I've mentioned before that, as a consummate conspiraquack, I naturally take a keen interest in astrology, and I have learned that the apparent defining characteristic of my lunar placing, Scorpio, is a tendency to dig and dig and dig at something, until it is well and truly excavated and exposed. As such, I like to think of myself as a little cyber-Scorpion, scuttling through the digital dunes of the internet, with the tiniest little trowel strapped to my back, to dig down every rogue rabbit hole I might encounter... (I guess there might not be that many rabbits in the desert, but you get the general point).

Having just done that with the spectacularly shady and suspicious #DontPayUK, which is now trending on Twitter (because, of course, anti-establishment grassroots movements with no money often become talking points of the entire nation when they are barely one month old), it seems I may need to lend my trusty trowel to another Twitter trend - the very strange case of #JackMonroe.

Her fame initially accredited to her "Girl Called Jack" budget cookery blog - a resource that made her a darling of the political left, a media star, and a face of Sainsbury's supermarket, no less - Jack has since changed the blog's name to "Cooking on a Boostrap", since the eponymous "girl" no longer suits, as Jack is now a "they".

As soon as Monroe's "non-binaryness" (not even a word, according to spellcheck - sane spellcheck) was announced six years ago - with signature obsequious breathless reverence from The Guardian - I immediately smelt a rat. So, trusty trowel in hand (or is that claw? Paw? What do scorpions have, anyway?), I did enough digging to be quite assured that "Jack" is a total fraud; an impeccably media-managed psy-op from a very "interesting" family.

So, let's survey the evidence, shall we... Referencing a reasonably reliable, but annoyingly over-alliterative, source (me) from 2016...

"THE END OF GENDER PSY-OP

Now that the elite have got us to accept transgenderism, they move it to its inevitable conclusion - no-genderism, where everybody is just an amorphous, undefined, malleable blob of nothingness. This "Jack Monroe" I have been following for a while, and she represents quite the cynical psy-op.

She was presented to us a few years ago, as just an ordinary single mum, struggling to feed her son on a budget. Her modest food blog just happened to be noticed by media darlings and shot her into fame and fortune at the tender age of 24. This of course is a very plausible story, and certainly had nothing to do with her highly decorated MBE military father, who runs a company with a net worth of £1,969,140. I'm sure many elite millionaires are forced to let their children live in poverty in these times of austerity.

Anyway, she was initially presented to us as a nice, normal young mother, just interested in preparing cheap healthy food, in order to get us comfortable with her. Now that has been achieved, her real agenda is unleashed. Change agent."

Which is what it very much appears she is - the establishment father with a military background is the same story you find again and again with change agents, who are made to look like organic revolutionaries, but are actually tightly controlled intelligence assets being used to modify the social climate and people's attitudes and behaviours. There are lots of examples of this in 60s so-called 'counter culture', such as The Doors' Jim Morrison, son of Admiral Morrison.

Public figures on the world stage wield such power over the mass mind that people are simply never allowed to develop those kinds of profiles unless they are "in the club" - signed off and stage managed at the highest levels.

Talking about being "stage" managed, please note that "Jack Monroe" is a "stage" name - an entirely invented moniker, used to conceal her real identity, background, and connections. You thought her full name was Jacqueline, right, and that Monroe was her family or married name?

Nope. Her real name is Melissa Hadjicostas, and she was first featured in the Guardian newspaper - not as an impoverished single mother in her twenties, as is widely claimed - but as a middle-class 16-year-old, along with the rest of her family, in a puff piece the Guardian did on fostering. Please note that Melissa ("Jack"'s) father, David, ran a successful company for many years called "The Fostering Network" - a cause championed by none other than Kate Middleton (and there's that other sinister establishment puppet, Holly Willoughby, there with her too). So, a family business connected to top establishment celebrities and Royalty, no less. Inexplicable that Jack never mentions her father's roaring success and impressive connections in her interviews! Surely she is proud of his achievements?! (She has repeatedly stated in interviews they have a good relationship.)

Here's a picture of Jack's dad, by the way, David Hadjicostas MBE, with all his badges, medals, and gongs. I'm not too up on my military paraphernalia, but if anyone can identify all his adornments in the comments, please do... And while I guess it's possible that such a wealthy and well-resourced man would allow his young adult daughter and infant grandson to exist in Dickensian squalor AND to tell the media all about it in great detail, without helping them out, is it likely? The man raised foster children and so would know all about how important early environment is - why would he let his baby grandson live in abject poverty with a severely mentally ill single mother (more about that later) without intervening?

I simply don't believe he would do that, out of self-interest if nothing else - it would make him look terrible, and such a "pillar of the community" type would not want that. So, I don't believe for a minute that Jack and her son were forced into desperate poverty with no other options. I believe that that is a cynically crafted heart-string-pulling fiction, concocted as part of her change agent agenda - and military parents do often seem to spawn change agent children.

Can I "prove" this? No (I'm not privy to confidential military documents). But I reserve my right to think critically, assess information, and see patterns - especially regarding dubious public figures who seem to be exceptionally dishonest.

Most people reading this blog are familiar with how entwined the military is with mass social engineering campaigns, and how military-grade psychological operations ("psy-ops") are used to great effect to mould public consciousness. Strategies to produce highly controllable establishment assets and change agents, such as the well-known mind-control operation MK Ultra, have been used by the military and intelligence agencies for many decades - whether "officially" or "unofficially" ("officially", MK Ultra ended in the seventies, but as they say, the only purpose of official stories is to protect officials). And there does seem to be a definite trend of military officials offering up their children for such schemes.

The current "exposé" of Jack Monroe, aka Melissa Hadjicostas, on Twitter, is well put together, uncovering the fact that she is a liar and fraud who has dramatically misrepresented her personal situation and background - her own accounts being wildly inconsistent and contradictory - in order to extort money from people. She's a UK household name and international media star, and has been for years, so - even taking her wealthy parents out of the equation - it's just not plausible that she's anywhere near the breadline, and some very rudimentary research confirms that she's not. Her Patreon page shows she has 780 monthly subscribers, and there are a variety of subscription options available, starting at £3.50 a month. So, even if all 780 subscribers were on this lowest tariff, she's still making £2,730 pcm. Obviously, not all will be on the lowest, so she's making more than that from Patreon alone, never mind all her books and media appointments and so on.

Let me be very clear that I have NO problem with people making money from their work, and I hate this awful attitude that writers and other skilled and experienced creative professionals (who have often spent large amounts of time and money honing their craft) should work for nothing. It takes enormous amounts of time, practice, research, energy, effort and discipline to produce decent writing, and so if people appreciate good writing and want writers to be able to continue to produce it, then of course writers need to make money - just as traditional journalists and authors do. You wouldn't steal a book, you wouldn't steal a newspaper, so why would you object to online writers being paid?

But the point is, when you're making upwards of £3,000 a month from one income stream alone, you are nowhere near poverty-stricken, and you are in fact in the very upper echelons of "successful writer" territory. If I was as financially successful at writing as Jack, I would simply be counting my blessings and thanking my supporters (and I am very grateful to every person who does lend their support), not pleading poverty!

However, her misrepresenting her financial situation is really only scratching the surface regarding what's actually going on here, and the true story of Jack Monroe, it seems, goes very much deeper, and is very much darker, than that...

One must always remember that the entire mainstream media is one massive military-grade psy-op, using the highest grade psychological weaponry available, and that, therefore, anyone who achieves and sustains a high profile in the media, such as Jack Monroe has done, is almost certainly a highly trained, establishment-backed, owned intelligence asset.

I want to reiterate here yet again - as I did in my Don't Pay article - just how punishingly hard it is to build up any kind of significant visibility and traction as a genuinely independent and freelance writer. Most of us who try grind away for years making slow and steady progress - if we are lucky - so for me as a writer particularly, I can see that the "unknown poor young blogger suddenly shooting to media stardom aged 24" story is a very transparent fairy-tale (as is JK Rowling's very similar concocted backstory) - there are literally millions of single mums skilled in budget cooking who share their thoughts online, so why on Earth was Jack Monroe picked from obscurity to become a star?

The answer of course is that she wasn't, and the whole thing is a stage-managed psy-op and she - all the world's a stage - is an actor: Melissa Hadjicostas, middle-class company director's daughter, plays "Jack Monroe", struggling working-class single mum. This is because a real working-class person wouldn't so appeal to (and therefore be so easily able to manipulate) the champagne socialists who read The Guardian. Jack is a middle-class fantasy of what bleeding heart lefties would like to believe a working-class person is like, not what they actually are like - and many working class people have pointed this out, and that Jack is obviously a middle-class fraud.

But back to that fake name - people who change their names don't pick them at random, there's always some (usually highly significant) meaning to them, so what is the meaning of "Jack Monroe"?

Monroe once stated that she acquired the nickname 'Jack' as a child because she was seen as a "jack of all trades" - which seems a really odd thing to say about a child - but to change just your first name is one thing, why has she changed her surname as well? She's never been married, so why did she decide to stop going by her family name and adopt the unrelated 'Monroe' instead? Which is, of course, the same surname as the ill-fated Marilyn (who also changed her birth name). Coincidence? Sure, maybe. But why that name? There must be a reason.

As an adult, Jack Monroe has claimed to have done sex work. Marilyn Monroe was also said to have been a prostitute: a high-class escort under military mind-control - a "presidential model" MK Ultra sex slave - whilst "jack of all trades" could be seen to be slang for prostitution - someone who is trained to do anything with anyone at any time (just as MK Ultra "beta sex kitten" programming trains victims to do). Jack's family is closely linked to the fostering industry, whilst Marilyn Monroe also grew up in foster homes, where she was abused.

Again, let me be abundantly clear I'm not making any direct, personal accusations here (and I vigorously believe in due process and the principle of innocent until proven guilty: nobody should be treated as a criminal until it's proven by law they are one) - but I think we all know that terrible abuse, including organised, establishment-linked abuse, is rife within the fostering industry (and, generally, ruthlessly covered up), and that a disproportionately large number of people who go into sex work as adults were sexually abused as children.

Jack Monroe's apparent poor mental health and history of severe depressive episodes, PTSD, and complete mental breakdowns (replete with hospital admission), would also be consistent with having experienced significant trauma and/or abuse in childhood. Obviously, there can be other causes. But childhood abuse remains a major one.

All this does beg the question of why a person in clearly such fragile mental health, and with so many vulnerabilities, has been promoted for years as a big media star? Surely prominent media vehicles have policies on safeguarding vulnerable adults, and should not be aggressively promoting such a delicate person to national and international prominence, with all the intense personal scrutiny that inevitably brings?

Jack's image is scrupulously sculpted to present herself as if she is a poor, struggling, private individual, whose doubters and naysayers are inexplicably being mean to (because they're "transphobic", of course - sigh and eye-roll) - but the reality is that she is actually a high-profile public figure with over half a million followers on Twitter alone. She's been in The Guardian (many, many times), The New York Times, The Washington Post, she's been on TV and argued with MPs, and this is over many years. This is not a "poor struggling pauper" - this is an expertly managed media star. She has an agent, FFS (at a top London agency which also represents Ricky Gervais, Lily Allen, and many, many others). All this being the case, ask yourself why she is so hellbent on so dramatically misrepresenting herself to the point of utter absurdity?

As I said at the beginning of the article, the purpose of change agents is to re-engineer the social climate by dramatically reframing people's perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours. Melissa Hadjicostas, the privileged company director's daughter, would have no cache or credibility to do this. Hence, the invention of "Jack Monroe", an intelligence creation who appears to be a multi-purpose asset - one, pushing the "end of gender" / non-binary / personal pronouns pantomime, and two, reengineering people to accept living in poverty and on subhuman rations.

Superficially, she rages against poverty, yet she is doing nothing constructive to lift people out of it; rather, she is telling them they can survive on a pittance and meagre rations of the cheapest food. Hence why MPs have referenced her when their starving constituents plead for help that they haven't got enough to eat. "Well, this liberal Guardian-reading blogger says you can eat on 24p a day - if she can, so can you!"

As always, the establishment plays the long-game - playing Chess whilst the masses stumble over Snakes and Ladders - and "Jack Monroe" has been installed in our consciousness for many years, prepping us for the mass poverty and famine the overlords have long known is coming (we've had "plague", we've got "war", and so the third apocalyptic horseman, famine, is due to enter stage left any minute).

It also seems clear that Jack is going to be used to sponsor increased state control of our lives, because her story is that "work doesn't work" for struggling families - that she was forced to quit her job (which, curiously, she never mentions was at somewhere her dad worked too, and in a very senior position) because she couldn't juggle it with childcare and that "the government should do more to help". So if having a job doesn't work for stabilising a household's income, and the burden is put on the government to "do more" instead, what's the obvious answer? UBI, of course.

I have never seen Jack Monroe claim EMPLOYERS should do more - make work more flexible, offer better maternity provision, etc. - oh no. Only "the government". So it's pretty obvious what she's gunning for. And after a few months of subsisting on 14p-a-portion Monroe-inspired gruel, because their entire disposable income is going to the energy companies, just how unutterably grateful will the starving, freezing masses be to be saved by the government and UBI?!

And be sure to note, that's U for "universal" - not "unconditional". You bet there will be be conditions - and that you will have your money frozen if you break them. That's what social media bans are training grounds for - getting us to accept being punished and having accounts frozen for saying the "wrong" things (and with topically thematic timing, in the hours since publishing this piece, I've just been permanently banned from Twitter). And this is what our girl (or whatever the hell "they" are) Jack is really all about - as she herself confirms.

Ms (Mx?) Monroe is always threatening legal action whenever people dare to publicly scrutinise her, so if she'd like to take me to court, please do (no such thing as bad publicity and all that). But remember this: in order to win a defamation case, you first have to prove that what's being said isn't true.

(Added December '22: If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy my more recent one on Andrew Tate, who hails from a very similar background to Monroe.)

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls, and entirely depends on your generous support to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.