Imagine the scene: You are 35 years old and your life lies in tatters around you. After a short-lived and tumultuous marriage, your wife has left you, taking your child with her. You lost your job some time ago, and debts are spiralling out of control. With no money or job, you're forced to live alone with your mother, your father having left the home when you were a child. Your days are spent sitting alone in your pyjamas playing video games. You have a string of criminal convictions.

Things don't look like they could get much worse, when there's a knock on the door and it's the police, there to arrest you on suspicion of rape. The evidence against you is credible, and they charge you with the crime.

That's all on the public record as the personal history of "Jihad Al-Shamie", the supposed "terrorist" implicated in the recent "attack" at a Manchester synagogue.

But imagine, if you will, that isn't the full story. Imagine it continued a bit like this....

Bailed and awaiting trial, sitting alone in his pyjamas and contemplating the bleak and terrible future awaiting him as a sex offender in prison, there's another knock at the door of the Al-Shamie residence. But it's not the police this time: it's the intelligence services.

Panicking that he, as a Muslim, may have been linked to terror offences, the MI5 officer assures Al-Shamie that it's not that: that he knows Al-Shamie has never been associated with any such activities (officials have confirmed Al-Shamie was not known to counter-terror agencies, and his previous convictions were not terror related). But, nevertheless, the intelligence officer states he is interested in cutting Al-Shamie a deal on that basis.

The intelligence agencies, the officer explains, stage constructions of "terrorist attacks" using actors and AI, and pass them off to the public as real. He assures Al-Shamie this is a benevolent thing to do, as it helps prevent future, real events from taking place, by ensuring a tightening up of the laws that can allow extremism to thrive.

There's been a dangerous rise in antisemitism, he explains, and to counter it - and to prevent real instances of Jewish people being harmed or killed by anti-Jewish extremists - the British state intends to stage a "terror attack" against Jews, perpetuated by a Muslim. This will provide the basis for anti-extremism laws to be tightened up and prevent future, real tragedies from taking place.

As such, the state requires a Muslim "patsy" to star as the terrorist.

All Al-Shamie has to do, explains the nice intelligence officer calmly, is stand outside a synagogue with a fake explosives vest on, shout something vaguely threatening like "I'm gonna get you", and then lie on the floor for a few minutes pretending to be dead when the actor-policeman fake shoots him.

It will be reported in the news that Al-Shamie is dead, a death certificate will be issued, and then the intelligence services will provide him with an entirely new identity and life. He'll be given a new name, new passport, and set up in a luxury flat in another city with plenty of money. He can completely start again - no debts, no rape conviction, and the resources to rebuild his life. He'll receive a monthly stipend from the state for the rest of his life to sustain him, the only condition being (as well as obviously signing the Official Secrets Act) that he'll have to make himself available should they require him to star in another staged event.

What does Al-Shamie say to such an offer?

What would most people in that position say?

So, that's likely how the state recruits its psyop stars. It looks for those who have the right vulnerabilities (mounting debts and poor personal and professional prospects), and the right personal characteristics (criminal tendencies, especially those relating to abuse, assault, and stalking), a description which fits Jihad Al-Shamie perfectly.

We saw a very similar profile for Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the "Muslim extremist" on whom the almost certainly fake New Orleans New Years' Day "terror attack" was blamed.

Twice-divorced Jabbar was the recipient of a restraining order from his ex-wife, forbidding him from sending threatening or obscene messages to her or causing "bodily injury" to her or their child. He was also drowning in debt, being $27,000 behind on house payments, whilst owing $16,000 in credit card debt.

A perfect candidate, in other words, to star in a psyop - someone who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by participating in spycraft for the state in return for money and a new life.

The ages of these two pretend perpetrators is also notable: Al-Shamie was 35 and Jabbar, 42. This is considerably outside the window for "radicalisation" and extremist tendencies, which tend to peak in the late teens and early twenties, and the average age for an Islamic State (IS) fighter is around 25.

Examining their personal biographies, then, there is little evidence to suggest either Al-Shamie or Jabbar were actually radicalised Muslim extremists who decided to randomly kill some people, and much more to suggest they were struggling middle-aged men facing a litany of personal and financial problems who cut a deal with the state by agreeing to perform in a black ops pantomime.

A similar scenario was reflected in the movie, The Gray Man, which depicts an intelligence officer visiting a murderer in prison and offering him his freedom, in exchange for working for the CIA in its black ops division. As we know, the social scriptwriters frequently use fictional films to reflect what is really going on in the world, in what is known as "revelation of the method".

So it looks much more likely that - far from actually being "radicalised Muslim terrorists" - both the Manchester and New Orleans "attackers" agreed to be framed as rabid Muslim extremists in state psyops in exchange for money and a new life, and many people throughout the decades have likely been cut such deals.

Not always to star as perpetrators, but as victims, too. Obviously a fake terror attack needs victims, and the state would hardly struggle to find people with bleak, prospectless lives drowning in debt who would jump at the chance for an exciting new life with plenty of money, the only condition being they have to allow the media to report that they've "died in a terror attack".

Why not kill them for real? It's not the the state has a problem with killing innocent people (see: war, vaccination) but rather that in a "terror attack" situation, it creates a big mess. It leaves behind devastated families who may demand answers, and not accept "the official story". The family are unlikely to cooperate with the media and say exactly what the establishment wants them to say about the event. There might be revenge attacks.

Faking deaths, however, avoids all of this and allows a nice, neat narrative where the event - including the behaviour of the families of the "victims" - unfolds exactly as the state wants it to. The families may be especially motivated to do this in a highly politicised situation such as an "antisemitic terror attack". If the family believes the event is serving a crucial political purpose, in clamping down on real antisemitism and preventing real people from being killed, they may be highly motivated to engage in the deception, truly believing they are doing something virtuous.

Further than just perps and victims, however, the state also requires a stable of people to validate its psyops, primarily online, which is where doubt and dissection of these events most thrives.

Often when there's a major, theatrical "terror event", or other sensationalist politicised news item (such as someone supposedly "going to prison for a Tweet"), plenty of online commentators including myself doubt the veracity of the event.

Such doubters are instantly descended on by a swarm of critics whose role is to validate the state narrative, and silence the critics, which they most often do through relentless personal abuse. This is because their aim is to get the target out of their rational mind, where they can present evidence and a logical case to support their views (and therefore successfully persuade others the event may have been fake), and into their primitive, defensive brain instead, where they become so subsumed by vitriolic arguing and insult-trading that they stop the work of actually exposing the psyop.

Obviously, not everyone who name-calls online is doing so in a strategic way. Some people who do this are just bored trolls. But, as we know very well, courtesy of the confirmed existence of "77th" - the military brigade deployed during Covid to attack online anyone who doubted official establishment shibboleths - some of those who viciously attack online are trained, paid state assets, specifically employed by the British establishment to control narratives. They are tasked with silencing critics and questioners through relentless, and often coordinated, attacks, in what is known as "non-lethal psychological warfare".

As the average person would balk at a job that entails this sort of thing ("non-lethal psychological warfare" basically meaning the relentless abuse of others) the state is unlikely to recruit average people for these roles, but rather - as for the "main characters" in the psyops - people who have criminal histories relating to abuse, assault, and stalking.

Somebody who has already shown themselves willing to abuse individuals they know in real-life, for free, is unlikely to have too much of a problem doing it online to strangers, for money (and in fact, they will probably enjoy it) - and further, doing this work for the state may well be the condition under which such people don't go to jail for their crimes - just as it likely was for Manchester's Al-Shamie: "don't want to go to jail for rape? Work for us instead, then".

Many criminals will likely have been brokered these kind of deals over the years. Criminal, deviant tendencies are a very useful characteristic for undercover operatives - it not only makes them better suited for the work of "non-lethal psychological warfare", but it also means they can always be kept in line by threats to reveal what the state has on them.

It is of note when referring to "Muslim terror attacks" - including and especially when they are targeted specifically at Jews - that the Israeli government has worked alongside the British 77th brigade, and also that the Israeli government pays prominent online "influencers" to post.

The Israeli government and Zionist influences are highly motived to both demonise Muslims as evil terrorists, as well as to distort and amplify the real extent of "antisemitism" in the world, in order that they can get more laws to clamp down on so-called antisemitism, which in many cases is merely legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and Zionism.

Therefore, a disinformation campaign is currently being strategically deployed by high-profile "influencers" to conflate Israelis and Zionists, with all Jews.

This is in order that when "antisemitism" laws are tightened up, they don't merely target actual antisemitism - i.e., violence or dangerous prejudice directed at at Jewish person just because they are Jewish - but all legitimate criticisms of Israel and Zionism, as well.

A key tell for an undercover Zionist plant therefore is someone who makes no distinction between the state of Israel, Zionism, and all Jewish people, and simply lumps them all together as "the Jews". They are doing this on purpose to fulfil age-old stereotypes about so-called "conspiracy theorists" as rabid prejudicial bigots who blame all Jews indiscriminately - not just high-level Zionists or Israeli politicians, but every worldwide Jew - for all the evil in the world.

Alongside fake terror events, often seen to be perpetuated by Muslims, who, we are relentlessly told, irrationally despise Jews and present an unyielding threat to them (establishment hacks Sarah Vine and Allison Pearson are strongly pushing that narrative currently), this concurrent rise in "virulent antisemitic online hate speech" is creating the perfect storm for the establishment to come down on free expression - including and especially any criticisms of Israel and Zionism - like a ton of bricks (our imminently incoming government, Reform, have made sure to make it emphatically clear just what unreserved supporters of "the Jewish community" they are).

I suspect that, in reality, this may be the ultimate goal of the "free speech" platform, Substack: to provide plentiful "evidence" that when a platform supports free speech unreservedly, some of the worst and most dangerous "antisemitic hate speech" (and other "vile conspiracy theories") are allowed to thrive.

Substack is already mired in controversy in this regard, and in 2023, The Atlantic published a piece entitled 'Substack Has a Nazi Problem', whilst more than 200 publications have joined 'Substackers against Nazis".

Notably, the venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, are major investors in Substack, and the eponymous Horowitz is Jewish (Andreessen, meanwhile, is well known as the creepy tech titan who wants to strip "reality privilege" from the masses).

Has elite Jewish money gone into building a platform that intentionally facilitates and amplifies anti-Jewish sentiment, in a problem-reaction-solution exercise to clamp down on free speech for good? I would suggest this is highly likely.

Furthermore, and probably not coincidentally, several high-profile "influencers" have all announced simultaneously that they are taking potentially prolonged breaks from their activism. Russell Brand specifically identified all the "hate and lies" as a reason.

Something is coming, or rather, we are being set up for something coming.

It seems like a major sea-change - sponsored by an ever-accelerating slew of "antisemitic" psyops, both online and off - is on its way.

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.