The conspiratorial comedian, Owen Benjamin (who I like again now that he has stopped being a fundamentalist Muslim and has started sporting an array of splendid hats), made a very interesting point on Twitter the other day. Owen said:

"If I livestream using film instead of HJ video can I go off about the blacks like Leonardo DiCaprio did in his sketch called “Django unchained”? I’m still trying to figure out the factor that makes it different. All I can come up with is “film.” An act is still an act regardless of its being filmed. Killing a man or sexual assault on film after a director says “action” doesn’t make it not a crime. Even if the director is in the guild. Btw this is what communism actually looks like and why I resist it so much. Having rules that aren’t really rules that apply differently based on standing with “the party” creates a living hell for everyone including the privileged class. They actually have it the worst. Because of all the things they had to do to receive such an “honor.”

What Owen is asking is why, as a performance artist himself - a stand-up comic - he gets called racist, sexist, etc., for his skits about certain groups, but an actor like DiCaprio doesn't get tarred with that brush if the character he's playing makes a racist speech in a film?

In other words, when is "I'm an actor and this is performance art" a valid defence and when is it not?

Owen is obviously right - simply the process of filming the act, even with a professional director and equipment - doesn't make an illegal act legal. You're not going to get away with killing someone on camera just by alleging "this is performance art".

Conversely, such things that would in ordinary circumstances be considered illegal or immoral - violence, or infidelity - can be excused with the "I was just acting" rubric (well, provided you are actually a professional actor on a film set etc., don't try this at home, folks).

Given that "actor" and "performance artist" are not regulated terms - like, say, "solicitor" is - anyone can declare themselves to be one. You don't require any special training or credentials. So this poses a very urgent question about authenticity, the line between fantasy and reality, and how we can ultimately know when perusing the drama of the world stage:

Is this real or am I watching a performance carried out by actors?

It is hugely significant to note that the "I was just acting" defence has been successfully used in court by two widely known public figures who would not otherwise be considered actors.

One was the UK television presenter, Lorraine Kelly.

The other was US conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones.

Both effectively claimed that the characters they portray on screen are fabricated creations, do not represent their true personalities, and are merely fictional personas.

Notably, in Jones' court case (a custody battle), his lawyer said:

"Using Mr Jones’ on-air persona to judge him as a father would be like judging Jack Nicholson in a custody dispute based on his performance as the Joker in Batman."

Which is really the point Owen Benjamin is making too: If Leonardo DiCaprio wouldn't be branded "a racist" based on his performance in Django Unchained, then why is he, Benjamin, branded one for doing comedic sketches using "racist" language?

What this draws attention to is just how many characters on the world stage are various types of actors, and only a small minority of them explicitly present themselves that way. If asked to describe Alex Jones or Lorraine Kelly's professional roles, for instance, very few people would say "actors", but that's exactly what they are, as clearly evidenced in court.

The same is also true for, to name but a few: Donald Trump, JD Vance, RFK Jr., Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau, Piers Morgan, Laurence Fox, and many other current and historical public figures.

They don't always explicitly admit it, because they don't always need to invoke it as a defence in court, but do the smallest amount of digging and it becomes perfectly clear:

Donald Trump's extensive film credits and star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame; JD Vance's blockbuster movie; RFK Jr's multiple and extensive ties to Hollywood; Boris Johnson's stage name (real name Alexander) and admission the bumbling character he portrays publicly is a created persona (he's actually a razor sharp - and ruthlessly sharp - intellect); Justin Trudeau's former role as a drama teacher; Piers Morgan's many film credits; and Laurence Fox of course is actually a self-described actor from a world-famous acting dynasty.

This is how the cabal ensures its tightly scripted control over all major world events. The people portraying these events to the masses are all actors. That's why they can all seamlessly move between political positions without the slightest flicker of conscience or conviction; they can claim to be libertarian one minute and plunging the country into nationwide house arrest the next (Johnson), or professing to find Donald Trump to be Hitler one day and becoming his running mate the next (Vance).

And this gives them the perfect cover, you see, because if they were ever dragged up into court on charges of crimes against humanity, they could say:

"I was just acting. The whole pandemic thing was just performance art. It's not my fault people can't tell the difference between acting and reality."

And the thing is... this is actually true. It actually might, extrapolating from previous cases, stand up as a legal defence, because the whole pandemic thing was performance art. There was no virus, no emergency, nothing. A lot of people just acted as if there was, replete with theatre props like masks, sanitiser bottles, and Scotch Eggs.

There is, after all, no legal standard that I am aware of that stipulates that actors have to tell you when they're acting, and there are certainly examples in history when they haven't, and mass panic has ensued as a result.

Think of the 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds.

Famed director, Orson Welles, directed and narrated the broadcast of H.G. Wells's 1898 novel The War of the Worlds as part of his radio series The Mercury Theatre on the Air. The broadcast was so realistic that some listeners believed a Martian invasion was taking place. The broadcast included: 

• Simulated breaking-news bulletins 
• Actors portraying reporters and government officials 
• Realistic sound effects 

Sound familiar? The deep state does this all the time: stages events portrayed by actors and presents them as real, and they've got a lot better at it since 1938.

That's why my default position is to automatically assume anyone high-profile who appears on screens a lot, is an actor.

That by definition, they're not authentic.

It's possible I might be wrong about one or two of them (anything's possible), but nevertheless, taking the default that they're not authentic and that they're actors, is a far more logical position than assuming they're real, and therefore falling again and again and again for high-profile "heroes" who always end up revealing themselves and letting you down.

If they're not actors and they're the real deal, that will become apparent soon enough, so you've lost nothing by remaining sceptical.

But if they are acting and you've invested in them as real, you've lost a great deal.

It's also key to realise that such is the power of acting, it's not just politicians and other such obvious key players that do it.

We are all very familiar with the term "crisis actor" and this is no baseless "conspiracy theory". There are major crisis acting agencies, here's one right here called "Crisis Cast".

Crisis Cast says:

"We simulate crisis incidents across multiple platforms for emerging security needs in the UK, Middle East and worldwide. Our specialist teams – many with security clearance – are trained by behavioural psychologists and rigorously rehearsed in criminal and victim behaviour to help police, the army and the emergency services, hospitals, schools, local authorities, government, private security firms, shopping centres, airports, big business, criminal justice departments, media and the military."

So, have you got that? Crisis Cast uses actors trained by behavioural psychologists and works with the government and media to stage crisis incidents.

As I said, it's about as far from a "conspiracy theory" as you can get. That they work with the government and media using trained actors to manipulate the public is literally their marketing blurb.

So whenever there's a big "crisis" presented to us by the government and media, we should all feel obliged to ask, is this real or is it a Crisis Cast production?

How can I know?

"It looks convincing" is just proof Crisis Cast has done its job well, not that it's real.

"The actors have real injuries".

Yes, so what? Plenty of disabled actors exist.

"The victims' stories have stayed consistent over years."

Yes, actors can consistently stay in character for years: just look at Alex Jones.

And the thing is, Crisis Cast and its stable of actors, producers, and directors, obviously aren't doing anything illegal, or they would have been shut down aeons ago and they certainly wouldn't proudly proclaim to work with the government.

Acting is not illegal, therefore there is nothing to stop these crisis productions being staged purely for the purposes of deception and manipulation, and then their creators asserting that, effectively, it is the audience's fault if they fell for it (just as happened with the 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds).

Really, by asserting in court he's a performance artist, Alex Jones is saying to his audience, "look, if you're stupid enough to think this is real, that's not my fault. I'm just playing a part".

And in the USA, this is a perfectly legal thing to do - for media figures to act out deceptions for the specific purposes of propagandising the public (see this short 9-minute video of Naomi Wolf explaining how this law in practice works... and I always have a little chuckle to myself that the time stamp on this clip is 9:11!).

So the crucial question Owen Benjamin posed at the start remains unanswered: when is acting a valid defence for actions that would otherwise be indefensible?

I would be tempted to say, "never", but then that would eliminate huge chunks of cinema and theatre, where, for example, real violence certainly does occur (and many actors are injured during filming, whilst some even die). Saying we can never have things featured in films unless they're also wholly acceptable in real life would be extraordinary artistic suppression and suffocation that in reality I couldn't support.

But where do we draw the line? As actors don't always explicitly tell us they're acting, the distinction between fantasy and reality is far from clear cut, because fabricated, acted events can and do all too often have very real consequences.

So the bottom line is, we can't ever really know for sure if someone, especially a high-profile someone, is acting... and even non high-profile people can be roped into "supporting roles", without always being consciously aware of this fact.

For example, millions of people were unknowingly recruited as 'extras' in Pandemic! The Movie, helping to create the illusion of an emergency by scuttling around in their masks and leaping out of the way of strangers in the street.

They weren't performing on purpose. They weren't intentionally trying to deceive anyone. But they were, nevertheless, acting out a role that had been scripted for them (replete with repeating all their easy to remember lines, such as "stay home, stay safe!").

So we must always be implicitly aware of just how true the idiom, "all the world's a stage" really is - and that the ruling classes know this.

That's why it's absolutely no coincidence what the name of the first man in the UK to get the vaccine was (and Mr. Shakespeare promptly thereafter "exited staged left" and died of a stroke).

So in answer to Owen Benjamin's question, when is acting a valid defence for certain behaviours we would otherwise not accept? We can only conclude that it's when we allow it to be.

We have to decide whether we invest in the performances of probable actors and let them influence our perceptions and behaviour, or not.

I do not invest in the performance of actor, Donald Trump, for example, and have never believed for a nanosecond he was "nearly assassinated". Nor will I believe it to be true if/when we are told he is "assassinated for real".

I will also not believe it organic and real if/when Keir Starmer is ousted from power on the "will of the people" and we are given "saviour" Farage instead.

(Remember, a "grassroots" petition suddenly appeared, garnering huge mainstream media attention and getting millions of signatures within days, to oust Starmer. This is NOT the growth trend of anything genuinely grassroots, and nor is the fact that parliament has agreed to debate the petition, something they are under absolutely no obligation to do.)

It's all a big soap opera: all scripted; all planned; all acted.

Admittedly, we don't have much control over whether these bombastic, big-budget productions take place or not.

But there is one thing that always remains in our complete control: how we respond to them.

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.