(For an audio version of this article - with new added section - please visit my YouTube channel.)

The name Andrew Bridgen has recently risen to prominence, in mainstream and alt media alike, for his variously "crazy anti-vax conspiracy theorising" or "courageous warrior truth-telling", depending on the particular publications you peruse.

This - Bridgen exposing vaccine harms in parliament and across the media - is a relatively recent development, and has this week sensationally led to Mr. Bridgen being expelled from the Conservative Party, and joining Laurence Fox's 'Reclaim' party, instead - thereby becoming the ostensibly "pro-freedom" party's first sitting MP.

All sounds very nice and noble so far, but there are are a few missing key details here, which, as always, we shall delve into... First of all, full disclosure: I'm not on the Bridgen bus and never have been (please see this article from January for my summation of why he has suddenly blasted bombastically onto the world stage), and as for Fox... well, for any regular readers, all I'll say for now is "he's an actor..." (but fear not, I'll say quite a lot more later...).

Anyway, back to Bridgen's newfound "fame". It is in fact not the first time in recent history the man has been castigated by the press for his shady allegiances, but his last telling-off took quite a different tone... In October 2022, it was revealed that Bridgen had personally received £25,000 from multi-millionaire private equity tycoon, Jeremy Hosking.

Bridgen received the interest-free "loan" - described by Hosking as "just helping out a mate" - to help pay for his second (constituency) home. The matey Hosking has donated nearly £8 million to political parties and politicians over the years, including to professional political chameleon, Nigel Farage

Okay, you might say, well, that sounds a bit dodgy, but so what? Politicians are always accepting "gifts" from wealthy influencers... but, in Bridgen's case, this was months ago, well before the vaccine / holocaust furore: so what has this to do with Bridgen's anti-vax activism now?

Only this: the primary funder of Laurence Fox's Reclaim Party, that Bridgen has just defected to, is none other than Mr. Jeremy Hosking himself. It was estimated in June 2021 that Hosking had already given up to £5 million to the party.

This seems a very strange - and extremely generous - level of support, on par with funding levels of major parties like the Lib Dems, given how extraordinarily little Reclaim has actually done. To date, and as far as this author has been able to ascertain despite extensive investigations, the party's history with standing political candidates in elections (the primary purpose of a political party) is limited to:

*Laurence Fox as London Mayoral candidate in 2021. He received just 1.9% of the vote, thereby losing his £10,000 deposit

*Martin Daubney, former lads' mag 'Loaded' editor, who stood as a parliamentary candidate in the North Shropshire by-election, finishing seventh with 0.98% of the vote and losing his deposit

*Leo Kearse for the 2021 Scottish by-election, who received 114 votes (0.3%)

And (other than a single sitting councillor who defected to Reclaim in 2021, but resigned less than a year later), that is all they've done.

Compare this to the other, far less lavishly funded pro-freedom parties, such as Freedom Alliance and Heritage, who - even operating on a shoestring and with no celebrity leader to help them garner media attention - have stood hundreds of candidates up and down the country, amassing tens of thousands of votes overall. Having been personally involved with Freedom Alliance from its inception, I know they've stood well over 150 candidates since their formation in 2020 (also when Reclaim was formed), and that, according to its website, Heritage has stood over 75 candidates this year alone.

So, in seeking new representation, why would Mr. Bridgen join a party that has done almost nothing, as opposed to one of the far more active organisations that have deeply embedded themselves in the political fabric - or, over the obvious alternative of representing himself as an independent?

As trust in and support for political parties ever-dwindles, there are an increasing number of networks arising to support independent candidates (such as the Vote Freedom Project and the Democratic Network), who presumably would have been happy to lend their resources and support to Mr. Bridgen (again, these projects have supported far more active political candidates than Reclaim has). Note that Bridgen's fellow MP, Jeremy Corbyn, once he was kicked out of the Labour Party, did not see the need to join any other party (which theoretically could have gone on to kick him out too, should he "displease" them also), but chose to represent himself as an independent

So why has Bridgen not gone for this obvious option, too, which seems a far less risky and more robust strategy for a genuinely dissident MP?

It's quite the "coincidence" that primary Reclaim funder (and original party leader), Jeremy Hosking, had just given his "mate" Bridgen tens of thousands of pounds, merely months prior to this seminal change of allegiance, isn't it...?

Meanwhile, Bridgen is now crowdfunding to raise a whopping £250,000 to pay his legal fees to "sue Matt Hancock for defamation".

Look, I despise the psychopathic Hancock creature and everything he stands for (and have written about my contempt for the mass murderer at length), but I'm really not that bothered about him saying mean things about a fellow MP (after all, if you've ever watched the sixth-form common room "debating" spectacle that is PMQs, you'll know all Westminster really is is MPs saying mean things about each other) - I'm bothered about his coordinated mass genocide of the nation's elderly and maiming of millions with bioweapon injections.

While it's true that Mr. Bridgen claims "if he is successful" in his litigious endeavours, all damages will go to the vaccine injured - what if he isn't successful? As all these other high-profile, very costly celebrity court cases have not been?

That's £250,000 down the pan - so why not use that £250,000, if he raises it (as I'm sure he will, having already raised nearly £50k in the first 24 hours), to - instead of further enriching the coffers of already exorbitantly wealthy lawyers - help the vaccine injured NOW? After all, a quarter of a mil funding pot would make a huge difference to those so severely vaccine injured they are no longer able to work, and need subsidies, supplements and treatments - a far more direct and practical way of helping people than "suing Matt Hancock for defamation".

If Mr. Bridgen insists on suing Hancock for his nasty words, why can't Bridgen - a well-off MP with plenty of generous donor friends, as we have already seen with Mr. Hosking - fund his own legal campaign? Hosking has already found at least £5 million for Reclaim, surely less than an eighth of that to help his good mate Andy is manageable - and, as Bridgen seems so confident he will win, he could pay his pal back out of the damages, right?

But, no, that will never happen, because in reality, what is going on here is the age-old neutralising political theatre that gives people the illusion that there's "someone out there fighting for us" and "someone with power/money/celebrity who can really make a difference".

I can assure you that no multi-millionaire Tory party donor, such as Mr. Hosking is, is on our side, and we are simply being bamboozled and deceived. It's no coincidence that Reclaim party leader, and Bridgen's new best mate Fox, is not just a professional deceiver - an actor - but from one of the most renowned acting dynasties in the world.

Whenever big name heroes come swinging out of the political, theatrical, or big business world to "save us", and get a lot of mainstream media attention whilst they are so doing, it's always the same tired old trick - be it Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Robert Kennedy, or Andrew Bridgen - they're all cynically strategised psy-ops to neutralise you into inaction. They're designed to make you think "finally! Someone with the means to make a difference is doing something!" - therefore I don't have to.

The reason that Reclaim has, realistically, not functioned as a political party in the last three years, standing dramatically less candidates than virtually all other active parties (including the Monster Raving Loonies), is because, realistically, it isn't a political party. It's a theatrical illusion of one, founded for the purposes of performance art, and fronted by a professional actor, from a phenomenally successful acting dynasty. All Laurence Fox has ever known is professional deception, and the point with good actors - especially a dynasty of them - is this: you can never know whether they're being genuine or not. That's what makes them good actors - and that's why they're so often recruited into politics.

The world stage controllers and stage producers are trying to distract and deceive you with a show, just as they always do. So, sure, watch it for the entertainment value and to see what they want you to focus on, but never invest any hope or faith in these professional agents of deception. They are there to neutralise you and that is their only purpose. The overlords want you to respond to what I'm saying here with helplessness and defeatism, by throwing up your hands and saying, "well, who can we trust, then?! Is everyone controlled opposition?!"

The answer to that is, no, of course not everyone is controlled opposition, and there are literally tens of thousands of people you can trust - but you'll never see them getting blanket media coverage in the MSM or having multiple millions lavished on them by Tory donors. Their names will never become the point of office water cooler gossip or the focus of mainstream talk-shows. The rule is always the same: if they appear on mainstream screens a lot, *they're an actor*, on the payroll and bought and paid for by the world stage directors.

So look beyond the mainstream and the glossy, slickly produced world stage show, and into the real world, instead - such as local rallies and demos, and like-minded online friends you can meet up with in real life: so-called "nobodies" arranging real grassroots projects and opportunities. There are literally thousands if not millions of such people - but as I say, they'll never get any significant mainstream attention, because the overlords don't control them and so don't want you to know about them. It's immaterial whether people like Bridgen get "bad publicity" from the papers, because it's still publicity and still has you talking about him

The reality is that there truly is no such thing as bad publicity, and every MSM editor the world over knows this, and knows that the real way to crush an individual or movement from rising to prominence, is to ignore them (hence why the real anti-establishment political parties, standing hundreds of candidates, such as Freedom Alliance, were completely ignored by the MSM, whereas Reclaim - which has stood three - has had plenty of press coverage lavished upon them).

So, if you want to find people to trust, and who inspire you to take action, rather than neutralise you into passivity, look to your local communities, which are buzzing with possibilities, projects, and active participants (rather than passive recipients). Just a cursory glance around my locality in the North-West confirms that, last Saturday, there was an anti-15 minute city rally in Huddersfield; and, this Saturday, there's a meeting opposing SMART infrastructure in Stockport. There's always something going on, and ways to expand your networks and take real-world action with real people. You just won't find it promoted by celebrities or on mainstream screens.

And anyone who claims otherwise, has probably got a few 'Bridge(n)s' to sell you....

EDITED 13/03/23 TO ADD...

This article has been quite widely shared and has attracted a variety of interesting feedback, with many agreeing with my conclusions, but also many defending Bridgen's actions, and insisting his "suing Matt Hancock for defamation" is in our interests, which has led me to compose the following addendum (first published on my Facebook account):

The very fact that Matt Hancock is freely walking around going about his business and the only formal legal challenge against him is “defamation” surely should tell everyone all they need to know about the theatrical illusion of all this.

Even if Bridgen’s lawsuit is successful (which it almost certainly won’t be, it being exceptionally hard to prove defamation in a country with free speech laws as robust as the U.K.), all that would mean is Hancock being ordered to pay a small fraction of his personal fortune to Bridgen.

It won’t mean he goes to jail.

It won’t mean he’s out of a job.

It won’t mean he’s prevented from swanning around living a life of luxury charging £10k a day for his services.

It would be a minor slap on the wrist that would barely inconvenience him at all.

Bridgen has set the fundraiser up to capitalise on the public rage against Hancock, knowing the words “I’m suing Matt Hancock” will press all the right buttons and people will give him money, feeling like “something’s being done about that evil man at last!”.

But can’t you see that it isn’t? Being sued for defamation, even if the lawsuit is successful (highly unlikely) is effectively meaningless to a wealthy person, and is utterly trivial compared to the real crimes of Matt Hancock, which should be presented in a criminal court before a judge and jury, with Hancock spending the rest of his life in prison. But instead, we have a trivial civil case with no meaningful long-term consequences for Hancock, even if he loses.

The Bridgen “defamation” case is just there to pacify you and distract you from the fact that real action isn’t being taken and Hancock remains a free man (and will remain that way even if Bridgen successfully sues him). And to reiterate, Bridgen’s chances of success are very low.

Please do consult a lawyer yourself and get them to confirm just how difficult proving defamation is. Almost everything is covered by free speech laws and, in reality, Hancock’s comments are just a personal opinion which can’t be (and shouldn’t be) regulated by law.

Think of all the insults you’ve thrown at politicians over the last three years - should you be sued? Or would you quite rightly defend yourself as exercising your free speech? Matt Hancock has just the same free speech rights as everyone else and can insult work colleagues if he so chooses. Maybe a disciplinary matter for his line manager: not a matter for a court.

Also, let’s be real here: does anyone actually believe Hancock runs his own Twitter? The man charges £10k a day for his services, he’s not going to do “grunt work” like running his own work social media, and everything that goes out on his official Twitter will have been composed by a team who know the law and what they can and can’t get away with. Hancock is not sitting there rage Tweeting drunk at 3am - if it’s on his work Twitter, it’s meant to be (just like Bridgen mentioning he got vaccinated at “Mason’s” pharmacy on his work Twitter was meant to be there).

I enclose a link which details the facts around defamation cases, which qualifies that, if you are successful, the average damages are between £5k and £50k - less than Bridgen has already raised - and average legal costs, between £2k and £20k. So why is Bridgen raising more than 10 times that?

It’s easy to criticise someone like Hancock who is so obviously evil. But we are much more vulnerable to being defrauded by people who appear to “say the right things” and “be our friends” - that’s why it’s critical to be even more cautious with such people (especially when they happen to be a professional politician and Freemason) and remember that the truth never fears investigation and the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance.

Note that Hancock’s team have responded to Bridgen’s proposed case thus: "Matt will defend this absurd action, which is a pathetic publicity stunt. The claim has no credible basis and when Matt wins the case, he will also seek to recover all costs.”

So every penny being raised by Bridgen currently could - and quite probably will - end up in the pockets of Matt Hancock.

Do you get it yet?

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...

1. BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
2. Patreon, for monthly pledges
3. Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

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

(If you'd like to comment on this article, please visit Facebook or Instagram.)