Well, it just wouldn't be a modern Christmas without it, would it?

I would say, "remember the fake terror attacks last year?" (at the German Christmas markets and on NYE in New Orleans), but it would be a rhetorical question, since nobody does - these fake events are nearly always forgotten within a week, and that's a significant tell-tale sign they're fake.

James Delingpole mentioned this in his recent pod with Ole Dammegard, and it's something I've thought myself: these events go away far too quickly and easily to be real.

In a real terror situation (if, indeed, there are any), where dozens of real people have been slaughtered, leaving multiple real families, friends, and colleagues reeling in shock, the reverberations go on for many months and years. The community remains forever altered. Many within it are never the same again.

But with these fake ones, it's all, "oh well, back to business as usual" within a week, and by the month point, the events are veritably anachronistic - ancient news, long forgotten.

I mean, how much ongoing coverage do we see of the "Manchester synagogue attack" which supposedly left three people dead? (And three further people injured, oh hello 33...)

There's absolutely none, and that only happened two months ago.

Of course, it will probably be dredged up again now, because it's supposedly the first in a spate of terror attacks aimed at Jewish holidays: the Manchester "attack" timed to coincide with Yom Kippur, and the Bondi Beach one synchronised with Hanukah.

Obviously, we are meant to think that there's been a dangerous upsurge in virulent antisemitism, which we are going to need lots of new laws to prevent (and maybe a war with Iran). More anti-free speech laws, more anti-privacy laws, more surveillance and restrictions - all to keep the terribly persecuted Jewish community safe, of course.

It's just predictable problem-reaction-solution political theatre.

I mean, one of the "survivors" of this latest attack (who was horribly wounded, but nevertheless managed to immediately take a selfie whilst crawling to safety) is prominent Israeli human rights lawyer, Arsen Ostrovsky, recognised as one of the most influential Jewish leaders in the world.

What are the chances of such a person being so closely personally involved with the most atrocious antisemitic attack on Australian soil ever, especially given the man isn't even Australian, but, oh-so coincidentally, moved there just two weeks ago, just in time for his star turn in Hanukkah Horror?

I would say "you couldn't write it", except that's obviously exactly what they've done: it's a scripted theatrical production.

How can I be so sure it's theatre?

Well, largely because they make it so obvious.

Imagine your beloved spouse of five decades had just been brutally gunned down in front of you, as allegedly happened to this lady.

Would you be in any fit state to immediately address the media, calmly and coherently, giving them all the gory details of this unspeakable tragedy, literally just hours (or maybe even minutes) after it had happened?

(And you'll never guess what her tragically heroic husband was... a Holocaust survivor. Of course.)

Or how about this gentleman, the influential Israeli we met earlier, described as "drenched in his own blood and swathed in bandages".

He's being rushed to hospital, right?

Er, no. He's hanging around on the beach giving lengthy interviews to the press.

Even better - and as we frequently see in these psyop pantomimes - this particular crisis actor and prominent Jewish leader has been recycled from another production, the "October 7th massacre".

To paraphrase the old saying, to be present at one "antisemitic terror attack" may be regarded as bad luck; to be present at two looks like carelessness.

Oh, and the name of the journalist interviewing this serial "survivor"?

Cameron Carpenter.

CC = 33.

Naturally, the (conveniently dead) "culprit's" driving licence - which was found instantly, of course - has a prominent 33 on it, too.

It's just psyopping by numbers (literally) at this point, but what the relentless fakery makes clear is that the biggest threat to us at the current time is not some big bad bogeyman "digital ID" (which we already have with the age restrictions etc., so we just have to find ways of getting around it, just as we've always had to find ways to get around censorship and restrictions) - it's the establishment's relentless quest to deceive and manipulate us with media fakery (including social media fakery, which we'll get to in a minute).

That's the biggest threat, because if it weren't for fabricated media theatre of various stripes, there would have been absolutely no public investment in the charades that were Covid, 9/11, Lucy Connolly, and all the rest of it.

The only way the establishment can get people to invest in these fake events, and thus respond to them as it desires (by injecting themselves with poison, or going to war, or living in perennial fear), is by sensationalist portrayals of them in the mass media, backed up by social media.

That's why the one thing the fake-awake controlled opposition agents will attack you about with more shrill (shill!) hysteria than anything else is calling out big media productions as fake.

It's because they realise once the power of the establishment to hoodwink and mislead the population via media fakery is lost, then, essentially, all their power is lost.

The gatekeepers and narrative controllers will never attempt to present any actual evidence to sceptics that the event is real, of course, they'll just fulminate in faux-fury about how you're a bad person for saying it isn't, and then compare you to a serial killer or the devil.

They'll try to shame you with "you fiend, where is your compassion for the poor victims!?" - well, first of all, I don't think there are any victims, because I think it's fake, but just supposing there were: why should I give big dramatic public outpourings of emotion for these particular strangers on the other side of the world who have supposedly died, and not for any of the other thousands of strangers all over the world who have also died this week, some in unimaginably brutal circumstances?

What about the hundreds of people, including children, who die every week at the hands of family members in domestic violence - often having endured years of abuse first? Or the thousands of families ripped apart by suicides and drug overdoses - again often after having already suffered for years or decades? Why don't their deaths matter just as much as these twelve random people supposedly killed on a beach in Sydney? Where are the big showy public outpourings of grief for them?

We all know the answer, of course: it's that people only fake-emote about what the media tells them to. They only pretend to care about the deaths of strangers that are high-profile in the media, whilst clearly not giving a flying fig about deaths of strangers in general. It's hypocritical showboating virtue-signalling, not "compassion" - which becomes immediately obvious the minute they try to shame other people for not joining in with said hypocritical showboating virtue-signalling (and then compare them to serial killers and the devil...).

They do all this because it's critical to them, and their masters, that the mass media retains its colossal and unprecedented power over the mass mind: the media is the ruling classes' most potent weapon in terms of population control, and so they are petrified of the day people see through the mirage, realising that, invariably, "if it's headline news, it's a ruse".

That is to say, if a story is high-profile and dramatic, commanding huge national and international attention, then it's extremely likely to be fake: staged, scripted, and performed, for political purposes.

Put simply, the ruling classes stage events and use the media to present them as real in order to manipulate the population. And why wouldn't they? The ruling classes have always used propaganda of one sort or another to manipulate to masses, so this is just the next logical step in a media-saturated age. The tepid watered down version of this, that "the events are real but the ruling classes let them happen rather than intervene, and then exploit them" is patently false, as is made very clear by the behaviour of the "survivors".

They're always happy to immediately talk to the media, and in a calm and coherent way (real survivors of tragedy are overwhelmingly unlikely to do this).

They always say "the right things" and push the required political agendas (when the last thing real survivors would be bothered about in the immediate aftermath of great tragedy is politics).

They have, not infrequently, "survived" another horrific terror event, and usually quite recently (when the actual statistical chances of being involved in even one terror event are infinitesimally small, so to be involved in two is very close to statistically impossible).

So, no. The ruling classes don't just "let these events happen" and then exploit them. They script and stage-manage them from the start, because that is the only way they can be absolutely sure the event will unfold as they wish, and have the consequences they desire.

It's why producers for major TV shows don't just draft in a load of amateurs and allow them to simply ad lib on a general theme, but rather, they recruit professional performers and give them a script to read from and direction to follow.

Nothing is allowed to "just happen" on TV, and it is the same on the world stage.

High-profile screened events with millions of viewers around the world - whether they're on Netflix or "the news" - are all tightly controlled and scripted professional productions from the start, and they're staged by the same people, for the same reasons: in other words, these offerings are are all ruling class propaganda devised to manipulate us.

And without it - or rather, without our investment in it - the ruling classes lose all their power.

Take, for example, the classic case of psyop psychodrama, Lucy Connolly, the lovely middle-class mummy "jailed for a Tweet".

This is complete fiction, fabricated theatre, and was staged to scare you into censoring yourself online lest you "go to prison like lovely Lucy".

It was clearly nonsense from the start, as I covered in a series of articles, but these psyoppers always jump the shark and make their deceptions too obvious. If they were smart, they'd shut up about her at this point, since she's old news and nobody currently cares, but here they are, still desperately trying to validate her existence by squealing, "HERE IS MY FRIEND AND SHE IS REAL HONEST!".

Lol. I don't know about you, but I've never felt compelled to spend a single second convincing thousands of strangers on the internet that my friends aren't AI, and I can't fathom for a moment why anybody ever would. Well, unless they were a scamming psyopper working for the state, obviously.

Here we have another splendid example, where Lucy's "husband" (I still haven't been able to find that marriage certificate) is tacked unconvincingly onto a photo of Luce with her Zionist media pals (more on them shortly), which even Grok admits is a particularly shoddy photoshop job.

The whole thing is just laughably fake, but we're supposed to believe in it so we can be manipulated accordingly. Initially, we were supposed to be scared into silence because "otherwise we could go to prison like Lucy", but now that she's "out", and has become a big political poster girl for Reform, we can expect to see her rolled out for a few more psyopping specials, to help channel more support in Reform's direction - "cos Britain's broken and they're our last chance" etc etc.

Lucy's latest lie is that her daughter (who is mostly called Edie, but sometimes goes by Holly) has been denied a place at school because of Lucy's "racist" views, which is again just laughably fake, as anyone who's ever had anything to do with schools' admissions processes knows.

You may wonder why I am mentioning old Luce in an article about fake terror attacks - and in particular, fake antisemitic terror attacks - and it is because these things are inextricably linked.

All the biggest cheerleaders of the Lucy Con-or-lie story are well-known Zionists, with many of them sitting on the board of the British Friends of Israel. This includes the Telegraph's Allison Pearson and the Free Speech Union's Toby Young, whilst the only MP to supposedly "visit Lucy in prison", Reform's Richard Tice, is well-known for his ardently pro-Israel views.

Every time I draw attention to these sort of things, I inevitably get a spate of attacks directed at me, which have a very coordinated, Jewish mafia feel to them (and some of the biggest Jewish mobsters LARP online as "virulent antisemites" because they know that's the best way or engineering a pushback and gaining more laws restricting views critical of Israel).

I don't mean I get attacked if I simply criticise Jewish power, but in specific, if I link it to fake media events. As soon as I go there, the smears, abuse, online gang-stalking and all the rest of it (literally including "we know where you live" threats) begins. Don't get me wrong, these threats are totally baseless and there is no risk to my personal safety, these largely anonymous accounts would never go further than writing nonsense online - but they'd certainly like me to think they would. They attempt to control and silence through fear, just like their masters.

There was quite a lot of this over Charlie Kirk, but it by far hit its apex over Lucy Connolly, so we can conclude that she is a critically important asset to them, and will be deployed to perform in more media street theatre, coming to a newsstand near you soon.

The crucial point here is that the ruling classes, and their lackeys and acolytes online, will completely fail in their efforts to control and mould us through media theatre if we no longer believe that the media (mainstream or social) is an accurate reflection of reality, which it is not - and this is more so than ever in the age of AI.

In reality, we simply haven't a clue whether anything we see on screens corresponds in any way with real life, unless and until we can personally verify it for ourselves. So, it's clearly far more logical to side with the "auto-hoaxers" and initially assume that any big, theatrical media event is fake, until there is conclusive proof it is not.

The media are the ones presenting these events to us, demanding our attention is fixed upon them, attempting to trigger powerful emotional reactions, and so - before we give them those reactions - the burden of proof is on them (particularly as accomplished and longstanding professional liars) to convince us that they are telling the truth.

Of course, they almost always fail in this regard, since, invariably, when you poke around for a few minutes, the evidence of fakery and deception in high-profile "terror events" is obvious and overwhelming - and it's meant to be, as this is part of the humiliation ritual, humiliation being one of the primary purposes of propaganda.

The message is, "you are so weak that we can show you this obviously fabricated event, yet you will act as if you believe in it, because you fear us too much not too". It's literally Emperor's New Clothes stuff: mocking the victims, as psychopaths love to do.

And so, let's just be very clear that those are the only real "victims" of these fake attacks: the people who (act like they) believe they're real.

(Edited 15/12/25 to add: For all those very bad actors trying to make this article about digital ID, it's not. If you want to read my take on digital ID, here it is.)

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.