Way back in the dim and distant past, in another era, a gentler and more innocent time (around 2021), I developed a little phrase, that has since gone on to be quite widely repeated: 'if you know their name, they're in the game'.

I developed this phrase for a specific reason: that, at the time, we were constantly being deluged with MSM-manufactured "anti-establishment heroes" who were going to save us all from the evil elite and their malignant machinations. The kind of names being thrown at us as great valiant saviours were Russell Brand, Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, and RFK Jr., to name but a few.

I pointed out quite quickly that these people were frauds, and was absolutely bombarded with criticism as a result, with the general theme of my detractors' objections being: they must be the real deal, because look at how much the establishment hates them. Look how many hit pieces there are against them in the press.

I tried to explain that these "hit pieces" were actually promotional publicity pieces, because they were bringing these people to the attention of millions who wouldn't otherwise have heard of them; not infrequently telling you how you could financially support them; and, overall, making them a far bigger deal that they would have been otherwise.

What I was trying to explain was that if the mainstream media gives someone all-out publicity like this - if it puts a huge amount of time and energy into making someone a "known name" - then that is because that person is ultimately part of the establishment themselves. A manufactured hero (otherwise known as "controlled opposition") to ensure the establishment continues to control both sides of the narrative. Albert Pike told us, "when the people need a hero, we shall supply him". Hence, I countered with: "if you know their name, they're in the game".

However, since the time I coined that phrase, it has been many times misinterpreted (often on purpose) to try and suggest that what it means is that if you've merely heard of someone, they're automatically guilty of being some sort of subversive plant, or if they've ever had the slightest bit of MSM attention at all, they're obviously some kind of covert MI5 infiltrator.

That is never what I was suggesting, and, to repeat, I developed the phrase at a very different time: when people in this loosely defined "movement" were a lot less experienced and a lot more trusting than they are now, and would repeatedly fall for these high-profile "heroes" like Andrew Tate.

The idea that Tate was ever taken seriously as an anti-establishment force now seems utterly laughable, but at the time he first emerged, he very much was, and I got huge amounts of hate when I first called him out. Same for Russell Brand, Elon Musk, and quite a few of the other big names.

That's why I developed the phrase. It was to guard against people falling for obviously contrived, MSM-manufactured and promoted, big names.

As the "truth movement" has matured, people have naturally become more inured against this kind of media manipulation, and tend to now more reliably see through famous faces, simply by virtue of the fact that they are famous. But to reiterate, they didn't always, and it was in this much more innocent and trusting climate that I developed what has become my "signature" phrase.

Fast forward to the present day, and now this phrase is repeatedly misinterpreted (and, as I say, often on purpose) to attempt to indict anyone who has any kind of platform at all.

"Well, that person was on such-and-such podcast, so I know their name. That means they're in the game." It's become incredibly tedious how often people say this sort of thing (generally smugly), including inevitably crowing at me, "well, I know your name, so you must be in the game".

Well, guess what Sherlock, you also know your own name, so I guess you must be too.

Let's be clear: pithy little catchphrases designed to broadly illustrate a point aren't meant to be taken literally. A "stitch in time" does not literally "save nine". A bird in the hand is not strictly higher in objective value than two in the bush. No pot has ever actually opined that a kettle is black.

In other words, catchphrases, slogans, and idioms are not literal, hard and fast rules to be applied indiscriminately in any scenario, but rather, they are shorthand to introduce a bigger, more complex and nuanced, argument.

My "name game" phrase was really designed to illustrate how much the media deceives and misleads us - consequently, it led to the development of a second catchphrase, "if it's headline news, it's a ruse".

Again, not a literal statement. Not a hard and fast rule. Not every headline ever printed everywhere in the world "is a ruse".

What I was trying to illustrate with both statements is that if something, or someone, gets a lot of high-profile, sensationalist, headline news attention in the mainstream media, it or they are very likely to be fraudulent or manufactured in some way.

The consummate conspiracist may very well scoff and roll their eyes at this point, and say, "er, yeah, I know that, that's obvious". And it might be now - and good! - but it wasn't several years ago. That's the point. That's why I developed the phrase.

There is a tedious and rather unappealing trait in some self-appointed conspiracists to constantly try to trip others up so they can smugly crow "ha! Gotcha!", and I get this not infrequently about my friend, Chris Exley.

Yes, the world famous Chris Exley, definitely on a par with Elon Musk and RFK Jr....

"Ahh, but he's connected to RFK Jr., isn't he! And so are you! Ha! Gotcha!"

My "connection" to RFK Jr., consists of once exchanging a single email with the man six years ago, regarding a small donation he'd made to Keele University (Chris Exley's then-employer), which ended up getting Chris fired. I rapidly changed my good opinion of RFK after that, and have made that abundantly clear ever since - including literally stating in my first anti-Bobby article:

"First, full disclosure, as otherwise someone will inevitably dig this up as "evidence" of my own CO status - about three years ago, I briefly corresponded with Mr. Kennedy, as he included a letter I'd written in an article he published detailing his experiences trying to support the persecuted scientist, Professor Chris Exley. As well as being a friend of mine, Chris then worked at the university campus (Keele) upon which I'd grown up, and where I had family history going back many decades, so when I heard Keele had - quite extraordinarily and without precedent - rejected a personal check from RFK Jr. to support Chris' work, I wrote to Keele's Vice Chancellor to express my disappointment and shock. RFK did the same, and the whole correspondence was reproduced on his Children's Health Defense website.

After the publication of the article, I wrote to Mr. Kennedy to thank him for his invaluable work in this area, and for including my letter in his piece. He replied, "you are the best MIRI", and as it's not every day a future US presidential candidate says that to one, I thought I'd include it for posterity (and in case any of my former teachers are reading, many of whom failed to reach that particular conclusion about my merit themselves...). And that (which was in April 2020) marked the beginning and end of my interactions with "Bobby", and indeed, the entire Kennedy dynasty."

Despite these facts being available on the public record for years, I nevertheless still get accused of being in cahoots with RFK, and of promoting the "obviously controlled" Chris Exley.

Why is Chris "obviously controlled"?

Because he had a small amount of media attention five years ago which resulted in his losing his job, and he's never been mentioned in the press again since.

Why would that mean, according to his (and my) critics that he's controlled?

"Because if I know their name, they're in the game. Meaning if they've had media attention, they're in the game. He's had it," they say, smugly (always with the smugness!).

Again, to repeat, my now five-year-old phrase was not designed to suggest or imply that anyone who's ever had any media attention at all is in the game, just like "if it's in headline news, it's a ruse" doesn't imply every news item ever reported is fabricated.

To reiterate the rather obvious: if you have an establishment employer, such as a university, an NHS hospital, or a newspaper, then, if you go "off-script" and start publicly doing or saying things you're not supposed to, it's in the establishment's interests to manoeuvre the media machine against you in order to get you fired. That should be obvious (and it is: that's why so many people post anonymously online - primarily because they are, quite rightly, worried about ramifications from employers if they don't).

For example, an NHS medic speaking out against vaccines or ventilators has authority, a platform, and an income, making their voice powerful. They're far more credible than some crank on the internet. Therefore, to dramatically undermine the impact of their influence, the establishment is highly incentivised to remove their authority, platform, and income as soon as possible, by smearing them publicly in a bid to have their employment terminated.

Establishment institutions are, unsurprisingly, very skittish about establishment bad press, so if one of their employees is taken to task by the press, that not infrequently leads to them getting the sack. Stripped of their platform and authority, and even means to keep a roof over their head, their voice suddenly loses a great deal of its power.

This is what happened to Chris Exley. He'd had a 30-year career studying aluminium, attracting no smear campaigns in the press at all, but when he turned his attention to the aluminium in vaccines, the media machine manoeuvred against him which resulted in his career coming to an end.

Once that had happened, the media reverted to completely ignoring him, as they have done ever since.

Now that Chris is no longer an establishment employee, and instead earns his living as a freelance science writer on Substack, media attention would be very helpful to him, as it would alert more people to his existence and attract many more subscribers.

That's why the media won't attack him now, but only did it in a strategic way to get him fired. You can see similar examples of other former establishment employees who spoke up against vaccines / "covid" etc. They had a few strategic hit pieces on them to get them fired, and then have been completely ignored by the MSM ever since.

That is an entirely different scenario to one in which the media repeatedly draws attention to someone, over a period of many months and years, rather than allowing them to quickly sink back into obscurity, e.g., Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, Russell Brand, and all the other names my little phrase was actually designed to refer to.

Now, nobody is duty-bound to agree with my phrase. You may think that I am completely wrong, and that is your prerogative. But what makes the debate disingenuous is when people intentionally misinterpret the phrase to try and claim I'm being inconsistent or hypocritical or something. "Oh, you only apply your own standards to people you don't like, not to people you do".

No, you are just wilfully misinterpreting what my standards are, and I've always been clear and consistent about them. The "name game" phrase doesn't mean people you've merely "heard of", nor does it mean anyone who's ever been in the press at all. Given it is actually my phrase, I think I should at least be permitted to define what it means, if that doesn't inspire the vengeful ire of irate internet trolls too much.

I am told that my phrase indicts, for example, Bob Moran. Yet do a news search for Bob Moran, and you will see exactly the same pattern as Chris Exley. A fairly small amount of press attention five years ago, coinciding with his speaking out against covid and consequently being fired from his establishment job, and then nothing since.

My pointing this fact out is not about whether I like Bob or not, it's simply about illustrating that my phrase would not apply to someone like him, any more than it would apply to Chris Exley. I can also think of quite a few people I definitely don't like who it wouldn't apply to either (but prefer not to publicise them by saying who they are), so it's not about my playing favourites, it's simply about defining what my own phrase actually means, in order to stop it being repeatedly misinterpreted and weaponised.

Equally, I do not suggest that the only type of controlled opposition is those who are high-profile in the media. I am not promoting a false binary: "if they're famous, they're controlled, and therefore if they're not famous, they're not". Rather, I am saying that one type of controlled opposition is those who are high-profile. If they're high-profile and consistently in the MSM, they're definitely controlled, but that doesn't imply nobody else is.

Of course there are more "everyday" infiltrators and agents seeded into the truth movement, especially on social media, to manipulate and mislead, and this is no "conspiracy theory": the British establishment has openly admitted that it plants military, police, and intelligence officers into social media and anti-establishment spaces. These people aren't remotely famous, it would blow their cover if they were.

Obviously, it all starts to sound like a bit of a minefield at this point, and I can understand why some people get a bit panicky and ask, "well, how do you know who to trust, then? How can you trust anyone?"

To which I say, trust instincts, evidence, and gut feeling. Who feels authentic? Authenticity is hard to fake, and - especially when pressure is on - the bad actors often slip up. Also, examine closely: what are they trying to make you believe or say or do?

When people accuse me of being an agent (and for the record, once again, I'm not and am a completely independent operator), I ask them, "but what agenda do you believe I'm pushing?"

And then they ramble on about Chris Exley something, RFK, vaccines, viruses, and never really reach a clear and conclusive point. I've been accused of being an agent both for saying there are no viruses and for saying that there are (the latter of which I initially believed, as most people do). Some claim gatekeepers push the "virus hoax" whilst others claim gatekeepers push the "no virus psyop". So you will literally be accused by some of being a gatekeeper/agent whichever position you take (especially If you, God forbid, dare to change your mind).

This is where conspiracism has a tendency to spiral into farce and parody. You can't just accuse someone of being a gatekeeper simply for taking a position you disagree with, you have to present some kind of credible argument that they are knowingly taking a false position in order to manipulate people, and, for all the accusations that get thrown at me, I've never seen a shred of evidence, anywhere, that I do this. That's because I don't. Of course I make mistakes at times, just like ever human being on the planet, but to observe that I get things wrong on occasion is a far cry from any sort of evidence that I did so on purpose, or even that I did it carelessly. On the contrary, I carefully research all my positions before publishing them, I'm simply not omnipotent or infallible (sorry about that).

So then there's the other old favourite, that "it's not what you say, it's what you don't say".

"What do you mean?"

"Well, you never call out chemtrails, do you?"

"To be honest, I don't know much about them, so I prefer to leave that to people who do."

"Well, you never call out this obscure thing that is really important. We all know why that is!"

"I have literally never heard of that thing. If it's so important to you, why don't you write an article about it?"

"You're in cahoots with Charles Delingpole."

"I have never met, corresponded, or interacted in any way with Charles Delingpole. In fact, I've never met any member of the Delingpole family."

"Liar. How else did you get on James Delingpole's podcast?"

"I linked one of my articles on his Twitter and he liked it and invited me on."

"As if it's that easy... You have to be connected to get on his podcast!"

"You really don't. He sources most of his guests from recommendations from his social media followers. He's not Joe Rogan [which of course is a compliment]."

Anyway, I will leave my fantasy conversation with the imaginary troll there, since Lord knows I have enough real ones, but I think you get the point...

Overall, what I'm trying to say, in my customary, probably over-long style, is that it's fine for people to critique my phrases or stances, or indeed to reject them outright. That of course is their right. But it's not fine for them to do so disingenuously, to continually strawman and consistently misrepresent what I'm trying to say. The "if you know their name, they're in the game" phrase was developed as useful shorthand for a particular period in the conspiratorial cultural wars, and it's not so useful now - but that's not a reason to twist and weaponise it. Get your own phrase if you don't like mine.

Or to put it another way....

"Don't be a bogan, get your own slogan..."

Thanks for reading! This website is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (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 these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.