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

Before that, I didn’t really question anything.

After that, I began wondering about the whole global warming thing and whether driving my petrol car was not making Earth great again. I spent a few years looking into it, discovering some great websites along the way, including that of Tony Heller who, years later, I had the great pleasure of having on my podcast. His work was instrumental in my journey to letting go of the climate change hysteria.

It took a few more years before I began questioning other things.

Around 2016, while my wife and I were living in a small and beautiful coastal town for a year, I realised it was okay to be White and to appreciate my own ethnicity and culture without guilt over what my ancestors did—or didn’t do.

By this stage, I had let go of the official 9/11 story and was no longer sure about the moon landing.

I might have had a few questions about the Titanic and JFK’s assassination. Oh, and perhaps Darwinian evolution.

Enter 2020

Dude.

2020.

That was it for me.

Game over.

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

By the end of 2020, I was questioning not only whether SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 were real, but also the existence of viruses in general, whether any vaccines work, whether there was a Rwandan genocide, the whole Holocaust thing, whether Jesus was a Jew (and if Jews are really the “chosen people”), whether atomic bombs were really dropped on Japan and, in fact, whether nuclear weapons even exist, whether Earth is flat, whether women should work, whether Michelle Obama is a man, whether Justin Trudeau is a man, whether The Beatles wrote their own music, whether Shakespeare wrote any of his plays, whether the world is controlled by a few bloodlines, whether China is what we’re told it is (ha!), whether ancient civilisations were really primitive, whether the pyramids were built with advanced technology, whether history is cyclical... I can go on and on and on.

I question everything now

And I think it’s a terrible thing.

After all, ignorance is bliss.

There is no bliss in seeing everything as theatre. But it’s not like I can unsee any of it. And I do find myself quietly judging those around me, secretly rating them on a scale of one to “you insufferable sheep”.

My anger levels are through the roof because I’m surrounded by brain-dead zombies who put more effort into researching the latest iPhone than the vaccine with which they inject into their child’s arm.

Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Sometimes, I’d rather be ignorant. Sometimes, I’d like to wake up and see the world as it should be. Sometimes, I’d like to listen to Lady Gaga and not wonder if she was born that way or whether she has a Judas between her legs.

Nevetheless, it is what it is.

There are some good consequences of questioning everything, I suppose. For example, my son isn’t vaccinated. As in, no vaccines for anything. He didn’t even get vitamin K when he was born. (Oh, vitamin K is another thing I began questioning.)

Another example is that neither my wife nor I got a PCR test or a Covid jab during the Covid era. We had resigned ourselves to the possibility that we’d never leave our country again, since we didn’t legitimise the system by getting a fake vaccine passport.

Then again, maybe ignorance isn’t bliss.

Not having myocarditis is bliss.

Okay, so the guy in the video is an American hip-hop artist. He’s been in Shanghai for two decades and, specifically, in this apartment complex since before the Covid era.

He was obviously willing to speak publicly.

I say that because, unfortunately, due to years of combined Western and Chinese propaganda, many Chinese people don’t entirely trust foreigners like me and tend to be suspicious of our motives when we pull out a camera and ask to do an interview.

I can understand that.

The Big Bad Wolf

China is demonised non-stop as the big bad enemy.

Yet it’s the United States that has hundreds of military bases around the world. It’s the United States that constantly threatens with sanctions and bombings. It’s the United States that thinks it’s the most important country in the world and deserves every knee bowing to its royal highness.

China has a grand total of one military base outside of China, which is in Djibouti.

“Yes, but Jerm, China is using soft power to take over. It’s building infrastructure like high-speed rail and airports, creating debt traps!”

As it happens, I flew to China with Ethiopian Airlines, transferring at their massive Addis Ababa airport — built by the Chinese under the Belt and Road Initiative. Useful infrastructure like that beats American drone strikes any day. Just ask Libya.

Anyway.

Shanghai starvation

Tucker Carlson’s segment, when he was still at Fox News, claimed that the Chinese government locked people into their apartments and starved them to death.

Thankfully, Tucker has evolved some of his views since leaving Fox. I hope this is one of them.

Because nobody in the said apartment complex starved.

Sure, they were locked down, but so were millions of people around the world. In fact, it can easily be argued that other countries were worse off.

• Italy: Implemented some of the harshest lockdowns in Europe, with entire regions quarantined and strict curfews.

• India: Enforced massive shutdowns, including brutal police enforcement.

• Tajikistan: Mandated the jab for all adults. China didn’t mandate the jab.

• Turkmenistan: Required the jab for everyone over 18.

• Vatican City: Imposed full vaccination on all citizens. So much for trusting God.

Over the years, not once has anybody in my online circles said anything about any of the above countries. I’ll even wager that most don’t even know that Tajikistan exists.

And, well, also because China is a low-hanging fruit.

Point is, Tucker got it wrong and this myth refuses to die.

It keeps getting parroted on social media, which shows the power of propaganda.

Then again, did Tucker get it wrong? Or was he also parroting what he was fed? I don’t know, now that I think about it.

Either way, I’m glad I went there and saw and heard reality with my own eyes and ears.

I recently spent nearly a month in China.

I visited nine cities, from Shanghai to Xinjiang, and even travelled to the most isolated village in China, which has a population of around 100. (We drove for about three hours through the desert one way, and three hours back on the same day.)

My point is that I’ve seen a lot of China, from the technologically advanced to the most unbelievably remote, and I’ve spoken to a lot of Chinese people along the way.

As always, the usual suspects appear in the comments with cynical nonsense like “Yes, but you only saw what they allowed you to see” and “As a tourist, your experience is meaningless” and so on.

I don’t pay attention to such comments, since it’s obvious that visiting a place is superior to not visiting it. On top of that, we went wherever we wanted because, well, China isn’t North Korea.

Cameras everywhere

Yes, there are cameras everywhere in China.

I have never seen so many cameras.

It didn’t matter where I was; there were cameras.

Shanghai has, I believe, around 15 million cameras, which is an average of one camera for every two people. I didn’t like it, but the conundrum is that it didn’t bother me, and the reason is simple: I felt safe. We left stuff lying around and nothing was stolen.

Meanwhile, other cities—like London—have loads of cameras too, but they aren’t safe, meaning that the mass surveillance becomes very apparent very quickly.

I’ll say this again: mass surveillance doesn’t make me comfortable.

Thankfully, I live in South Africa where it isn’t a thing. I mean, sure, there are some cameras here and there, but by and large, most are broken and there is little enforcement when they do work.

I’ve often said I prefer the African approach, where the government’s sheer ineptitude ensures nothing functions, creating a sense of freedom amid the chaos.

But it comes at a cost.

Safety.

The safety of my family is paramount.

Living in South Africa is not safe, and this is something foreigners simply don’t understand. They don’t know what it’s like to have murders and rapes daily. They don’t know what it’s like to have to drive through red traffic lights because of the fear of being hijacked. In fact, they don’t know what it’s like to be hijacked at gunpoint. They don’t know what it’s like to hear gunshots at night. They don’t know what it’s like to own a firearm for self-defence, or to have private security on speed dial.

The following screenshot is from the WhatsApp group of our estate (gated community), just as I arrived in China.

There was a moment, while in China, when I asked myself whether I’d be all right with more cameras if it meant less crime.

I still ask myself that.

But I reckon my default setting is what I’m used to, which isn’t millions of cameras but rather relying on community networks for safety.

It’s complicated

• How many of Shanghai’s 15 million cameras actually work?

• Is there a correlation between more surveillance and less crime?

• Have Chinese people just inherently become more trusting of one another (due to ethnic homogeneity)?

I don’t know the answers, but I can tell you I saw plenty of jaywalking in China, along with motorcyclists without helmets—even though both are illegal.

Even I jaywalked many times.

My friend Carl, with whom I travelled, left his phone in a cafeteria and found it in exactly the same spot nearly two hours later. Was that because of cameras? I don’t know.

Facial recognition

Yes, facial recognition exists in China, but nowhere near the levels that social media hysteria suggests.

This sort of anti-China propaganda is everywhere right now, forcing me to conclude it’s not organic—it’s orchestrated by Western intelligence.

I mean, most of those who are part of this current wave of Sinophobia have never been to China. They’re merely parroting what they’ve been fed.

Here’s a message I received from a friend who has lived in Shanghai for many years:

Such propaganda targets people in countries where such technology is not widely used outside of government. Facial recognition systems use local databases and replace keys. To centralize this would require replacing everything.

Facial recognition systems used in gated communities are usually only for people living there and staff entering on foot. This would not be practical for visitors or people in cars. In our gated community for example it’s only used for service personnel. Owners and family members are recognized by the gate guards and let in manually. (We have never registered our faces.)

Privately such systems are used all over China. We use them both at home and in our office.

At home only for the front door however. For the back we still use keys.

Sadly, few will accept what he said. Instead, they’ll dismiss it and cling to their own narrative—they don’t want to be wrong. They insist on painting China as a dystopian hellhole, since it’s simpler to project their fears and paranoia than confront reality.

Plus, if you own a cellphone, you likely use facial recognition. It is neither a good nor bad thing. It’s merely a tool. For example, what is the difference between accessing my banking app using a PIN code and using my face? There are pros and cons both ways.

My point is that, in China, mass surveillance is pretty blatant and in your face.

However…

Mass surveillance exists outside of China, and this is the brilliance of the anti-China psyop: it keeps people distracted.

The following is from a post on X:

Here is the CEO & co-founder of Palantir, Alex Karp at WEF in 2023 saying “Our primary goal is to set a global standard for the world for behavior.”

This is ALARMING for several reasons… Trump just made a deal with him and allowed his company to weave intricately into the fabric of the whole Federal Government, creating a merged massive database of ALL of our personal, sensitive data for the first time in history.

This is significant because yes, the government has always had our data by way of the NSA, but it’s never been merged together across all agencies with the help of a third party corporation, like Palantir, which acts more like a intel agency than a company. They did this using a backdoor through DOGE, and Elon Musk facilitated the process. That was his true role. Palantir and Elon go way back & recently xAI has partnered with Palantir along with Blackrock.

In fact, Palantir is quite LITERALLY funded by the CIA through In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA’s venture capital arm. In a nutshell, Trump just employed a proxy of the CIA to create the LARGEST surveillance police state in American history. Did you know that Alex Karp also bragged about stopping the “rise of the far right” in Europe? WHY would Trump, who is supposed to be a “right wing populist” allow such intentional subversion by a self-professed “progressive” like Alex Karp to infiltrate our government?

They want to set a standard for behavior, because that is the standard upon which the coming Social Credit system will be measured & that will tie directly into our data profile (financial, medical, personal) including our usage of “carbon”, which will be TAXED. EVERYTHING we do will be monitored by smart devices and that information will factor into our Social Credit score, which will dictate the privileges we are allowed to have, or not. That is the NIGHTMARE vision that these PSYCHOPATHS have for our future & it is being ENABLED. Through the Internet of Bodies (IoB), they will even know our thoughts, and any dissent or opposition will be swiftly punished.

They are even able to create “pre-crime” (thought crime) scenarios to set us up for crimes we never committed using advanced AI. Sound familiar? This all plays into the DEPOPULATION agenda as well, because WE are seen as the “carbon”. WE ARE THE CARBON THEY WANT TO REDUCE.

Imagine if the movies Terminator and Minority Report became a reality, and that is what we are up against. If you can’t already SEE IT, and are still having a hard time understanding…

Palantir is LITERALLY THE DEEPEST PART of the “deep state” & Trump is rolling out the red carpet for them, to usher in what will certainly be the Beast system. A cashless society in which you will be tracked and monitored every second of every day, and your “behavior” will dictate how you get to live in society.

This is absolutely “The Great Reset” & “6uild 6ack 6etter” REPACKAGED MAGA style.

THE BIGGEST RUG PULL IN HISTORY.

As my friend Nick Hudson has said many times, people struggle with complex systems and, instead, prefer simple binaries that keep them intellectually paralysed and mentally enslaved.

Before pointing fingers at China, Westerners should hold up a mirror.

And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye?

—Matthew 7:3-5 (TS2009)

So, as I said earlier, while I prefer less surveillance—and, living in Africa, I do indeed encounter less surveillance—I would argue that, based on my personal experience, China’s blatantly obvious mass surveillance is possibly “more desirable” than the subsversive, sinister, Palantir-kind that’s rolling out elsewhere.

It’s a difficult pill to swallow.

This is probably the most asked question of them all.

Here’s the thing.

It doesn’t matter what I say, as I’ve come to realise—people will believe whatever they want anyway. Nobody truly cares about the truth. I’m accused of “only seeing what the CCP wants me to see”. It’s astonishing how indoctrinated everyone is.

Nevertheless, I’ll give the answer a go.

Yes, there is a social credit score in China. No, there isn’t a social credit score in China.

Both answers are correct and I’ll explain why.

As I mentioned before, most people subscribe to false dichotomies because they’re intellectually lazy, but the truth is that we’re dealing with complex systems here, and I’m afraid the answer is nuanced.

Firstly, what is a social credit score?

I asked Grok and here’s its reply:

A social credit score is a surveillance system that assigns individuals a numerical rating based on monitored behaviours, tracking everything from financial dealings and criminal records to social media posts and personal connections. It enforces compliance by rewarding high scores with privileges and punishing low ones with restrictions, often seen as a mechanism for hidden agendas in controlling populations rather than fostering genuine trust.

With that in mind, social credit scores have existed for many years in many countries, from demerit systems for bad driving to being unable to get a bank loan if one has a criminal record.

As such, China does indeed have social credit scoring.

But then, so do South Africa, the UK, Canada, the United States, and so on. I remember when I visited Australia back in the early 2000s, and people there told me about losing points for reckless driving, which could eventually lead to a suspension of one’s driving licence.

That’s a social credit score, whether you like it or not.

Yes but also no

Okay, so yes, China has social credit scoring and it’s not unique; there is nothing special or additionally dystopian about it.

But what do I mean by China not having a social credit system?

Well, there are levels.

We don’t wake up one morning and suddenly realise, “Today, we have a social credit score. We didn’t have one yesterday, but today we have.”

More specifically, the Agenda 2030-styled social credit scoring, that many of us have been warning against for years, does not exist in China (yet).

There is a well-oiled propaganda operation currently underway on X, where people are parroting the same nonsense over and over again.

I suspect it’s part of an anti-China campaign, especially since middle-management bosses like Trump are trying their best to “slow down China”.

It’s certainly not organic.

I think what’s going on is a distraction.

A projection.

These people are projecting their fears onto China and it’s a distraction from their own reality they don’t want to acknowledge.

I saw nothing unusual in China

I visited nine Chinese cities and saw nothing that raised my alarm bells where social credit scoring is concerned.

Something that people like to throw at me is “Yes, well, bro, you only saw what they wanted you to see, bro” and my response to that is “Don’t be a complete moron”.

I wasn’t in North Korea, you imbecile.

I didn’t have a “guide”, you braindead zombie.

I was able to go anywhere at any time and I did, you insufferable sheep.

It’s so funny to me how unbelievably stupid people can be, due to being consumed by anti-China doomscrolling.

And no, I am not cheerleading for China either. (I’m becoming so tired of having to say that.)

I’m simply trying to present a truthful anecdote because I care about what’s true.

My answer again

Yes, China has a social credit score, but it’s no different to what other countries have.

No, China does not have a social credit score in the Klaus Schwab sense yet, but I fear that is coming, not just to China, but to all countries, and it’s not a good thing.

In my upcoming Substack articles, I will answer more questions about China. For now, leave your comments below.

The problem with many people “on our side” is that they claim to stand for truth when, in reality, they’re just pushing ideology and aren’t even aware of it.

For example, discuss why the COVID jab is bad news, and you’ll get many nodding in agreement. It starts to feel like we’re part of a real social movement for change, with “our side” flipping the bird and pushing back.

They even call themselves “truthers”.

But then, once the talking point changes, everyone and everything returns to the drawing board and there is no more “our side”.

That’s the thing, though.

There is no “our side”.

There was never an “our side”.

There is no “truther” movement and never was one. (After all, what does “truther” even mean?)

There is just a collection of people agreeing on one thing, maybe two.

And here’s how I know.

I went to China recently 🇨🇳

Suddenly, just because I’m not aboard the “China is a dystopian hellhole” train, I’m labelled a “CCP shill”, “sellout”, and [insert empty label].

I’d go so far as to say that the abuse I’ve received for trying to bring a nuanced perspective on China has been the most severe I’ve ever experienced.

Nobody wants to hold up a mirror and consider that their own narrative, surrounding China, might be Western garbage. It’s a remarkable observation.

Anyway.

I recently spent over three weeks travelling through China, from Shanghai to the politically sensitive province of Xinjiang.

I was part of an independently funded team making a biographical documentary, following the steps of journalist Pepe Escobar, who is writing a book about the rise of China and Central Asia.

My role at large, so to speak, was mostly just to create some content for UK Column, for whom I record a daily show.

Additionally, I gathered a lot of information surrounding social credit scoring, digital ID, surveillance, censorship, Uyghur genocide, and more, all of which I’m going to write about here in the coming weeks.

China interests me because it’s constantly touted as the world’s enemy, especially by Trump, NATO, MI6, CIA, and other Western interests that fear its rise to economic dominance.

Don’t follow my Substack if you’re just going to knee-jerk.

Follow my Substack if you understand complex systems and why it matters to question everything. Yes, question even me. But do so honestly rather than disingenuously.

It’s time to bust some myths.

My website works in a similar way to Substack, in that it also acts as a newsletter, so I recommend going to jermwarfare.com and subscribing; all my goodies will end up in your inbox. Easy! 🥂

Come on over!

Jerm Warfare is my all-encompassing brand, including:

• my cartoons

• my podcast

• my members’ groups

• my controversial library

The list goes on.

In case you didn't know, I've been a professional cartoonist for 20 years, with awards, books, and a long list of publications to my name.

Substack could potentially begin censoring content in the future. Currently, Substack doesn't appear to be doing this, but I've heard stories that make me uneasy.

Hence the importance of my own website.

Additionally, I host a daily show on UK Column, Monday to Friday at 19:00 UK time.

I simply don’t have the time to regularly post to Substack anymore. Rather follow my work via my website and, if you’re really supportive, become a paid subscriber (it’s cheap) and get full access to everything (since most of my stuff is paywalled).

Remember that I have lost all my mainstream cartoon contracts, I’m constantly fighting censorship, and I receive no corporate funding. I am now fully independent, so if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. 😎

Come on over to jermwarfare.com!

To write with powerful effect, he must write out the life he has led, as did Bacon when he wrote Shakespeare.

—Mark Twain

The Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship is a strange but kinda compelling…

Read more

Kurt clearly loved Frances.

That said, I did listen to Nirvana, especially Nevermind, but I had no time for Courtney Love's band, Hole. Her music was rubbish and she was weird.

The official story is bunk

Michelle Wilkins runs WhoKilledKurt.org, which compiles years of investigation including court papers, other documents, testimonies, interviews and even a mini-documentary.

It's clear to me that, after going through the evidence, Kurt did not commit suicide and that, shall we say, Love killed Kurt.

Some smoking guns are:

• The magic bullet

• The 'suicide note'

• The divorce papers

• The witnesses

🎙️ Podcast episode

Michelle believes that an official investigation into his death will be reopened—or, more accurately, opened, as there was no actual investigation to begin with. His death was ruled as a suicide and that was that.

Michelle has persuaded me. Kurt didn't kill himself.

Talking points

• Nirvana and Kurt Cobain

• Kurt Cobain's death

• Courtney Love's role

• The shotgun and the 'magic bullet'

• The 'suicide note'

• Legal battles

• Joe Burns and other eyewitnesses

Jennifer Bilek's book on Amazon, Transsexual Transgender Transhuman, has five stars and is the foundation of my conversation with her.

Basically, the book explores the links between transsexualism, transgenderism and transhumanism, showing how a deceptive 'human rights' narrative masks a vile political agenda driven by technology and profit.

Read more