Sorry if that seems an obvious, or even condescending, question, but I have to ask, because relentlessly - always and without exception - whenever I shine a critical light on the latest hero-warrior-celebrity who's going to "save us" (and get a lot of mainstream media attention whilst they do), I am accused of criticising "everyone".
So that is why I ask the question: do people understand the difference between celebrities and non-celebrities, and that they are not the same class of person - at all?
I criticise high-profile public figures - media stars and household names - and this is not only not "everyone", but represents about 0.01% of the total global population.
In the moderately sized town of Huddersfield, where I live, there reside 141,692 people. I have publicly criticised about ten of them (local councillors and MPs), meaning there remain 141,682 people in my immediate locality that I have never publicly criticised - 99.993% of the population.
On a nationwide - never mind global - level, the percentage of people I have never criticised is even higher - about 99.99999% (assuming I've publicly critiqued around 50-100 of the world's 7 billion people).
Because we are bombarded with celebrity imagery and words literally constantly - because we know far more about them than we do our own next-door-neighbours - we completely misrepresent and inflate in our own minds their importance and significance - and our own relationships with them.
Just to be clear, we do not know, and are not friends with:
Nor any other celebrity we "feel like we know" because we see them performing on our screens so often - and might even have bumped into them at a rally or be their friend on Facebook.
That doesn't mean we know them.
To know someone (distinct from merely "knowing who they are"), you have to spend significant social time with them and engage in meaningful conversation over a protracted period of time. I am quite confident that 99.9% of people reading this now have never done that with any of the above mentioned names, nor indeed with any "celebrity" ever. So, you don't know them and don't know whether they're genuine or not - you can only guess, based on the limited information they put out in the media - which is all I can do, too, and all I do do: but I don't, as some critics have claimed, merely cast baseless "asperians" (sic) on people - I formulate a case using reason, evidence, and logic. You don't have to agree with my conclusions - but if you're going to disagree, you need a robust counter case of your own, not just "OMG, all you do is criticise everyone!!".
You react that way because you've formed a false emotional bond with a person you don't know (and who almost certainly doesn't know you) via a screen, and are taking it personally that I've insulted someone your nervous system falsely believes you have a relationship with (because our brains can't distinguish between things we see in front of us in real life, and things we see on a screen - when your brain sees Laurence Fox and Andrew Bridgen talking at a press conference on your laptop, it reacts the same way it would if they were right there in the room with you - with one key difference: flickering screens induce an alpha-wave brain state, the same state induced when you undergo hypnosis, therefore rendering you much more suggestible and manipulable than you would be to things said in real life).
So that is why I reiterate this - please understand that you don't know these people. They're not your friends. They're there to distract, manipulate, and ultimately immobilise you: to keep you staring at a screen waiting for them to "save you", rather than getting out into the real world, and taking real action with real people yourself.
Because, please answer me this: is it not strange that most people are now far more likely to know the names of multiple celebrities like Elon Musk and Andrew Tate, than they are the names of the people who live on their own street?
Most people are doing well these days if they know the names of both sets of next-door-neighbours - nobody any longer knows everyone on their street, when, in the recent past, that was the norm, only really coming to an end in the 1970s.
Is it progress that we now - instead of being out in the street talking to our flesh-and-blood neighbours - all sit inside watching strangers on screens?
Obviously it's not progress at all, and it's why we have an epidemic of loneliness worse than any in recorded history - but it's been engineered to be this way because it gives the overlords such a phenomenal level of control. Any abuser's credo will tell you - the way to control someone is to isolate them. Sitting in your bedroom watching celebs give rousing speeches on screens, you might not FEEL that you're isolated (because your nervous system doesn't realise it's not real) - but you are. Charlie Brooker, the creator of prophetic dystopian TV show, 'Black Mirror', which puts a huge emphasis on the dehumanising effects of technology, called his series this because that's all you're left with when you finally switch off your screens at the end of the day - black mirrors reflecting back the true emptiness around you.
Human beings are the ultimate social animal and are hardwired to need to be part of a community with plenty of social connectivity. We need to be part of the "human drama", and, before screens saturated our lives, we were - that's why all families on every street knew each other, the children played together, the adults chatted and socialised together - because we need that fundamentally, as much as we need food and water. Loneliness and lack of social connectivity has been shown repeatedly to be as bad or worse as smoking, having a bad diet, or taking no exercise. This has been known for years: so why is there such a relentless focus on separating us and keeping us alone inside on our screens? (Literally what was explicitly ordered in lockdown, but had been strongly tacitly pushed for much longer before that.)
It's because forming strong and supportive communities in the real world makes us too self-sufficient and self-contained, and, therefore, far less vulnerable to the abuses and control of tyrants - so said tyrants had to dismantle our communities and isolate us, to make exercising the full extent of their desired brutality possible.
This they did with screens, as they understand human psychology intimately, and know how our brains work - that, when we see something on the screen, our brain responds as if it is really happening (that's why horror films scare you, even though you know it's not real), so watching 'Neighbours' induces the same kind of emotional response as chatting to our actual neighbours.
Soap operas suddenly sprung up everywhere in the post 1960s decades as an explicit example of social engineering - their purpose was to fulfil needs for human drama inside your home and on your own, so you stopped going out into your street to find it, and it worked a treat. Now, many people are actively scared of bumping into their neighbours ("argh! awkward!") and this is all completely by design, to get you hooked on screen actors instead, who are all entirely controlled and manipulated by the world stage controllers.
All of them? Yep, all of them - if they appear on mainstream screens a lot, they're an actor and they're controlled. But let me reiterate this once again so it is very, very clear: well over 99% of the population do not appear on mainstream screens a lot (or ever), so by saying you should be wary of people who do, I am not saying you should be wary of "everyone".
Leading on from this, I want to further explore this idea that I criticise and distrust "everyone". If this was so, then presumably I would not have any friends, because they would quickly tire of me refusing to believe anything they said and writing long op-eds accusing them of being Freemasons.
Funnily enough, though, this has actually never happened, and I do have friends, none of whom I have ever publicly criticised on my website, nor do I believe any of them are secretly Freemasons or otherwise compromised or "controlled". Because they're real people who I actually know, not celebrity actors on screens.
Nor do I believe, when I attend rallies and events, that the average person I get chatting to is a secret agent of the elite - in the overwhelming (overwhelming!) majority of cases, they are not, although, inevitably, large movements are vulnerable to infiltration (even animal rights' movements get infiltrated by agents of the state, so certainly explicitly anti-establishment ones will).
In fact, I could compile a very long list of people I know, trust, and admire, and who are doing great work fighting the tyranny - but those bewitched by the cult of celebrity would inevitably respond with, "well, who are they? They're nobodies". Well, just think about what that means. That's the exact same mindset which states we should only trust "the experts" and that our own views are deeply inferior to the point of being worthless.
There's nothing special at all about most modern celebrities, other than the fact they have the mainstream media spotlight shone on them. That's it. They are not typically more intelligent, more talented, more able or interesting that anyone else. They are just well-known due to establishment media attention - and therefore, inevitably, controlled by said establishment.
In order to take back our power, we have to stop investing all our hope and faith in celebrities on screens, and invest it back in our real, flesh-and-blood communities. The media has us obsessing over celebrities at the expense of real people, and that is by design. Like I said, it's not a coincidence we know the names Laurence Fox, Andrew Bridgen, Elon Musk, but not the names of the residents of most houses on our own street (I know my next-door-neighbours by name and the people across the road to say hello to, but that's it, and there are 80-odd houses on my street).
As it appears that currently about 15-20% of the population are what we might describe as "awake" (check this interactive map to give you a good idea - only 75% of people in my area took the first jab, and less for each subsequent jab), then statistically, there is likely to be at least one other awake person on your own street, and many more throughout your neighbourhood. I mean, even if only 10% of my town of Huddersfield was awake, that's still over 10,000 people within a few miles of my home that are awake and that I could meet, network and organise with.
But the system doesn't give us an easy way to interact with these real, live people on our doorsteps. Instead it gives us... Laurence Fox.
So, we must break the celebrity stranglehold and put them back in the box in which they belong, which is "entertainment". They are actors (explicitly in Fox's case), there to put on a show, and there's nothing wrong with watching that show if you enjoy it - but don't take it seriously or conflate it with real life, any more than you would call "Sergeant Hathaway" (a character Laurence Fox played in a TV show) if you were a victim of a crime, rather than the actual police.
The way we take our power back is making real-life bonds with real-world people, who we can collaborate with on meaningful projects that make a tangible difference (which "suing Matt Hancock for defamation" certainly does not).
There are loads of such projects (here's one and here's another), but they will never be promoted by the mainstream media or any celebrity actor - and by "promoted", I mean given any coverage at all. Smear campaigns are still great publicity, including and especially if you're styling yourself as "anti-establishment" ("look how the evil mainstream media is coming after me! That proves I'm on your side!").
I'd love nothing more than to have a detailed hit piece on me done by the Daily Mail, precisely because it would raise my profile so much and drive many new readers to my site - hence, the mainstream media will never do this and will continue to completely ignore me, despite my many and various attempts to contact them. They will continue to ignore all other legitimate people and causes too, for precisely this reason (and by 'ignore', I mean, no repeated headline national news - I'm not suggesting everyone who once had a paragraph written about them on page 37 of the Swindon Observer is 'controlled').
If the mainstream media gives repeated significant coverage to something or someone, it's because they want you to know about them, and there are no exceptions to this rule.
(And can we just qualify, tedious as it may be, what mainstream media actually is - it's the big corporate media like BBC, ITV, CNN, Daily Mail, Guardian, Times, etc. - just confirming, because somebody actually did say to me, "you say we shouldn't trust anyone on mainstream media but you have your own YouTube channel so clearly we shouldn't trust you!")
Why didn't the mainstream media report on the big vaccine safety protest in London yesterday? Because they didn't want you to know about it. They didn't report on it and criticise it - they just didn't report on it, because that's how you really crush a movement: you starve it of publicity, any publicity.
I know that my stating this long-known fact annoys people, and it is not my intention to be annoying, but merely to state the truth (which is often annoying - at best). The reason the phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" exists, and why it is such a well-known phrase, is because it's true. Millions of people in the country know about the Hancock vs. Bridgen Punch 'n' Judy show because multiple national publications have reported on it, and they quite simply would not do this unless it was in the establishment's interests (remember, the establishment controls ALL corporate media) for them to do so.
And I'm going to risk being even more annoying by saying once again - is it right that millions of people know about the Bridgen/Hancock fiasco, but don't know their own next-door-neighbours' names?
Look, the internet is great - it gives us access to information we would never have been able to access otherwise (no way I would be "awake" without the internet), it gives us access to fantastic films and inspiring books (with my ever-deteriorating eyesight, I struggle to read "proper" books now and find it much easier to read e-books), - and of course it gives the world this site 😉 - but by far its most important application should be connecting people in the real world - which it can do exceptionally well: almost everyone currently in my life is someone I initially met on the internet (including the one I married!).
As the founder of 'Couchsurfing' (a real-world initiative that sadly collapsed as a result of lockdown restrictions) said - "the real purpose of the internet should be to get people off the internet - and into each other's lives".
Real people talking to real people is the only thing that has any hope of permanently destroying false narratives - it would immediately stop any future fake pandemics, for a start, because if people's primary source of news and information was talking to others in person that they actually know, rather than watching celebrity actors on screens - nobody would ever have believed there was "a deadly pandemic" in the first place. The only reason that phenomenon - the idea you can kill someone by breathing on them - exists in people's head at all is because of screens (big "plague" movies like 'Contagion' etc). Real life experience destroys false screen-based narratives.
And because it does - because it's real people talking to real people, and creating their own self-sustaining communities, that is the only thing that will ever end the age-old elite stranglehold on humanity - that's why "they" are quite so desperate for you not to do it, and keep throwing slick media-trained "heroes" they control at you instead.
No more heroes, should be our mantra - allies, collaborators, and real-world friends, instead.
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...
Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.