Apart from, “I like your hat, is it real fur, where did you get it?” (thanks, no, it was a present), the question I am most frequently asked remains the one in the title… It’s usually put to me online, so I can’t completely accurately discern tone, but I imagine a mocking, scoffing one, followed by an eye-roll emoji…

As I don’t have the Twitter blue tick and so can’t deliver a sufficient response there, I thought I’d pen one here (and you will be able to accurately discern my tone when I do the audio, but the apposite emoji is the wow exploding head one…).

Just how big do I think the conspiracy is?

Big enough that, every day, thousands of completely healthy babies are taken to practitioners who are paid by the state to inject them with toxic cocktails of carcinogenic, mutagenic poisons in order to subdue their intellect, undermine their fertility, and induce a lifetime array of health problems, ranging from the chronic to the severe to the lethal. This is done in broad daylight, in plain sight, every single day, to thousands of babies all over the world, inducing such irreversible conditions as non-verbal autism; double incontinence; life-threatening allergies; type 1 diabetes; and a whole array of other severe disorders and disabilities including, not infrequently, death.

This has been going on for decades. Nobody has stopped it. It continues to happen in every town, in every country, every day.

So, that’s how big I think the conspiracy is. I think we live in a Satanic system that purposely and ruthlessly maims and brutalises its most vulnerable and innocent members every single day, and a society that will do that, will do anything.

And it does.

If you think an establishment that tortures and kills babies under the guise of “health”, routinely and as a matter of course (that’s what the maiming is called, after all: “routine” vaccination) wouldn’t or couldn’t fake a celebrity assassination, or a high-profile prison sentence, or a global pandemic, then you’re quite simply not living in reality.

Bizarrely, however, people seem to find the facts about vaccination (which are what lead a lot of people to ‘wake up’) far easier to accept than the idea that actors perform on the world stage and present fictitious events as if they are real. That “celebrity heroes” aren’t entirely authentic and honest. That people can persuasively say things they don’t really believe to be true.

Because it is that idea - not vaccination or war or any other forms of explicit brutality - that provokes the perennial question about “just how big I think the conspiracy is”. As if imagining that people act and the media lies is simply a crazy conspiracy theory too far…

So, let’s take a closer look, shall we?

I mentioned in a previous article the hit ‘80s TV show, ‘Family Ties’. The central character was teenage Republican, Alex Keaton, who often comically collided with his liberal parents and teachers for his conservative, traditionalist views.

“Alex” came across very persuasively, for the seven years that Family Ties ran, as a dedicated conservative Republican with traditional views. In fact, he came across so well that he made the position more sympathetic to many viewers (which was not the intention of the liberal, progressive screenwriter!).

However, did the actor, Michael J. Fox, who played Alex, share these views?

No, he did not. Michael J. Fox was and is a liberal Democrat who espouses progressive ideas and has nothing in common with Alex Keaton, the character he played so very persuasively on a screen.

Equally, when I hear people saying, ‘but Charlie Kirk wouldn’t have been involved in faking his death, he’s a devout Christian and family man!’, I ask them, ‘what makes you think that? The fact that he played one on screen?’

The actor who played Charlie Kirk is highly unlikely to be a devout Christian, and it is entirely likely that he was no family man, either. Rather, that “his children” - who remain nameless and faceless - were simply stand-ins for photo ops. People will shut down and dismiss that very distinct possibility as “too crazy”, yet immediately and readily accept little “Andy Keaton” on Family Ties wasn’t really the Keaton’s youngest son, he was an actor playing a part in a fictitious family on a scripted show.

Why is it so easy for people to accept that Family Ties is fictitious and the Keatons aren’t a real family, but so difficult to even consider the same could be true for ‘Charlie Kirk’ and his onscreen ‘family’?

The only reason is that the media hasn’t explicitly stated that the Charlie Kirk show is fiction, but it only takes a fairly rudimentary glance to discern that that’s exactly what it is.

It seems quite clear at this point that both Charlie Kirk and his “wife” are high-level Masons (women can now be Masons) playing parts on the world stage show, as that, of course, is what high-level Masons are rather wont to do.

The reason people can’t square that level of deception in their minds - that Kirk can’t just be an actor playing a part, that he couldn’t have faked his own death - is, ultimately, because they couldn’t.

That’s what it really comes down to.

So it’s critically important to realise what a completely different breed of human being these high-profile world stage characters are to everyday people.

These internationally known star players were not recruited for their role at the age of 21 at university, like the relatively “common or garden” spooks (such as Michael Mosley or Rachel Clarke).

Charlie Kirk, for example, was already performing on the Fox news channel at the age of 17, and by 18, was heading up a multimillion dollar conservative advocacy business with a military man 53 years his senior.

He is not an ordinary person.

No very prominent world stage character is.

These people are born into their roles and trained up from the cradle.

Why do you think “they” have given us ‘Stranger Things’, one of the biggest hit shows ever to appear on military-grade mind control weapon, Netflix?

It’s put MK Ultra right into the mainstream and told us explicitly: this is what military-intelligence assets do to children to imbue them with the kind of abilities that ordinary people simply do not have.

So, indeed, an ordinary person couldn’t persuasively engage in the level of world stage deception of a Charlie Kirk. An ordinary person couldn’t calmly touch their nose to signal they’re ready for the fake assassination (whilst the handler behind them touches their cap to signal ‘Action!’) in front of a live audience of thousands. An ordinary person would lose their nerve and screw it up.

That’s why these people are not ordinary.

When you look into the background of very high-profile world stage characters, you invariably find the kind of family connections that link them to high-level establishment players from birth. Charlie Kirk’s father, for example, was one of the key architects involved in the construction of Trump Tower. Andrew Tate’s father was CIA. As, of course, was Tucker Carlson’s. And so on and so forth.

The late David McGowan’s brilliant book, Laurel Canyon, showed how establishment figures with high-ranking military and intelligence positions often offer up their kids for “special projects”, i.e., to play key roles in shaping the culture as the social engineers desire. A prime example McGowan uses is the navy’s Admiral George Stephen Morrison, and his son, The Doors’ Jim.

(Returning to the Family Ties theme, superstar Michael J. Fox’s father was also military.)

Cultural icons are simply too powerful, important, and influential to be “just anybody” - they have to be owned and controlled assets, and the best way of making them entirely owned and fully controlled is to train them up from birth, so that’s what the ruling classes do. Just as ‘Stranger Things’ shows us, in typical revelation of the method style.

There are many examples throughout culture, and a particularly illustrative one is the case of Matthew Perry (Chandler from Friends) and Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada.

Did you know that these two grew up together, and that the former’s mother worked for the latter’s father, then Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau?

Pretty crazy coincidence, huh?

Except it’s not a coincidence: Perry and Trudeau were both born into intergenerational elite families who train their children up from birth for their future world stage roles (Perry’s father was famous actor, model, and ‘Old Spice guy’, John Bennett Perry).

Justin Trudeau’s autobiography strongly hints at MK Ultra, whilst Pierre Trudeau, the main who raised him (though almost certainly not his biological father) was widely rumoured to be a predatory paedophile.

Matthew Perry’s autobiography also hints at some severe childhood trauma of the MK variety, at one point comparing a plane ride he experienced as a five-year-old as being akin to ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’.

This is dark, dark stuff - as dark as it gets - but this is the reality of the global ruling classes and what they do to their children. If we are not prepared to face that, and the high likelihood that anyone rising to significant prominence on the world stage has been subject to this kind of experience in their childhood, we are never going to fully grasp how the world really works, and how world stage characters are able to behave in ways that would be so anathema and impossible for us as ordinary people.

It’s said that you can’t rise past a certain, rather low level in the police without being a Freemason (and the checked pattern on policemen’s caps are said to represent the Masonic chessboard).

The same is so for the world stage, you can’t ascend to any significant level of visibility or influence unless you are fully in the club, usually from birth. Hollywood and politics (same thing) aren’t meritocracies which merely look for the most talented individuals for the top jobs, they are closed shop family businesses where it most certainly is “who you know” (and particularly, who you’re related to: Justin Trudeau’s real father is widely, and credibly, rumoured to be Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro).

So, what these intergenerational family businesses, which are steeped in the theatrical arts, do is manufacture fictional characters to play parts on the world stage in order to manipulate the masses. In short, where it comes to the world stage, they are all actors (just as Shakespeare told us all those centuries ago). Whether ‘overt’ actors, like Matthew Perry, or ‘covert’ ones, like Justin Trudeau (who, not incidentally, used to be a drama teacher), they are all simply trained marionettes reading from a script and performing in an elaborate pantomime, directed by an ever-hidden hand.

Hence, someone like Charlie Kirk is no more portraying his true self on stage, than Matthew Perry was when he portrayed Chandler on Friends.

Chandler was shown on screen adopting two kids.

We all know that doesn’t mean Matthew Perry had adopted two kids. Perry was childless.

I strongly suspect we can apply the same to ‘Charlie Kirk’. The character was scripted as having two children - he had to be to fit the character’s “young family man” image - but that doesn’t mean the actor did or does. The character was a Christian conservative, that doesn’t mean the actor was. Charlie Kirk, like Michael J. Fox, almost certainly wasn’t and isn’t.

If we can get our heads around the fact that Michael J. Fox can convincingly portray a conservative Republican onscreen, despite not being one himself, it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to accept that similarly prominent world stage characters can do this, too. That good actors are convincing, and they are not legally obliged to tell us when they are and are not acting.

What Shakespeare meant by his famous idiom - all the world’s a stage and the men and women merely players - was that prominent cultural events are shaped and sculpted by hidden hands, they’re not organic, and key characters aren’t authentic. Rather, they’re acting and performing from a preordained script.

The “main characters” know this, and are fully complicit in actively deceiving the public, but often, the “extras” are not. When, during the pantomime plague, some spotty teenager in a supermarket barked at you to wear a mask, or a jittery stranger leapt out of your way on the pavement lest you might kill them by breathing, these people were acting - performing the roles of terrified civilians in a deadly plague - but they didn’t know that they were. They were able to act persuasively, with no training or script, because they actually believed the situation was real.

The more prominent characters in the performance, however, like Boris Johnson (a literal stage name: his real name is Alex) knew full well that they were performing and pretending (see Boris “nearly dying of Covid”), and some of the main characters, like “Covid expert” Jonathan Van Tam, took on more overt acting roles too, like starring in ‘Call The Midwife’.

Boris Johnson didn’t really “nearly die of Covid” (since there was no Covid).

Charlie Kirk wasn’t really assassinated - since there was no assassination, and you can easily discern that to be true from all the blatant “plot holes” surrounding the fake assassination, that would never occur in a real political murder, such as the “crime scene” being instantly dismantled before any forensics had been done; Kirk being bundled into a blacked-out car rather than an ambulance (such a large event would be required to have ambulances on site for insurance purposes); the men who carried him not getting any blood on their clothes; and so on and so forth).

Charlie Kirk was able to participate in his fake assassination, because he isn’t an ordinary person, and he’s no devout Christian family man, either. He’s an actor who played one.

The reason the scriptwriters created a hugely visible and influential “conservative Christian influencer” can easily be discerned in the reactions of the liberal press to Kirk’s “death”.

He is portrayed as a regressive bigot, a racist, a warmonger, and all the worst stereotypes of the conservative Christian right the left-wing loves to rail against.

And this isn’t an entirely inaccurate portrayal of the man. As Bob Moran said in a recent article defending his right - as a conservative Christian himself - not to be “devastated” by Kirk’s death, as everyone on the right is apparently supposed to be:

“I didn’t particularly admire Kirk. I thought he seemed like a deeply confused man who appeared to believe that when The Bible told him to “bless the Jews” it meant we should wholeheartedly endorse the man who locked up seven million Israelis, injected them with experimental drugs and then made them show papers to visit a restaurant. In much the same vein, he appeared convinced that the way to save America was to re-elect the man who wiped his orange arse on the constitution in 2020 and signed all the executive orders making it possible for every citizen to be stripped of their rights and then Pfizered to death. He was either not very bright and morally all over the place, or a Deep State agent playing a deliberately contradictory character.”

Well, quite. Just as the liberal screenwriter Gary David Goldberg scripted the ‘Alex Keaton’ character in Family Ties to show the flaws and hypocrisies of the conservative position, the Charlie Kirk character was scripted for the same reasons.

As I’ve been detailing in previous articles, the social scriptwriters ultimate goal is to completely destroy the political right-wing and socially conservative beliefs, in order to usher us into a communist dystopia as described by NWO blueprint, John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’.

To do that, they require world stage characters to prominently embody the worst flaws and stereotypes of the right-wing Christian conservative, and then have the larger right-wing swoon over and deify these characters who, ultimately, aren’t very nice and aren’t the kind of people we really would want leading any legitimate or enduring political movement (this was and is also very true with the Lucy Connolly character, as so astutely observed by Alistair Williams in this short video).

That goes for Charlie Kirk in the USA, Tommy Robinson over here, and all the other “big names on the right” the establishment offers us. All scripted characters designed to undermine, and ultimately destroy, the right-wing.

It’s a duplicitous trick, to get the political right wing, and those with socially conservative and Christian beliefs, to identify with terrible people and to hold them up as “heroes”, to make it easy for the liberal left to say, “you see? You see how awful these people are? Look at who their leaders and heroes are!”

Of course we’re going to see this on steroids when “populist right-wing hero” Nigel Farage saunters into number 10, and then follows the predictable script as outlined in predictive programming, Years and Years, to show us that he - like all of the celebrity right-wing - is actually very unpleasant and evil. So we need a one-world communist dystopia to save us. That’s where all of this is ultimately headed.

So, just how big do I think the conspiracy is?

Well, it’s pretty big, and it’s pretty old, too. Just as the world has always been a stage, there is also nothing new under the sun, and as the I Ching told us roughly 3,000 years ago:

“At times, one has to deal with hidden evils: intangible influences that slink in dark corners and affect people by suggestion. One must trace these back to the most secret recesses in order to deal with them. The effort required is enormous, but worthwhile, for, only when such elusive influences are brought into the light of day and branded do they lose power over people."

The Art of War (roughly 2,500 years old) corroborated this further with:

“O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.”

So, yes, the conspiracy is very big. It’s very old. And the only way we can ever defeat it is by confronting the extent of it and dragging it into the light. Is that a pleasant task? No, it is not, and those who attempt it will be widely ridiculed, sabotaged, and hated.

But to finish on a final quote from Victor Frankl:

“That which is to give off light must endure burning.”

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.