Don't worry, you haven't missed a major news item this morning: I'm just getting in there early, extrapolating from recent events, and mass predictive programming (more of which later), for when this "event", rather inevitably, is sensationally reported in the news.

Whenever there's a high-profile incident of this nature - a stabbing / shooting / bombing, especially one involving children - I often opine that the incident is probably fake, much to the malcontent and malicious mutterings of many...

One reason this stance irks people is that the events I identify as fake not infrequently involve non-white perpetrators and white victims, and hence, by questioning the legitimacy of these attacks, I am seen, by some, to be guilty of a kind of racism - of perpetuating anti-white sentiment by not taking the (alleged) killing of white people seriously enough.

Equally, then, when I label the "Andrew Tate-inspired school massacre", which will almost certainly be accredited to a white child, as fake, I will immediately be accused of the more conventional kind of racism, i.e., that: "you people are all too quick to condemn when the killer is black, but you can't accept it when it's one of your own, can you?!"

(This accusation will largely be from white liberals.)

So please let's just be emphatically clear that I am vigorously equal opportunities where it comes to identifying fake killers: Muslim, black, white, pink polka-dotted with a fine fez hat - I'm here for all of it.

(And to be clear, there certainly does exist strong anti-white sentiment amongst certain powerful groups, and a consequent drive to dramatically reduce the white population - just a cursory glance at plummeting white population figures confirms that - but this operation isn't generally being carried out by "lone wolf" teenage terrorists.)

It's pretty easy to tell whether an event is more likely to be real, or more likely to be fake, and it basically comes down to how high-profile and theatrical it is.

If you haven't already seen it, this short (9m 11s - ooh er...) primer on the subject from Naomi Wolf (you don't have to like her) gives an incisive overview.

In addition, the researcher Francis O'Neill has published an excellent series on how to identify whether the people associated with high-profile terror attacks are really the "tragic victims" they purport to be, or if they are, in fact, actors, involved in staging crisis events in order to push political agendas.

Whilst teenage knife crime is a very real - and growing - phenomenon, real examples of it are generally pretty low-profile from a media perspective: they don't attract much ongoing coverage, they aren't usually headline news, and few people could name any recent perpetrators without Googling.

Fake incidents, on the other hand, are extremely high-profile, always hit the headlines immediately, and, crucially, we all instantly know the names of the supposed perps, even if we can't spell them (Axel Rudaka-whatsit).

Real incidents are low-profile precisely because they are real, and therefore, the ruling classes aren't directing and orchestrating them, which means they aren't in control of the "message" these events deliver (for instance, most real-life knife crime is related to drugs and gangs, and not - as the latest propaganda drive has it - Andrew Tate and "incels").

The ruling classes never promote to high prominence something or someone they don't control, because to give an incident or individual that level of visibility imbues upon them a lot of potential power, which - if they're not tightly controlled and managed - includes the power to go "off-message" and use their platform to promote an agenda not in ruling class interests.

So, real knife crime incidents are played down, whilst fake ones are promoted to high notoriety, including via extremely high-profile fictionalised agitprop which is now to be shown in all the nation's schools.

Yes, I'm afraid I'm talking about Adolescence - but don't worry, I've already watched it, so you don't have to (and please do read my analysis if you have not already done so).

Consequently, I am enjoying all the "marked safe from watching Adolescence" memes doing the rounds, as well as the queries about whether we will have to prove we have watched it to be allowed into restaurants.

That latter query is a little more queasily on the nose than one may initially imagine, because do you know what other fictionalised storytelling was shown in many of the nation's schools, shortly prior to 2020?

Contagion.

That's right, the blueprint for the 'Covid' chapter, and upon which the UK government openly admitted their "pandemic response" was based.

Indeed, 'Contagion' was so obviously predictively programming us to anticipate "a pandemic" that I was able to accurately predict this eventuality myself, in April 2019 (six years ago to the day, in fact!).

So, if Contagion was shown in schools prior to 2020 to predictively programme children to anticipate a fake plague, then what is Adolescence - the story of a white boy who fatally stabs a female classmate, after being radicalised by online "incel" content - priming them, and the rest of us, for?

We've already had it woven into the public consciousness that we should anticipate a school stabbing soon (apparently Axel R-thingummy was planning one, but got diverted) - but all you evil racists thought it was going to be a black kid carrying it out, when actually, it'll be a white one, so ha!

That will essentially be the line from the media and government and their various leftist lackeys amongst the population.

The race-swap in Adolescence was, of course, very deliberate, and it is, equally deliberately, being made into a very high-profile talking point (even Conservative party leader, Kemi Badenoch, has commented on it) - i.e., the fact that the story is based on a real-life event involving a black assailant, but in the dramatisation, the actor is white.

The fact that the drama is based on real events was initially widely reported, and was confirmed by both the show's creators and lead actor Stephen Graham, but now - in response to the controversy this has predictably provoked - writer Jack Thorne denies the show is based on reality at all. Which, of course, begs the question of why - if Adolescence is completely fictitious with no basis in real life - it is being shown in all the nation's schools.

The racial associations with knife crime - that black and mixed-race children are overrepresented in knife offences - obviously represent a very highly charged, very politically sensitive issue.

As such, this issue is now being intentionally inflamed on the world stage, in order to ensure maximal crowing and finger-pointing at all the "racists" who identified the race discrepancy in Adolescence, for when a high-profile knife event is reported at a school, but the perpetrator is white (and an Andrew Tate fan, and an "incel").

It's classic bait and switch, very similar to that which we saw surrounding the "Southport stabbings", when the establishment intentionally leaked fake news identifying the perpetrator as a Muslim immigrant.

Unsurprisingly, this information was widely circulated by many on the right, with it then later emerging that, in fact, the alleged culprit was born in Wales to a Christian family.

Upon finding out the killer was a UK-born Christian, the left then predictably leapt upon the story, and used it to viciously vilify the evil racist right for believing otherwise.

Despite the fact that the identified perpetrator was not white, and, in fact, as later details revealed, had seemingly converted to Islam, nevertheless, the Southport situation was ultimately used to demonise white people as "far right extremists", as the stabbing incident was quickly forgotten by the press, in favour of reporting on "far-right riots" that were supposedly erupting up and down the country.

Wildly exaggerated and overblown, some towns - including my own - even reported on riots that were entirely non-existent, and to which not a single, solitary "far-right extremist" turned up (just a small gaggle of counter-protestors, carrying "hate will not win" banners).

Whilst media reports on the "threat" the evil far-right posed to the rest of the populace were so hysterical that certain countries even warned their citizens off travelling here, the actual death toll from these savage, brutal, viciously violent mob demonstrations was zero.

Indeed, even the Guardian newspaper admitted that the general atmosphere at the "riots" was more "carnival-like", full of happy, hate-free people singing and dancing.

And this simply won't do at all.

It was quite evident at the time that very many supposed "anti-racists" were absolutely furious - devastated and crushed - when the "far-right threat" failed to more violently and fatally materialise.

It didn't materialise, because the real "far-right" - as in, genuinely dangerous racists who actually post a threat to minority groups, rather than simply people who disagree with liberals on immigration policy - barely exists in this country, and of those people who would legitimately qualify for that label, they are typically low-income, under-resourced, and disorganised - i.e., they are no serious political threat.

In reality, a person of any race is far more likely to be be killed in a sporting accident, or in any number of other everyday ways, than they are to be attacked by a "far-right extremist" (or any other terrorist, for that matter).

And to state the obvious, if the UK was so virulently racist, full of far-right extremists waiting to attack minority groups, then said groups would hardly be coming over here in hordes, would they?

So, this being the case - that the UK is a widely accepting and tolerant culture, which is why so many different ethnic groups choose to make it their home - the ruling classes require more "evidence" that white working-class males (since we all know that that's what "far-right extremist" is really a thinly-veiled euphemism for) are evil. That they are all unruly savage brutes who must be held in perpetual suspicion and contempt, because of all that insidious Neo-Nazi, Andrew-Tate-idolising rage (never mind the decided discrepancy of being a Nazi who worships a mixed-race Muslim) that lurks inside all of them.

"I mean, didn't you see Adolescence?!"

Which, soon, will be followed up by....

"And then look what that crazy white kid did in real life, stabbing up that school, just like Adolescence warned us would happen!"

"Just like Contagion warned us about Covid!"

Amazing how all these ultra-establishment filmmakers and streaming services set up by the Freud dynasty inexplicably know what's going to happen in real life.

Almost like they're scripting, staging, and planning it or something...

(Shut up, crazy conspiracy theorist!)

"Conspiracy theories" aside, though, already, advocates for child safeguarding have blown the whistle on the serious hazards associated with screening Adolescence in schools, highlighting the dangerous effects this not-made-for-kids, jarring and explicit TV show, could have on vulnerable children.

Put simply, it will raise the possibility of violent knife crime in the minds of children who had not previously considered it.

I was talking to someone recently who went to school in the late 1970s, who said, when he was eleven, a team of "experts" came in to talk to the children about the dangers of glue-sniffing. Not one child in his class had heard of this before (these are eleven-year-olds, barely out of primary school), but after the class, many of them thought, "wow, that sounds great, must give it a go!"

In the subsequent years, glue-sniffing amongst children became a huge epidemic in the area.

Similarly, psychologist Dr Jessica Taylor, and director of VictimFocus, Jamie Shrive, have cautioned the UK government in an open letter that showing Adolescence in schools could be "catastrophic".

Warning that schools and teachers are not equipped to handle the severe and complex issues that could be triggered by screening the drama, the letter emphatically states that there is "no evidence" that showing "distressing content" to pupils would lead to a [positive] change in behaviour.

In fact, Ms Shrive and Dr Taylor warned the exact opposite could happen, potentially 'normalising radicalisation rather than preventing it'. 

'With Adolescence being shown with no support or guidance, it will cause more curiosity for some children already at risk of radicalism,' Ms Shrive told MailOnline. 

'The likelihood of them ending up on dangerous sub-Reddits and in Twitter groups could increase and push that radicalisation further.'

So, in classic ruling class inverted style, showing Adolescence in schools is not about solving problems, but rather, about creating them, both through predictively programming children for a fake "Andrew Tate incel stabbing" to take place in a school, and also, by dramatically increasingly the likelihood of more real-life teenage knife crime occurring, about which "something must be done".

Tediously predictable "problem-reaction-solution".

The solution will not just involve a crackdown on the internet and close monitoring of the behaviour of potentially "problem people", but it will also serve to remind the population - just as the ruling classes were so keen to do during 'Covid' - how dangerous schools are.

The unprecedented national closure of all the nation's schools during "lockdown" was simply a beta test for the intended future of education, where all children will learn alone at home online, taught by sophisticated AI and immersive VR.

State schooling in the model in which it currently exists is long-outdated, as it was initially instituted to create literal and proverbial factory-fodder - people who would slave away in meaningless, tedious jobs to serve ruling class interests.

The reason children therefore are trained via schools to be at a certain physical location at a certain time every day, where they are around lots of other people, is because that's what the jobs of the recent past required of them.

Yet the economy of the future is overwhelmingly an indoor one, where jobs are done at home online, and in addition, where there is an increasingly large "useless class", comprised of those who do not work at all, and whose lives consist primarily of (as the WEF has predicted) "playing computer games".

To prime a child for a life mostly spent alone in their room online - whether they are lucky enough to have an actual paying job, or whether they are simply being distracted by online entertainment - "going to school" in the traditional sense doesn't work, because it gets a child too used to leaving the house every day, being outside, and being around other people. A child who has spent 12+ years doing that, is not going to adjust easily to the life of an "indoor human" who lives life primarily alone, indoors, through a screen.

Yet a child who has known nothing different, having spent all their school years learning that way, will accept that life as normal.

So, to sum, the mass screening of Adolescence in schools is priming the entirety of the nation's youth for a terrifying knife attack in a school, almost certainly carried out by a white Andrew-Tate inspired "incel".

This is classic political manoeuvring in "manufacturing consent" for the next stages of the agenda, which include: internet censorship; demonisation of males, especially white ones; mass school closures and the institution of a nationwide online curriculum, and universal basic income (UBI).

UBI?

Yes, because without that, not enough parents will be able to be at home to supervise their children whilst they learn online.

Paying parents UBI to stay at home whilst their children learn on the computer, is infinitely cheaper for the government than running thousands of schools and paying teachers' salaries etc.

Plus, online learning gives the ruling classes far more control over the developing minds of children, who, famously, often find conventional school and teachers quite dull, so dismiss and tune them out.

Not so with the flickering screens they so love and are (literally) addicted to.

So, overall, to understand any mass national talking point (and Adolescence is certainly that), we simply have to ask, "cui bono?" - who benefits? Who benefits from the creation of Adolescence, from the huge publicity and controversy surrounding it, and from the fact that, soon, every adolescent in the country will have seen it?

What purposes could that serve, and indeed, whose? (Have a look at some of the big names - and family fortunes - associated with the project.)

Hopefully, this analysis has provided some insight into answering that question.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.