they haven’t been used is the fear of total global destruction—or something like that.

This book explores the claim that nuclear weapons do not function, they are a large-scale hoax. I call this hoax the Fake Nuke Feint.

— Akio Nakatani, ‘Death Object - Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax’

There’s a surprisingly coherent case to be made that nuclear weapons are an elaborate Cold War psyop built on government secrecy, fake physics, Hollywood-produced footage, and the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki look a lot like conventional firebombing jobs, as Michael has shown.

As a matter of interest, the secrecy around the Manhattan Project was architecturally designed to prevent anyone from understanding the whole picture.

• Secrecy was so complete that the majority of the 130,000+ workers didn’t know what they were building until they heard about Hiroshima on the radio.

• Workers were told only what they needed to know and were forbidden from discussing their jobs with anyone — including their wives.

• The entire project ran on compartmentalisation — the deliberate fragmentation of knowledge so no single person outside the top tier could verify the whole.

If you wanted to run a massive deception operation, this is exactly how you’d structure it.

Let’s assume that...

Okay, so if Japan wasn’t nuked, it becomes an incredibly hard sell to make a convincing argument for the existence of nuclear weapons.

Consider the following.

• Lab experiments with supercritical masses of highly-enriched uranium show that nuclear chain reactions rapidly self-extinguish — the heat generated reduces the material’s capacity to sustain the reaction.

• Every single study claiming nuclear weapons are feasible originates from Los Alamos National Laboratory — there is no independent verification. The simulation software used (PAD, PAGOSA) is not publicly available. Why?

• The claim that there is ‘scientific consensus’ on nuclear weapon feasibility is really just a consensus manufactured entirely within classified government institutions. In other words, governments agree with one another.

After all, 80 years of threats, loads of intense wars, mass destruction, genocides—and yet no nukes?

Hollywood

The US Air Force operated a secret Hollywood-quality film studio called Lookout Mountain in Laurel Canyon, California, staffed by professional filmmakers, which produced atomic weapons documentaries and training films with suspiciously high production values for Cold War propaganda.

Some theorists suggest that footage like the Trinity Test blast could have been staged using conventional explosives and clever cinematography techniques rather than actual nukes.

Hmm...

Why, though?

Well, think about it.

A ‘super-weapon’ that nobody can independently verify is the perfect geopolitical control tool.

The threat is more useful than the weapon itself.

Both the US and Soviet Union had every incentive to mutually maintain the hoax — it justified astronomical military budgets, kept populations in fear, and gave both governments near-unlimited power to act in the name of ‘national security’.

So, fear and control.

🎙️ Podcast episode

You are welcome to listen on most podcast apps. If you use Apple, upgrade to the paid subscription to remove the ads.

Look, it’s possible nuclear weapons exist, but how would we know?

An interesting alternative commentator, Miles Mathis, argues that nuclear weapons are essentially a giant hoax—that no nuclear bomb has ever actually been detonated. He claims the whole thing is a state-run psyop using conventional explosives, dodgy photos, and fearmongering to keep governments funded and populations scared.

Again, why has no nuclear weapon been used in 80 years?

David Hughes has been on my podcast a few times and I’ve generally enjoyed his work. Back in mid-2025, for example, on my UK Column podcast, he chatted to me about psychological warfare and how to best understand it.

Then, out of nowhere, a few weeks ago, he wrote a bizarre article in which he ‘outlined three camps of awareness’ and questioned my independence—hinting that I might be controlled opposition.

I don’t like public spats, and I don’t consider this one to be such—since I’m critiquing his article only because he mentioned me, UK Column, and several excellent thinkers who, like David, have appeared on my podcast.

My confusion about his article—what it’s trying to achieve or what his end goal might be—is what has motivated me to write this.

Additionally, I invited him back onto my podcast to discuss all of this, but he declined—and out of respect for his privacy, I won’t divulge his reasons, whether valid or not, or what was said in our emails. Of course, the offer stands, should he change his mind.

His main argument

In short, his main argument is that resistance movements are often infiltrated through what he calls ‘Camp 2’ — a space that seems to oppose the mainstream but actually keeps real dissent under control.

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

— Noam Chomsky

He points out that many alternative media figures push coordinated messages, often without clear funding sources, and that genuine pushback can be taken over by financial (and other) interests.

I certainly agree with him.

He adds that blindly following charismatic ‘leaders’ is a bad idea.

Again, I agree with him.

However, whilst David identifies real problems within alternative media, his proposed ‘three camps’ framework is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Not an original idea

David claims he’s ‘attempting to construct a detailed theoretical framework that no one has ever tried to construct before‘, but this isn’t true.

The ‘Third Camp’ concept dates back to the mid-20th century, particularly in socialist thought led by figures like Hal Draper. It was originally defined as ‘Neither Washington nor Moscow’, rejecting both Western capitalism and Soviet-style communism in favour of an independent socialist stance.

Sun Tzu’s famous principle that ‘all warfare is based on deception’ underlines the strategic importance of misleading opponents. He advised that strength should be hidden by appearing weak, action disguised as inactivity, and closeness made to seem like distance. This approach is not just about trickery, but about shaping an opponent’s perceptions to gain advantage without direct conflict. The behaviour David describes as ‘Camp 2’ — where opposition groups serve a hidden agenda — closely mirrors the Art of War.

In other words, presenting a false front while advancing a concealed goal is a well-established strategy in warfare.

David is rehashing other people’s ideas and that’s perfectly fine, but his attempt is not unique.

It’s all so vague

David’s approach is keeping his criticisms deliberately vague whilst creating an impression of detailed analysis. He mentions loads of names—including mine—throughout his piece, but provides remarkably little evidence for, well, anything.

For instance, he’s suspicious of my paid trip to China in 2025, claiming my subsequent commentary was ‘scarcely differentiable from foreign propaganda’.

What?

I don’t think he actually listened to much of what I said, then.

He ‘questions’ how Western journalists can maintain independence when reporting from countries like China and Russia—yet, as his writing clearly shows, he has fallen into the same Sinophobic trap they do. He has never been to China and is simply parroting the anti-China narrative he’s been programmed with.

I put ‘questions’ in quotation marks because David isn’t really questioning—he’s playing psychological games with his readers. He has my contact details but didn’t reach out to ask anything about my trip. Funny, that.

From his article:

All three commentators were willing to report favourably on China/Russia in ways that were scarcely differentiable from foreign propaganda, supposedly in the name of “getting beyond Western propaganda.

What’s wrong with reporting favourably?

Yet David himself took a paid trip to Spain courtesy of the Brownstone Institute, which he describes as perfectly innocent, claiming he ‘saw nothing untoward’ and experienced only ‘a free and open exchange of ideas’.

So, it’s okay to report favourably on Spain, but not on China?

Did you know that Jeffrey Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute (who paid for David’s trip)? And did you know that Jeffrey works for the Epoch Times as their Senior Economics Columnist? And did you know that the Epoch Times is funded by heavily anti-China interests like alien-cult Falun Gong? And did you know that Mark Palmer, a co-founder of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Vice Chairman of Freedom House (an organisation funded entirely by the US government), has funded both Epoch Times and Falun Gong? And did you know that the NED is connected to George Soros, whose Open Society Foundation in China was shut down in 1989 for its involvement in attempting to create CIA-backed political instability?

The double standard is breathtaking.

But, hey, like David, I’m just asking innocent questions, right? Why bother contacting David to ask about his paid trip to a NATO country, right?

By the way, Jeffrey has been on my podcast and is a great thinker. I’m merely adding some information that David omitted.

Oh, and I have nothing against Spain.

I’ll be absolutely clear

Our trip was planned months in advance.

I was part of a team creating content—available on my UK Column page—for Pepe Escobar’s upcoming book and documentary about the history of the Silk Road and Belt & Road Initiative, which is why we went into the desert and villages of Xinjiang.

I was given no editorial mandate and had the freedom to share my opinion—both good and bad—which I did (and still do).

The irony is that David’s approach—forming opinions without direct experience—is exactly the kind of armchair theorising that leads to the propaganda he claims to oppose.

South Africa is my home. I have no intention of emigrating to China, but I would love to bring some—though not all—of what I saw there back to my country.

Take safety: whatever the Chinese government has done over the last 30 years is incredible. Over the same period, South Africa has barely improved its safety levels. I live in one of the most violent countries in the world, comparable to a war zone.

Will I speak favourably about China’s remarkable improvement in safety?

Yes.

But I’ve also noted that the large number of cameras didn’t bother me too much, since I generally felt very safe and had no desire to steal anything from anyone. That said, I don’t like mass surveillance, and China has a lot of it.

Had David bothered to actually follow my commentary, he would have known this.

However, the US and Israel also have a lot of mass surveillance—and far more destructive than China’s. For example, Palantir’s mass surveillance technology was used in the US and Israeli attack on Iran in March 2026. And thousands of Starlink terminals were covertly used to trigger civil unrest in Iran, two months earlier.

From ZeroHedge:

The State Dept has been calling its ongoing purchases of Starlink terminals for Iran part of an ‘internet freedom’ initiative, but if the situation were reversed, Washington obviously wouldn’t stand for it. It is easy to imagine American outrage in the scenario where Iran was the one issuing communications equipment to anti-Trump protesters in the US on a mass scale, for example.

All signed and authorised by Trump, via Stargate.

The false trichotomy

David’s framework suffers from the same rigid binary thinking he claims to oppose.

By dividing humanity into three neat camps, he creates exactly the kind of false dichotomy he criticises in others. Reality is far messier, complex, and more nuanced than his schema suggests.

People don’t fit into tidy categories.

Someone might be genuinely sceptical about certain official narratives whilst accepting others. They might be partially correct about some issues whilst completely wrong about others. They might evolve their thinking over time, moving between different levels of awareness on different topics.

And why three camps?

Why not five? Or 100? Or 547?

David’s framework demands that we view everyone through his particular lens, forcing everyone into predetermined boxes. This reductionist approach mirrors the very propaganda techniques he claims to expose - it’s just another form of ‘us versus them’ thinking dressed up in sophisticated language and word salads.

To claim that there are ‘three camps of awareness’ is, in my opinion, both divisive and dangerous.

But it gets worse.

Monopolising truth

Perhaps most unsettling is the implicit claim to be the sole arbiter of authentic truth-seeking. By positioning himself as the enlightened observer who can identify the ‘real’ truth-seekers from the controlled opposition, David assumes a position of ultimate authority that should make any critical thinker deeply uncomfortable.

He presents his framework as objective analysis, but it’s actually a highly subjective interpretation that conveniently places him and those who agree with him in the virtuous ‘Camp 3’ whilst casting doubt on pretty much everyone else.

This is precisely the kind of monopolisation of truth that characterises cult-like thinking.

The very act of creating this framework serves to position David as a gatekeeper of authentic resistance—exactly the role he accuses others of playing. He becomes the ultimate insider who can reveal which outsiders are really insiders in disguise.

Consider his treatment of James Corbett, whom he acknowledges as 'undoubtedly a Camp 3 personality in other respects' but then questions because of James' association with Richard Gage.

David can’t simply accept that someone might disagree with his assessment. Instead, he speculates that James was ‘somehow reined in and told to toe the Camp 2 line’.

Does James (like me) not have agency over his own thoughts?

So, what this reveals is the unfalsifiable nature of David’s framework: anyone who doesn’t fully conform must, in his view, be compromised in some way.

Creating the division he opposes

David claims to oppose the fragmentation of resistance movements, yet his framework actively promotes exactly this fragmentation.

By encouraging people to view other dissidents with suspicion and to constantly police one other for signs of ‘Camp 2’ behaviour, he creates a paranoid atmosphere that destroys the trust necessary for effective collective action. Rather than building bridges between different strands of alternative media, his approach pushes for endless infighting and purity tests. It transforms allies into enemies and turns every disagreement into evidence of possible infiltration or control.

‘Bro, you think that 9/11 was controlled demolition and not directed energy weapons. Bro, that means you’re totally controlled opposition, bro.‘

This is particularly damaging because it mirrors classic Art of War divide-and-conquer tactics. Whether intentionally or not, David’s framework atomises the opposition and prevents coalition-building that might actually threaten the establishment.

Consider his strange attack on UK Column. Rather than engaging with the actual content or challenging specific ideas, he focuses on financial speculation and guilt by association.

Moreover, instead of creating some vague, overarching ‘mystery’ about my trip to China, why not simply point to something specific I’ve said or done?

What’s his end game?

My ultimate problem with David’s ‘three camps’ approach is that it makes effective resistance nearly impossible. If everyone is potentially controlled opposition, if every funding source is suspect, if every platform is compromised, then no meaningful action can ever be taken and no information war can be won.

David’s framework creates a paralysing paranoia that helps existing power structures far better than any controlled opposition could—precisely as Sun Tzu observed thousands of years ago.

Knowingly or not, David is encouraging people to retreat into isolated purity rather than engaging in nuance and complexity.

Conclusion

Whilst David raises legitimate concerns about controlled opposition, his camp framework creates the very divisions and paranoia that prevent effective resistance, whilst positioning him as the ultimate authority on who can be trusted.

Real resistance requires building coalitions, accepting imperfect allies, and focusing on concrete actions rather than endless purity tests and fragmentation of the opposition.

Do those who opposed the Covid jab have the same views as me on the existence of contagion? I have no idea, but I don’t care—what mattered at the time was pushing back against a toxic injection being forced on me and those around me.

We need intellectual humility rather than attempts to monopolise truth.

Most importantly, we must recognise that our enemy isn’t other dissidents who don’t share our exact worldview.

Our enemy is the actual power structures that oppress us.

If you didn’t know, my website is jermwarfare.com.

My website works very similar to Substack, with a subscription model, newsletter, and all the rest—just without the digital ID creep.

It also has a better look and feel.

And, not only is my podcast intro video the best, my cover art is nearing the best too! (I’m currently re-inventing my style, so it’s not quite where I want it yet.)

As a reminder, my intro video was made, from scratch, by a friend of mine, using a combination of my cartoons, stock footage, and videos I took with my phone.

I found the music, back in 2019, on some music creator’s YouTube channel, immediately love it, and bought the rights to use it.

Every year or so, I get my friend to update some of the visuals in the video, so that it remains fresh.

Here is my intro video (which will soon get a refresh again):

Unbelievably, some people have asked me to change it because they feel it’s too aggressive. One guest even cancelled her appearance, saying the intro was too militant.

It’s called Jerm Warfare (which is a play on my real name).

The tagline is ‘the battle of ideas’.

How do people not see the metaphor?

It’s a reference to information wars—clashing beliefs, challenging establishment narratives, fighting for truth in the fog of propaganda.

And it uses Stripe for the payment backend, so it’s all very simple and secure.

Obviously, this is a gradual process. I’m not going to drop Substack overnight, as switching over takes time for everyone to adjust.

But jermwarfare.com is very active, so you’re missing out if you haven’t jumped ship with me.

It’s updated almost daily and it has other cool stuff:

• Archive of my cartoons. Yes, I am actually a cartoonist by trade. Easy to forget. Even I forget.

• I host a weekly, unscripted, members-only live stream on my website. I use a premium streaming service that doesn’t censor. (I don’t use YouTube, Odysee, Rumble, etc.)

• I have a regular podcast, which everybody has these days, but I also have a premium podcast, which has no ads and includes additional, exclusive stuff. The premium podcast is accessible through my website and can be listened to on Apple, Spotify, etc.

• My website has access to very lively private Telegram and WhatsApp groups.

Just to be annoying, I’ll repeat my website’s URL: jermwarfare.com.

Come as you are

Please come over to my website.

Subscribe to get my newsletter and updates in your inbox.

If you can spare a few bucks, become a paid subscriber. It helps me remain independent and pay for antifragile tech like a premium podcast, streaming and video services, and so on. At the same time, being a paid subscriber means you score too.

If you’re already a paid subscriber to my Substack, let me know and I’ll try migrate your subscription so that you don’t have to do anything. My email address is at the bottom of my website.

A very controversial cartoonist has just confirmed, as I type this, he will join me on my next live stream.

Call me a ‘Moon landing denier’ if you like.

That’s fine.

I’ll happily add it to the growing list of things I ‘deny’.

Our computers could not tell any difference whatsoever between a real or simulated mission to the moon.

— Retired ground-crew member

Moon landing conversations

Here are some episodes in which my guests make arguments against the Apollo missions:

• Randy Walsh has authored a few books on the rockets themselves, including the underpowered engines and disasters that occurred during preparation.

• Bart Sibrel made an excellent film called A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.

• Ferdinand Santos uses probability theory to debunk the Apollo missions.

• Massimo Mazzucco is a famous Italian photographer who has analysed the photos allegedly taken on the moon.

According to my recent research, however, there were no live TV broadcasts of either Apollo 11 or Apollo 12. If true, this means that the incredible space achievement we watched was a ghastly, ghostly joke perpetrated by those masters of the hoax — NASA.

— Ralph Rene, author of 'NASA Mooned America'

A list of failed promises

So, to be clear, NASA sent astronauts to the Moon around 60 years ago. Everything went perfectly. They even drove a lunar rover and played golf on the lunar surface.

And they did it a few times, apparently.

Today, however, they’re no longer able to do so, and we’re given a long list of rather flimsy excuses. I won’t go into those now, but they’re all available online.

What I’m doing here is compiling a collection of broken promises—not just from NASA and SpaceX, but from all major space agencies. Keep in mind that NASA is the only one that supposedly sent humans to the Moon, which fits neatly into the ‘American exceptionalism’ narrative.

I’ll update this list if and when I find more promises.

The failed promises

NASA 🇺🇸

Space Exploration Initiative (1989)

• Promise: President George HW Bush announced plans to return to the Moon and eventually send humans to Mars.

• Outcome: Programme cancelled in 1993 under President Clinton after just four years.

Vision for Space Exploration (2004)

• Promise: President George W Bush announced plans to return humans to the Moon between 2015-2020, with initial goal of 2018.

• Outcome: Evolved into Constellation programme, which was later cancelled in 2010.

Constellation Programme (2005-2010)

• Promise: Return astronauts to the Moon by 2020 using Ares rockets and Orion spacecraft.

• Outcome: Cancelled by Obama administration in 2010 after spending over $9 billion, deemed ‘over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation’.

Artemis Programme (2017-present)

• Promise: Trump’s Space Policy Directive 1 (2017) initially aimed for Moon landing by 2024.

• Delays:

  • 2024 → 2026 (announced January 2024)

  • 2026 → 2027 (announced 2025)

  • 2027 → 2028 (announced March 2026)

• Recent changes: Artemis 3 lunar landing mission cancelled entirely in February 2026, replaced with orbital docking test.

VIPER Moon Rover

• Promise: $450 million ice-hunting rover for lunar exploration.

• Outcome: Cancelled in July 2024 due to budget constraints.

SpaceX 🇺🇸

Dear Moon Mission

• Promise: Private lunar flyby mission with Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa and crew of artists, originally planned for 2023.

• Outcome: Cancelled in June 2024 due to delays with Starship development.

Starship Lunar Lander

• Promise: Key component of NASA’s Artemis programme for landing astronauts on Moon.

• Status: Significant delays affecting entire Artemis timeline, contributing to mission postponements.

Russia 🇷🇺

Luna Programme Revival

• Promise: Putin announced in 2022 that Russia would restart Moon landings.

• Setbacks:

  • Luna-25 mission crashed on lunar surface in August 2023

  • Luna-26 mission delayed from 2027 to 2028 due to sanctions and technical issues

  • Venus missions also delayed to 2036

European Space Agency 🇪🇺

Luna Collaboration with Russia

• Promise: Joint Luna missions (Luna-25, 26, 27) with Russia.

• Outcome: Cooperation ended in April 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ESA retrieved its hardware.

Japan 🇯🇵

Martian Moons eXploration (MMX)

• Promise: Sample return mission from Mars’ moon Phobos, originally scheduled for 2024.

• Outcome: Delayed to 2026 due to H3 rocket problems.

India 🇮🇳

Chandrayaan-2

• Promise: Moon mission originally planned for launch in 2016.

• Delays:

  • December 2016 → October 2018 → January 2019 → July 2019 (final launch)

  • Multiple technical delays over nearly three years

Human Lunar Mission

• Promise: ISRO has discussed potential crewed lunar missions.

• Status: Delayed indefinitely due to launch vehicle reliability concerns.

China 🇨🇳

Crewed Lunar Landing

• Promise: Maintain target of crewed Moon landing by 2030.

• Status: Currently on track with no major announced delays, though timeline remains ambitious.

How is this possible?

I mean, how did they manage it over half a century ago, yet have no ability to do it now?

Maybe it's because, back in the 60s, they didn't imagine a world with the internet and accountability from millions of people scrutinising their claims.

Why did Neil speak so cryptically?

What did he mean?

After all, walking on the Moon is probably humanity's greatest achievement, right?

So why did he avoid interviews, and why did he express no excitement about all of it?

Please consider supporting my independent work. It’s really cheap and we have great private Telegram and WhatsApp groups.

I’m using Substack less because of Substack’s digital ID creep. For example, I don’t like the way in which Substack now requires age verification in some countries.

This is not good and it will get worse.

It is precisely what Agenda 2030 is all about, despite the persuasive propaganda and fluff pieces like the following from TechUK:

Over the past five years, the UK has made much progress in digital identity across both public and private sectors. And, over the next five years, we can build on these foundations towards a trusted, decentralised system that benefits every citizen and business.

We need a cohesive, outcome-driven national digital ID strategy — one that measures progress, empowers the private sector to deliver beyond government, and enables digital ID as a driver of economic growth and trust by 2030.

The UK’s success with digital identity will rest on a strong public–private partnership: the government providing digital infrastructure for Citizen-to-Government (C2G) and Citizen-to-Business (C2B) services, government-issued digital credentials, and empowering the industry to drive innovation and adoption across the private sector. Between now and 2030, this partnership must turn shared ambition into action — creating a privacy-first, citizen-centred digital ecosystem that underpins national trust and prosperity.

When done right, digital identity will not be seen as surveillance or control — it will stand as the cornerstone of a safer, more efficient, and privacy-respecting digital UK, empowering citizens, enabling businesses to thrive, and helping government deliver smarter, more connected public services. Digital ID is a foundational layer in the ‘UK stack’ of digital services that will enable identity, payments and smart data sharing to grow our digital economy whilst keeping it safe.

There is no need for digital ID.

Simple.

Age verification, like what Substack has begun doing, is stupid.

Thankfully, I don’t need Substack.

I have my own website, jermwarfare.com.

And on my own website, which is jermwarfare.com, I publish my own articles, videos, and cartoons.

Furthermore, on my own website—which, in case you’ve forgotten—is jermwarfare.com, I also host live-streams and a private global community on both WhatsApp and Telegram. (You can use the latter if you’re nervous about WhatsApp’s privacy.)

If you’re a paid subscriber here on Substack, just let me know and I’ll move your subscription across to jermwarfare.com.

It’s fairly easy, since both Substack and my website use similar models.

I’m not sure if I mentioned it, but my website is jermwarfare.com.

I’ll make it even easier.

If you click on this link, it will take you directly to the subscription page.

There is a free option available, but I'd encourage you to consider a paid subscription. It’s not a lot. Over the years, I've faced significant censorship and attacks, and any financial support makes a crucial difference in helping me stay independent.

You can unsubscribe anytime.

Get away from this digital ID garbage and come join me in the trenches.

It is allowing in the slow creep of digital ID.

Good question.

The answer has nothing to do with ‘online safety’ and everything to do with surveillance, social credit, and centralisation of personal data. Substack is bending to the whims of governments.

Which, in my view, is unprincipled.

After all, Substack isn’t PornHub. It’s mostly just a collection of news articles, stories, and opinion pieces.

So, in my view, this amounts to little more than erecting a fence around critical thinking—making it harder to reach.

The Cathedral (media plus government plus academia) doesn’t like too many apostates.

There are a number of excellent articles about why Substack’s direction is terrible, so I won’t rehash them.

The road ahead

Okay, so now what?

Well, I’m not going to moan and do nothing more.

As I said previously, over the course of 2026, I’m going to distance myself from Substack and encourage my readers to follow me to my website jermwarfare.com.

It has a subscription model like Substack, and follows the same newsletter-driven structure.

But I control it.

There is no age verification required.

And there is a lot more on offer, like my private Telegram and WhatsApp groups (which have like-minded people from all around the world), and my new weekly live stream (which will soon be upgraded to twice weekly), as well as my other content like cartoons and opinion pieces, like my recent one on why the US attacked Venezuela.

• Please go to jermwarfare.com and subscribe.

• You can select the free option, but I’d appreciate you selecting the paid option, since it isn’t much and helps me remain independent, but you also get full access to everything. (For example, paid subscribers get access to my archived podcast episodes, like the two with RFK, the one with Alex Jones, the one with David Icke, the one with John McAfee, and many more.)

• Those who can spare a few dollars per month get preferential treatment from me, since you scratching my back means me scratching your back. It’s only fair.

What about Substack subscribers?

Obviously, Substack subscribers will need to come across to jermwarfare.com.

My website uses Ghost software, which is similar to Substack, and both Ghost and Substack use Stripe, which means I can migrate paid subscribers fairly easily.

In other words, Substack paid subscribers don’t need to do anything.

But there’s no rush just yet. This process will take a few months, but I have begun decreasing my Substack output in favour of my jermwarfare.com output.

Social media

I’ll repeat this.

At the end of 2025, I deleted some of my social media as promised. I am no longer on Twitter/X, Facebook, or YouTube. Technically, my YouTube channel still exists, but it has no videos. My Instagram account is still active, but I don’t use it. I’ll probably kill it too.

I do, however, have channels on Telegram and WhatsApp (not the same as my private groups). My Telegram channel can be found here, and my WhatsApp channel can be found here.

To join my private Telegram and WhatsApp groups and interact with me and others directly, you will need to be a paid subscriber, as I said.

Why am I doing this?

Because I want to focus on what matters and what adds value to both me and those who follow my work.

By reducing the noise, I can hear better.

Less clutter equals more simplicity.

I can’t be of value if I’m all over the place.

See you in the jermwarfare.com trenches!

I use the term ‘professional’ quite loosely because I have qualifications in neither but make an income from both.

As it happens, I find there to be a tight relationship between my cartoons and my podcast because both are centred around overlapping talking points; one is audio and one is visual.

It works.

However, buffering against censorship has been a never-ending battle. Becoming anti-fragile is an ongoing fight.

Raging against the machine is tiring.

And often, thankless.

But there is a silver lining: I have learnt; I have matured; I have gained wisdom.

The same can be said for many of those who have followed my work and for that I am glad.

What to do? What to do?

But the reality is that I'm removing the things I no longer find valuable. I am getting rid of obstacles.

I am streamlining.

It's summer here as I type this, yet I've already begun spring-cleaning in preparation for the next season.

Before your brain races ahead—no, I’m not stopping my cartoons or my podcast.

But I have stepped back from some social media platforms, including X, Facebook, and YouTube.

While they certainly have value, my experience is that it's quickly undone by trolling, chaos agents, and overall toxicity—what Jordan Peterson rightly calls sociopathic behaviour. If those same people came to my house, I doubt they'd behave that way. And if they did, I’d show them the front door. My general anger has increased, and I’ve been struggling to figure out why—until recently, when it occurred to me that the reason is social media.

I am taking that which is valuable.

I am discarding that which is not.

Substack is from where I send this newsletter, but the age verification nonsense is part of a broader digital ID creep that bothers me, and I have a feeling Substack is heading in the wrong direction.

So, with that in mind, once again, I find myself at a crossroad: do I stay with Substack or do I ditch it?

The short answer is that I stay with it, but the long answer is more complex.

Gradual changes to newsletter

I have my own newsletter plugin linked to my website, jermwarfare.com, so it makes sense to use it instead of Substack—especially since I have full control over it, unlike with Substack.

Please visit jermwarfare.com and subscribe to my newsletter. It’s free. However, if you’re feeling generous, consider a paid subscription; it would help me greatly and it’s dirt cheap (and you can stop anytime).

Over the coming months, I’ll gradually increase my use of the jermwarfare.com newsletter and reduce my reliance on Substack.

Another positive outcome is that it will promote greater simplicity and minimalism.

Social media changes

As I said, I have removed some of my social media accounts. The ones that add value, I have kept.

• You can follow my Telegram channel here.

• You can follow my (brand new) WhatsApp channel here.

The WhatsApp channel is for those who refuse to use Telegram, of which there are many. In fact, most of my friends and family use WhatsApp. I’ve applied the full set of privacy options to both Telegram and WhatsApp.

I’ll repeat

My biggest upcoming shift will be to my jermwarfare.com newsletter. Again, please subscribe, if you haven’t. I want to get ahead of the digital ID garbage, and I’m sure you do too.

Plus, I’m setting up a regular video live-stream—with opinions, entertainment, news, and more—which will be viewable on my website and not on Substack.

So, in summary…

• Follow either or both my Telegram and WhatsApp channels.

• Subscribe to my newsletter at jermwarfare.com. (Preferably, a paid subscription, which also gets you full access to all my archived and other content including an upcoming regular live-stream.)

• I will gradually move away from Substack, due to the creeping digital ID nonsense.

Take that which is valuable.

Discard that which is not.

Create what is uniquely yours.

When readers respond with fists swinging, mission accomplished.

Then there are readers who get angry but try to appear cool, making their responses seem ‘objective’. I love these types—they work so hard to hide the fact that they’re also swinging their fists.

Best of all is when fellow cartoonists get triggered by cartoons. There are plenty of them and I know several. I’ve been called everything: ‘homophobe’, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘misogynist’, and the fashionably new ‘transphobe’.

Naturally, I find this offensive.

Because I’m certainly not a misogynist.

Cartoons

I drew the above cartoon on a flight from Europe back to South Africa. I was in the middle seat; my wife was sleeping against the window and the person to my right was watching me draw while pretending not to watch me draw.

This ‘transgenderism’ narrative is ridiculous.

Firstly, there is no such thing as ‘transgender’. It’s simply men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men.

Secondly, men cannot become women and women cannot become men. A man who ingests hormones and chops off his junk is still man, but a man with sensitive pecs and no package.

To be fair, I use the term ‘man’ loosely. I wouldn’t say he is a man. I would say he is a male.

Also, ‘transgender’ folks never shut up.

They’re akin to feminists.

Or lesbians.

They’re always angry.

I’ve never understood why.

Why do they need to have a placard?

And why do they get upset when normal, sane people simply don’t care about their placard?

I can’t really type anything about the above cartoon because the algorithms will undoubtedly prey on me like a decent, upstanding LGBTQ-rights activist who loves kids.

Meanwhile, I remember when girls were tomboys.

These days, girls want to be a boy called Tom.

The ‘agenda’ has succeeded in many ways. It has consumed a multitude of minds.

An art of war is to create division through confusion.

And it works.

I’ll end off with one more cartoon, which I drew about two years ago.

It’s a positive one.

Although, it will probably trigger some atheists.

Positive cartoons are difficult to draw because humour is generally rooted in ridicule.

You can see more of my cartoons at my website.

If you enjoy my work and want me to keep doing what I’m doing, please support me via my website or Substack (through a paid subscription, which is less than a coffee).

No LGBTQ activists were harmed in the making of these cartoons.

Critical theory is an approach, developed in the 80s, that views society primarily through the lens of power struggles between different groups, arguing that institutions and systems are designed to maintain inequality and oppression.

It’s postmodern junk.

For example,

• Whites invented racism and, therefore, Blacks can’t be racist;

• Blacks are oppressed by systemic and institutionalised racism;

• women are oppressed by patriarchal structures; and

• men can become women because gender is systemic oppression.

Any sane person will reject all of that for the woke garbage that it is.

Whites did not invent racism. For example, the Zanj Rebellion (869-883 AD) in, what is now Iraq, provides clear evidence that racism predates European colonialism. Arab rulers systematically enslaved Black Africans, whom they called ‘Zanj’ and Arab writers described them using words that might get my Substack account suspended.

Blacks are not oppressed. I live in South Africa. We have a Black president and deputy president; the majority of the government is Black, including the police force and judicial system, and the Black middle class is larger than the White middle class. In what universe is it true that Blacks are oppressed?

Similarly, women are not oppressed. How is this claim even remotely accurate? Whilst there might be a few remote places where women aren’t having a good time, I see no evidence of patriarchal oppression near me. Rather, I would argue that dismantling patriarchal structures has led many societies to degenerate into moral chaos. Explain to me how OnlyFans girls, who are raking in millions of dollars for showing how “liberated” and "empowered” they are, are oppressed.

Feminists like to argue that women are oppressed, and that’s because feminism is about making women behave and appear like men, as author Carrie Gress argued on my podcast. (I mean, why do lesbians cut their hair into green mohawks, cover their fat bodies in tattoos and wear oversized cargo pants covering their Converse sneakers?)

Rachel Wilson’s conversation with me is also worth a listen; she published an incredible book on the evil history of “women’s liberation” and how men drove it for the purpose of increasing the labour force (after the creation of the Fed) and breaking apart the family unit.

Women were liberated before women were liberated.

So, in a way, many women are indeed oppressed, but by their own doing, while we men have to continue hearing how toxic we are.

I’m not going to bother with the “men can become women” thing because it’s so stupid and doesn’t deserve anything more than a cartoon I drew:

Where am I going with this?

I am demonstrating that the victimhood narrative, which is conspiratorial by nature, is designed to voluntarily enslave otherwise intelligent minds through perpetual power struggles.

These power struggles cannot end, which is by design.

They are constantly intersected and subdivided to ensure their continuation; when it’s shown that women aren’t oppressed, a new category of women’s oppression is invented to maintain the narrative.

To butcher Queen: the struggle must go on.

Here’s where those on “my side” will get triggered.

The battle against the globalists is no different.

Call them elites, technocrats, Luciferians, the New World Order, Zionists, or simply ‘them’—the principle remains the same.

We want to feel like we matter and have a voice.

We want to be part of a ‘cause’ because it brings meaning to our otherwise mundane lives.

We want to have ‘them’ as the enemy so that we can ‘fight them’.

And, not unlike feminists and critical theorists, conspiracy theorists (or sceptics, or ‘freedom fighters’, or whatever descriptor is preferred) fall into the same trap of perpetual victimhood.

There will never be a time when we have won.

There can’t be.

Because what happens after that?

I anticipate knee-jerk reactions for omitting certain placeholders—like ‘we win when God defeats Satan’. Whilst this might be true for Christians, it’s functionally no different from the communist utopia of ‘we win when all people are equal’.

Both religious and secular ideologies can function as perpetual struggle narratives, with victory always deferred to an indefinite future.

We can never win under those conditions.

Let me be clear

I’m not saying a technocratic new world order isn’t rolling out—it clearly is—but we must acknowledge wins along the way.

We must accept and celebrate when we win battles.

We must leave behind what’s been defeated and stop desiring constant victimhood.

We must stop being defeatist, looking for reasons to create repetitive and pointless battles.

We must act like winners when we are winners.

And it starts with you, as an individual.

Always.

I have won multiple battles over the years.

Have you?

Just because everyone and everything might be out to get you doesn’t mean they will.

One of them gets every end-of-the-world prediction wrong, and the other is a Jehovah’s Witness.

These days, most people know me as a podcast host. Make no mistake—with over 1,000 episodes under my belt and some of the world’s finest guests, I absolutely love what I do. You can find everything at jermwarfare.com. (Please become a paid subscriber; I put a huge amount of work into what I do.)

However, I’m actually a cartoonist by trade—more specifically, a political cartoonist with two decades of experience. You can find a collection of my cartoons here. I’ve won awards, published books, been censored, been fired, had my life threatened and experienced all the other challenges that come with the territory.

Okay, enough rambling.

Here are some cartoons about climate change.

This polar bear cartoon was inspired by a podcast episode featuring leading polar bear scientist Susan Crockford. Having studied polar bears for 40 years, she has concluded that they’re doing fine despite sensational claims about their climate-related demise.

I’m not sure whether the following falls under ‘climate change’ or not. I don’t know. Its slapstick humour made me giggle regardless.

This next one always triggers flat-earthers.

I mean, of all the people who take offence, flat-Earthers aren’t the ones I’m targeting in my satire. They don’t even cross my mind!

The message is obvious: the sun is the primary cause of climate change.

It seems utterly ridiculous to even question this. If the sun disappeared tonight, virtually all life on Earth would be dead within weeks. Simply put, when the sun goes down, temperatures drop; when it rises, temperatures rise.

Climate change alarmists should be the ones getting triggered, given they’re the ones claiming that turning on light bulbs and driving my diesel car cause the ice caps to melt. What I didn’t expect was for flat-Earthers to join the chorus of the triggered, though with a different criticism: that the sun is tiny and floats inside the dome of the flat Earth.

This cartoon is the oldest of today’s selection, dating back to 2018.

And it’s still relevant.

As an aside, during my recent travels across China, I witnessed the most wind turbines I’ve ever seen in one place. There were probably thousands stretching across a single expanse of land, and they’re absolutely enormous.

I love this cartoon.

It’s a hat-tip to the Sunday newspaper comics I read as a kid. Of course, the comment is rather dark, especially since Sustainable Development represents the UN’s aggressive onslaught against internal combustion engines and, well, the entirety of the Industrial Revolution.

Okay, one more for the road.

It wasn’t long ago when “global boiling” was announced by the UN.

The argument is ludicrous: Earth is going to get so hot that nothing will survive UNLESS we use solar panels and wind turbines.

Ironically, cold temperatures have persisted and there’s no sign of boiling anywhere. In fact, the media is now running ‘coldest ever’ stories. They can’t make up their minds.

It gets funnier.

Earth is boiling but an ice age is coming.

The whole thing is a circus.

Nobody has any idea what’s going on, which is hilariously entertaining. Or maybe some do know, but confusion is a brilliant way to instil fear and mass anxiety, making control and compliance much easier.

Support my work

If you appreciate my cartoons and want me to keep drawing, please become a paid subscriber to either my Substack or jermwarfare.com, or both.

Subscribe now

It’s cheaper than a coffee. Don’t be cheapskate. Support me.

I’ll even show you my drawing process in an upcoming Substack post.

In other words, those who wanted radical change were the left-wing and those who wanted to preserve the establishment were the right-wing.

This was in the 1700s.

It’s now three centuries later.

The terms evolved over time, to the point where they don’t mean anything of substance today.

I mean, what exactly is meant by “right-wing” or, better yet, “far right”? At what point does “right” become “far right”? What metrics are used? They’re just shallow labels used to create a superficial and unnecessary division between people. The funniest thing is that, over the last few years, I’ve asked many people to define the terms and, as yet, I haven’t received a single coherent answer.

Everybody has a different definition, and I use the word “definition” quite loosely here. For the most part, people can neither construct proper sentences nor spell correctly. Getting a coherent definition from people has become akin to asking for evidence of vaccine efficacy.

Look, I can kinda define the terms but the fact that nobody can agree means that my definition means nothing.

Nevertheless, here’s how I define them.

• Left-wing means how things should be.

• Right-wing means how things are.

In other words, those who desire disruption to the order of things are left-wing, while those who desire preservation of the order of things are right-wing.

It’s a very empty definition but it’s my best attempt. Am I left-wing? Yes, at times. Am I right-wing? Yes, at times.

Okay, cool. Now what?

Nothing happens.

I get why everybody likes these labels though. It’s tribalism and tribalism is human nature. Humans have always been tribal. As I’ve explained in previous Substack pieces, I’m not a fan of dismantling human nature; Yuval Harari is a fan of dismantling human nature. What matters, therefore, is choosing the right tribe. Those to my “left” and “right” are not my enemies. They’re not all necessarily my tribe, but they’re not my enemies.

In The Lord of the Rings, the Men and Elves weren’t the same tribe, but they weren’t enemies either; they worked as a team to defeat Sauron, the enemy. After that, they returned to their tribes.

I don’t consider myself either a communist or socialist by most definitions, but I’ve had some of the best conversations with self-described communists and socialists. I’ve learnt from them. I’ve become friends with them. I’ve even changed some of my views because of them. Does that make me a communist or a socialist? No.

What does it make me?

Well, it makes me, me.

It makes me a complex individual, one who doesn’t slot neatly into a pigeonhole created by someone else.

By the way, I need to point out that society tends to use some of these terms interchangeably, making things even more clumsy. Sometimes, right-wing is synonymous with conservative and left-wing is synonymous with liberal. But then you get libertarians who like to align themselves with liberalism and it all gets a bit Pythonesque.

Here’s a thought: just be you.

My position on vaccines has completely reversed since 2020. I used to believe that vaccines were safe and effective, but now I know that no vaccine has ever been either safe or effective. Is that a left-wing or right-wing conclusion?

I have travelled China extensively and seen how their system works. There is a lot that I dislike, but there is a lot that I like. One thing is certain: China is huge and can’t be encapsulated into a single word like “communist”. It’s just hilariously absurd.

China is a complex system. Complex systems go beyond labels. Humans are also complex systems. We go beyond labels.

If you want to use terms like “right-wing” and “left-wing”, that’s fine, but be sure to define them.

These days, when I’m asked if I’m either left-wing or right-wing, my answer is something along the lines of “How about you explain what you mean and let’s go from there.”

Wikipedia used to describe me as “far right” and, while I find it funny, I have no idea what it means. If “right-wing” means wanting to preserve the established order, then does “far right” mean I really really really want to preserve the established order?

It’s all so stupid.

Ironically, across the more than 1000 episodes of my podcast, it is with self-proclaimed communists and socialists that I have discovered the greatest common ground; they are the ones most vehemently opposed to vaccines, mass immigration, and Zionism, while championing the family, tradition, morality, and community.

Which is why I often respond with this quip:

Our enemies are not those to our left and right, but those who are above us.

If we want to win more battles in the information war, we could probably learn a few lessons from Middle Earth.

Consider the following headline:

The source is The Guardian, but that doesn’t matter because the headline is probably accurate and there’s an easy way to verify it.

It’s a fairly run-of-the-mill current affairs story that doesn’t require much editorialisation, if any. The G20 Summit is a real event and it is happening in South Africa. Trump’s decision to boycott it is a straightforward news item. If no American delegation shows up, the story will be proven true.

However, the G20 Summit itself is a different beast and I agree with Trump’s decision to boycott it. The whole thing is about creating a multipolar carbon economy based on the UN’s Sustainable Development technocratic nonsense.

But that’s not related to whether the above headline is fake news or not.

Similarly, if I read a story about a car accident or a surfer being attacked by a shark, I have no reason to invest heaps of time questioning the legitimacy of the claims. Cars crash into one another all the time, and sharks do bite surfers now and then. If, for example, the journalists editorialise by adding comments about cars crashing less if they were electric, or sharks attacking because of climate change, I’ll disregard those bits and still assume the foundational story is probably true.

Basically, everyday stuff doesn’t warrant deep skepticism.

Now consider the following headline:

Here’s where it gets good.

I don’t have a monopoly on truth, so I can’t proudly proclaim that this headline is junk. I do think it is junk, mind you, and I will certainly state that. But it could be true because, historically, Earth has cooled and warmed without the help of humans.

Let’s assume Earth is warming slightly?

So what?

According to Valentina Zharkova, probably one of the best solar physicists in the world, Earth’s temperature trajectories go in cycles. In fact, Earth is currently entering a Grand Solar Minimum, meaning that the temperature trajectory is heading downwards until around 2040, after which it will head upwards again slightly.

The “key global warming target” is nothing more than an agenda item in the UN’s attempt to “reduce carbon emissions” (a metaphor for reducing the number of people). How do I know this? Well, because humans can’t turn up or down Earth’s temperature as if it were a control knob.

My strategy of discernment

This isn’t a bulletproof strategy but I find it quite reliable for the most part.

Does the person/group making the claim have skin in the game?

Put another way, how close to power is the person/group making the claim?

Both CNN and Fox are close to power, despite promoting “opposing” political ideologies.

CNN is close to Obama, while Fox is close to Trump. These outlets do not have skin in the game—if they get stories wrong, it doesn’t matter. They don’t lose money or power.

Meanwhile, my friend Nick Hudson, who founded PANDA to analyse Covid data (and came to very different conclusions from what we were being fed by the media), has skin in the game. He isn’t close to power and if he got things wrong, he would have lost donations and disappeared into insignificance very quickly. As it turns out, he was far closer to the truth than either CNN or Fox and, in fact, pretty much the entire mainstream media establishment.

I am more likely to put my faith into Nick’s conclusions than CNN’s conclusions about the “pandemic”. (As an aside, Nick’s conclusion is that there was no pandemic.) Does it mean that Nick is right on everything else? Of course not. Like I said in a previous Substack article, get rid of binary thinking.

Back to Valentina

She has been on my podcast.

She is nobody special and isn’t close to power.

She is just a scientist at an average university who has studied the sun for decades. In fact, she has been trying to get the UN (more specifically, the IPCC) to include her data, but it’s unlikely because they have a “global warming” agenda to push.

She has skin in the game and I am more likely to put my faith into her conclusions than the IPCC’s conclusions.

Notice my language

I don’t claim Valentina has a monopoly on truth.

I don’t claim Nick has a monopoly on truth.

I don’t claim I have a monopoly on truth.

Nobody has a monopoly on truth.

So, my aforementioned statement is that I am more likely to put my faith in their conclusions before, say, CNN or the IPCC. Notice my use of “more likely” and “faith”. I am not fully committing because I’m allowing for them to get it wrong.

As Off-Guardian’s Kit Knightly said on my podcast, it’s important that we try to break free from the shackles of false dichotomies and binary thinking. We need to allow for error correction.

Am I certain that viruses don’t exist? No. But I am pretty confident that contagion is a myth, because as and have shown in their incredible Substack piece, Transmission Failure, it’s a nearly impossible task to find evidence of human-to-human transmission of any alleged virus.

Both Tim and Mike have skin in the game. Both are very far from power and, if anything, Mike has run the risk of losing all credibility by changing his stance on various pharmaceutical matters, much like the great sports scientist Tim Noakes who realised he was wrong about carbohydrates. From where I’m sitting, Mike and Tim (Noakes) now have maximum credibility.

My strategy has been pretty damn good, in my opinion.

So much so, in fact, that it led to me changing my views on numerous talking points like climate change, vaccines, contagious diseases and many more.

Put simply, it comes down to risk analysis. The person/group taking the bigger risk is the one I’m more likely to take seriously.

And it’s worked for me.

Controlled opposition refers to a tactic where those in power secretly create or control a fake dissenting group or figure to divert attention from real threats, manipulate public opinion, and preserve their dominance by steering narratives away from genuine resistance.

Peter McCullough: bro, I don’t trust him.

Zev Zelenko: controlled opposition (when he was alive).

Whitney Webb: totally limited hangout.

Tom Cowan: chaos agent, bro.

Alex Jones: hahahaha!

Nick Hudson: lol what a grifter.

Even I’ve been labelled a limited hangout.

The list is endless and it’s a big problem. For some reason, many individuals in the alternative/dissident media space end up attacking their own and it’s embarrassing.

The Art of War specifically recommends sowing division and conflict within the enemy so they fight amongst themselves.

And we’re doing just that to ourselves, without any help from the establishment—the real enemy.

It’s friendly fire.

I don’t know why this happens—I’m not sure if it’s organic, by design, or a bit of both.

It’s probably a bit of both.

Either way, it’s a tragedy.

We can’t win small battles, let alone an information war, if we’re attacking everybody on our side.

Yes, controlled opposition is real

Firstly, controlled opposition is real.

Secondly, not all opposition is controlled.

Thirdly, if it’s always the other person who is controlled (and never you), it might be you who is being controlled or you’ve fallen into a trap.

The third point is of particular interest to me.

What if “Truth Seeker” is controlled opposition?

How would we know?

After all, it’s always the other person, right? Plus, “Truth Seeker” is anonymous and couldn’t possibly be part of an intelligence operation, right?

Why would “Truth Seeker” make such a claim, anyway?

What is his goal?

What does he want to achieve by it?

And what is his evidence on which he categorically plays the man and not the ball?

Playing the man and not the ball is woke.

And it’s intellectually lazy.

My point is that just because someone has a different take doesn’t make them controlled opposition.

“Yes, but, Jerm, controlled opposition is about infusing truth with lies.”

Sure.

But there are any number of reasons why people believe certain things.

It’s thanks to Alex Jones that I questioned Sandy Hook. Almost nobody that I know dares to question Sandy Hook. He was the first broadcaster that I know of to question 9/11. I mean, he questioned it on the day it happened.

Here is the full broadcast:

Has Alex said other stuff which I consider to be nonsense?

Absolutely.

But why?

Why do people in the alternative/dissident media space attack their own?

I think there are psychological aspects worth studying:

• Ego

• Arrogance

• Jealousy

• Projection

• Virtue signalling

• Tribalism

For example, I suspect that ego plays a big role. We all want to be on the vanguard. We all want to be ahead of the curve. We all want to be viewed as important. We all want to appear knowledgeable.

We all want to be right.

Furthermore, jealousy is part of the human condition.

Anybody who gains any degree of success—whether financial or social—suddenly becomes a “sellout” or “grifter”.

Additionally, when you go on to social media to proudly proclaim that Peter McCullough is controlled opposition, what are you actually doing?

I’ll answer that.

You are virtue signalling.

You are looking for others who might agree with you and come to high-five you in the replies. You are standing at the street corner and shouting at everyone about the world ending. You are projecting to others that you believe you know something they don’t. You are projecting your own fears and insecurities.

And no, you are not “warning” anybody of anything. You don’t have a monopoly on truth.

Peter was on my podcast right at the beginning of the Covid era, and he offered some very valuable knowledge at the time.

What I’m trying to say is best encapsulated by Bruce Lee:

I care more about the ideas than whether somebody gets funding from The Wellness Company.

If I find the ideas valuable, I absorb them. If I don’t find the ideas valuable, I discard them. As a result, I feel more enlightened and can confidently explain to you why I believe that contagion is a myth and, therefore, why there was no viral pandemic (whether from a lab or from a bat).

I think that Whitney Webb’s Epstein research is the best in the world. (No, she didn’t plagiarise Ryan Dawson’s work.) I also think that her Palantir research is the best in the world. At the same time, I don’t think her takes on 9/11 and Covid are particularly convincing. So, as Bruce Lee recommended, I absorb her Epstein and Palantir research and discard her 9/11 and Covid takes.

Easy.

Win-win.

In other words, I don’t care about “controlled opposition”.

After all, it wasn’t the “uncontrolled” opposition that led me to question Sandy Hook, Epstein, germ theory and more. Or it might have been here and there. I can’t remember. I don’t care. I’m just happy I questioned those things. And still question things.

These purity tests are childish.

Let’s assume that Tucker Carlson is controlled opposition.

Okay.

Cool.

Now what?

Well, what happens now is that you become a paid subscriber to my Substack.

Subscribe now

I fight in the battle of ideas, not in the battle of individuals.

A friend of mine—also a political cartoonist—came up with the book title This is Jerm Warfare!, which was a play on “germ warfare” and my pen name, Jerm (which was a nickname from when I was at school).

Read more