I was chatting with some conspiracy-minded chums the other day, and the subject of Alex Jones came up - in particular, the theory that he is, in fact, the "dead" comedian, Bill Hicks.

"No, I don't buy that at all," stated one seasoned psyop scrutiniser, sagely.

"Yeah, I definitely think it's possible," countered the other, conversely.

When I queried why the second sceptic was open to the possibility (the theory more usually eliciting the reaction of the first), he explained that, when evaluating whether certain "conspiracies" are plausible or not, he considers what he would do if in the same situation.

So, if he were a very rich and famous world stage comedian, who, for whatever reason wanted to leave the limelight, or reinvent himself as someone else, would he use the immense resources at his disposal to fake his own death?

Yes, he concluded, he quite possibly would: so if he would do that in such circumstances, why wouldn't others?

It's pretty sound logic, and I think that the faking of deaths of world stage characters, either because they want to leave the spotlight entirely, or because they want to play a new role, is relatively commonplace (with death faking generally happening rather more frequently than many may imagine). It's directly comparable to the way that long-running soap opera characters are often "killed off", when the actor in question wants to retire, or move on to a new project.

A few months back, I detailed my theory that "TV doctor", Michael Mosley, had faked his own death, with the whole thing being reported in the news exactly like a soap opera storyline.

There was the building of suspense-filled tensions, the will-they-won't-they find him drama (and, really, who alerts the UK press when a loved one goes missing in Greece, much less provides them with up-to-the-minute details of the search?!) - and then, ultimately, a sensationalist grand finale, when his body was "found" in very implausible circumstances (outside a busy restaurant for five days in the blazing sunshine where nobody had noticed).

The whole thing simply smacked of total fabrication and fakery (how and why Mosley might wish to fake his death, I explored here).

Extrapolating from this, therefore, I could recognise the same signature scripting at play when, a few days ago, we were told Virginia Giuffre - alleged Epstein abuse victim, sex trafficked to Prince Andrew - had "killed herself".

She hasn't killed herself, I thought, but nor - as the predictable "conspiracy theory" (a theory even promoted by Giuffre herself) immediately postulated - has the establishment.

Rather, the world stage character, Virginia Giuffre, has been killed off, either so the actress playing her can retire, or so she can move on to another role. Given her relative youth (she's 41), probably the latter.

(Michael Mosley, conversely, was 67, exactly retirement age, when he "died".)

The reason I feel confident that (the actress playing) Giuffre isn't actually dead is because the story was simply far too prominent and far too sensationalist, far too quickly, for it to be real.

We were told she killed herself on the evening of Friday 25th April, yet by Saturday 26th - just hours after the event had allegedly occurred - newspapers all over the world had all "the chilling details" of her final hours.

That's not how real tragedies work.

In the initial aftermath of something as horrific as the suicide of a young mother, (especially one who had supposedly nearly just died days earlier in a car crash, all very Days of Our Lives), the family would be reeling in stupefied shock. Nobody would have pieced together the full series of events yet, let alone found the time to report them in detail to the international press.

What we saw, therefore, was just scripted storytelling involving lifetime character actors, not the real suicide of a real person.

Interestingly, Giuffre's lawyer commented in the press that:

"'The police told me nothing, they didn't even confirm she was dead... I didn't see her in the room."

Make of that what you will... And I think you're getting a pretty good idea of what I make of it...

I have become somewhat known for my slogan, "if you know their name, they're in the game", meaning that if someone is a well-known character who receives consistent attention from the mainstream press, they're a controlled asset. This is because the establishment does not promote to notoriety anyone it doesn't control, for the simple reason that prominence and a media platform gives a person too much power.

Once someone is famous, they wield huge power and influence over the mass mind, so the ruling classes only give that kind of power to people they control. Regardless of whether the publicity they give the person is positive or negative ("there's no such thing as bad publicity"), having consistent mainstream media attention is always a red flag that an individual is compromised.

Similarly, I've been trying to develop a new slogan regarding how to identify whether news events are real or not, and so far, I've come up with (I admit it needs some work), "if the headlines it makes, it's a fake".

What I'm attempting to convey with that statement is that, if something is prominent headline news - and by 'headline news', I mean one of the top stories across a range of national publications that's attracting huge national or international attention - then it's often indicative of a controlled, scripted theatrical production, rather than an organic event that the establishment has had no hand in stage-managing.

(And that the establishment stages fake events presented as real for political reasons is not a "conspiracy theory", but documented fact, so the only debate that remains is, not whether the establishment fakes events, but which ones.)

Real events make the news, certainly (especially the local news), but typically, in a far more muted, less sensationalist way than the fake ones - and this was very aptly illustrated last month, when Texan teen, Austin Metcalf, was supposedly murdered in a knife attack.

17-year-old Austin, who has an identical twin brother (!), was allegedly murdered on Wednesday April 2nd, 2025, in Frisco, Texas.

Despite this incident occurring nearly 5,000 miles away from where I live, I - along with the rest of the country and English-speaking world - heard about it instantly, as coverage of the Metcalf murder dominated the headlines here and abroad.

We all immediately knew Metcalf's name and face, as well as the name and face of the "killer", and the families were instantaneously ready to deliver well-rehearsed, articulate statements to the press - as well as to set up the inevitable crowdfunder, for the killer on this occasion, which to date has raised more than $500,000.

On Thursday 3rd April (e.g., the next day), there was another fatal knife murder reported, the victim also a teen boy, with the attack carried out less than 3 miles from my home. A 16-year-old boy was stabbed in the neck in Huddersfield town centre, and later died in hospital from his injuries.

Scan the headlines of the national newspapers in this country, however - never mind in other countries - and you will find almost nothing about it (it did get a small smattering of press attention, but nothing that would fit the definition of 'headline news' - i.e., a top national story that everyone's talking about).

Nobody knows the names of the Huddersfield victim or attacker (without Googling), and the victim's uncle - with whom he lived - eventually gave a brief, stilted statement to the local press, to which he refused to affix his name, obviously not wanting to make his family's private grief into a public media circus, which is the normal response from a family reeling from tragedy.

Conversely, the families of the "victims" of high-profile media "murders", such as Austin Metcalf, Southport, Sandy Hook, et al - seem only too thrilled to court the press at any and every given opportunity, always with perfectly prepared monologues that pull on all the right heartstrings and push all the right political buttons.

Convenient, eh?

And this, in a nutshell, is why the establishment has to fake "tragic events" in order to exploit them for political purposes: because with real tragedies, the establishment has no assurance the families will cooperate, and agree to engage with the media at all, let alone say "the right things" in "the right ways".

This really matters where it comes to effectively pushing political agendas (in other words, effectively propagandising people), because - no matter how tragic your personal circumstances or how much horror you have endured - you won't evoke maximal public sympathy unless you've been properly media trained, as the treatment of working-class victims of grooming gangs so ably attests.

Contrast how these families have been treated by the press and politicians, to the slick, middle-class media luvvies, the McCanns - which is another way we can discern that the Madeleine McCann child abduction drama is fake and staged.

To sum: you can't optimally media-train grieving families reeling from tragedy, for obvious reasons.

You can optimally train actors, for equally obvious reasons.

Therefore, the establishment will promote to high prominence faked - or, shall we say, "controlled" - events, for the same reason it will promote to notoriety controlled people: because only when the establishment wields complete control over a narrative can it have the confidence this narrative will go exactly where it wants.

I had a back-and-forth on Twitter with a few people about this subject, where I asserted my belief that the Southport stabbings were staged. I asked these people, "if they weren't staged, how come they got so much media attention, whilst the fatal stabbing in Huddersfield got so little?"

They said it was because teen knife murders, whilst tragic, are so common, they don't warrant much press attention, whereas the murder of little girls is so unusual, it attracts massive media focus.

So I pointed out to them that, 24 hours before the Huddersfield murder, a teenage boy - Austin Metcalf - was supposedly knifed to death in another country, and yet, this was headline news all over the world instantly, whilst again, the Huddersfield murder got virtually no coverage in comparison (despite the Huddersfield victim being slightly younger than Metcalf, if the metric we're going with is "the younger the victim, the more media attention they receive").

The only remaining explanation, then, as to why the UK press would pay more attention to a teen knife murder that happened 5,000 miles away, than to one that happened right here at home, is that the establishment is more invested in the one abroad than the one in the UK.

And why is it more invested in that one?

Because it controls that one. It set it up, scripted it, and staged it. Therefore, the establishment is entirely at liberty to decide how that narrative arc develops, how the "families" (actors) behave, and what the ultimate consequences are, in a way it obviously is not where it comes to real tragedies and real people.

And that brings us back to Virginia Giuffre.

If she had really killed herself, it would not be headline news all over the world, with all the grim and gory details, within literal hours of it happening.

We would hear about it slowly, incrementally - if at all (the establishment could easily muzzle the press with a D-notice by asserting "national security" concerns if they didn't want this event to be widely known) - and it would be reported in the sombre and muted way real deaths are, not the soap opera style sensationalism that we instead got.

The reason Giuffre's "death" was reported in the same theatrical, over-the-top way a soap opera announces the "death" of a character, is because that's exactly what it was. The perennial world stage pantomime simply killed off a fictional character, nothing more.

And what was the purpose of the establishment killing off the Giuffre character?

Probably to spark more animosity towards the royal family, who are earmarked for abolition (can't have a monarchy in a one world government), but it's also a strategically managed PR exercise in detracting from the real abusive crimes of that family, which are almost certainly a lot worse than sleeping with 17-year-olds in a country - the UK - where the age of consent is 16.

The Giuffre allegations have been very carefully choreographed, in my opinion, to inspire outrage - Andrew having inappropriate, possibly forced, relations with a teenage girl - without actually invoking outright paedophilia.

People may be disgusted with Andrew for what was at best an exploitative, if not outright coercive, episode, but it's a far cry from how they would feel if Giuffre had been 15, or 13, or 5.

The establishment knows there are all sorts of "conspiracy theories" flying around regarding the proclivities of the royal family, so rather than risk these becoming the dominant subversive theories surrounding the monarchy, the establishment creates and manages its own "conspiracy theory" instead, in order to redirect and reframe people's perceptions.

In so doing, they ratify the sense people have that the royal family are abusive and exploitative, but they focus the outrage on a relatively minor misdemeanour (relative to what it is alleged the royal family really gets up to), and on a narrative that they entirely control: including deciding to bring the saga to an end by killing the protagonist off.

Ironically, Prince Andrew quite possibly is innocent of this particular crime, because the whole thing has probably been staged from the start. It is perfectly plausible that he is telling the truth when he says that he never met Giuffre, and the photo of them together is faked.

Because here's the thing: whilst we're all arguing over Virginia Giuffre, and whether Andrew did or didn't really abuse her, or whether the establishment did or didn't really bump her off, all attention from the other nameless, faceless victims of the royal family (some said to be a lot younger than 17), is lost.

That's how "they" continue to control the narrative - both mainstream and alternative - by planting fake, controlled "conspiracy theories" to bait people into neutralising traps, and stopping them focusing on what is really happening (the "Covid lab leak" being another example of fake, controlled "conspiracy theory" narrative).

So if the whole Giuffre abuse / suicide narrative was real, it would be heavily suppressed and censored, for the same reason all real conspiracy theories are: that they're true, and therefore the establishment isn't in control of them, so it can't risk making them widely known and then losing control of the narrative.

Heavily promoting Giuffre's whole "tragic life story" up to and including her "suicide" has made her into a martyr, and the establishment would never canonise her in this way (i.e., give her and her legacy this power) if she was a real whistleblower exposing things they really didn't want exposed.

Real whistleblowers exposing real crimes get censored and suppressed into oblivion. They don't get the top spot in the Daily Mail.

It's important to remember what national newspapers really are, and what they are really there to do: not to report "the news" (thousands of newsworthy things happen every day that are never reported), but rather, to manage and control public perceptions as dictated by the intelligence agencies.

As Roy Greenslade, media blogger at the Guardian, and former editor of the Mirror commented:  "Most tabloid newspapers  — or even newspapers in general  — are playthings of MI5".

As, indeed, are all high-profile "conspiracy theorists", many of whom are known to have direct links to the intelligence agencies, such as Tucker Carlson's CIA ties.

Which explains why real "truthers" are kept playing small, with very modest social media followings and no exposure in the MSM, whilst the controlled assets have massive followings and extensive coverage in the news.

If you know their name, they're in the game.

If the headlines it makes, it's a fake.

(And, not to lower the tone... but Bill Hicks really IS Alex Jones!)

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.