I really don't want to upset anyone, and I know this is going to be a deeply painful assertion for many, so please consider yourselves duly triggerly warned, but I'm afraid I have to say it...

Deep breath...

Here we go...

The Beatles were "in the club".

Yes, I'm afraid it's true. They weren't "four ordinary lads from Liverpool", John Lennon was not a "working class hero", and the band and all its constituent members were establishment-controlled intelligence assets: "change agents" used to usher in the dramatic cultural shifts that took place in the 1960s.

*Takes a hiatus to hide behind sofa to avoid all digital deluging with rotten fruit*

Look... I don't like it any more than you do. I grew up loving the Beatles (my dad had original vinyl singles from the '60s, and one of my earliest memories is dancing around the living room to Twist 'n' Shout - and then wailing with horror when 'A Taste of Honey' came on next (still can't stand that song...).

I read the Hunter Davies biography obsessively; one of my most treasured teenage memories was when me and a fellow Beatlemaniac friend skived off school for the day to get the train to Liverpool and do the Magical Mystery Tour (we were beyond thrilled when we were afterwards able to cash in our "free drink at the Cavern" tokens without getting ID'd: I even remember what I had - a Malibu and Diet Coke. Because nothing says 1960s Liverpudlian rock culture like overly-sweet synthetic coconut cocktails...)

But wistful nostalgia and teenage tipsiness aside... to reiterate the same point I make whenever evaluating any prominent cultural hero or media star: nobody rises to a "household name" level of prominence unless this is entirely arranged and sponsored by the establishment (because they own the media and they created the culture, but more on that later).

Hence, you simply do not achieve the level of global superstardom that The Beatles did (notoriously, "more famous than Jesus") unless you have every arm of the establishment behind you. The Beatles were not some underground success story, after all: they were all too mainstream, appearing on every popular television show and relentlessly being plastered across all the papers, and this happened exceptionally quickly and all across the world - far too quickly for it to be 'organic'. Bear in mind that half the group was still school-aged in the early 1960s - yet by February 1964, they had achieved a number one hit in a country they weren't even from. Even mainstream Beatles historians admit their official backstory sounds like "a fairy tale".

It being notoriously difficult for British artists to 'break America' - never mind ones barely out of school uniform - it's quite clear this didn't happen naturally. It was all arranged behind the scenes, and exorbitantly bankrolled at the highest levels, in order to catalyse incredible social changes of the likes we had never seen before (or have since), and that is what we will explore in this essay. What changes The Beatles effected, why, and most importantly of all, how.

If the Beatles are assessed less as a band, and more as a cultural force to dramatically change prevailing attitudes, behaviours, and social norms (which is the specific purpose of 'change agents'), we can see they achieved this very successfully: simply compare the pre-Beatles world, to the post-Beatles one - the sweeping differences in culture that took place between 1960 and 1970. To quote from a certain cyber-encyclopedia: "in the United States and other Western countries, the Sixties is noted for its counterculture. There was a revolution in social norms, including clothing, music, drugs, dress, sexuality, formalities, civil rights, precepts of military duty, and schooling."

As the above quote encapsulates, the 1960s saw the intense "liberalisation" of society, with attitudes to the titillating trifecta of "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" changing profoundly. The story we are told is that this change occurred because the people, frustrated with being horribly oppressed through centuries of austere conservatism, rose up and changed society for the better.

Like most stories we are told about our history, this is completely false. Ordinary people do not have the tools, resources, or organisational skills to effect such mammoth social changes in such a short period of time. These changes happened because they were strategised and bankrolled by the elite, and induced as "the new normal" via their strategically placed change agents. In the USA, the so-called counter-culture was wholly controlled by the CIA, who used managed intelligence assets - often children of high-ranking military men, such as The Doors' Jim Morrison, son of Admiral Morrison - to rapidly change the culture.

In the UK, we had a similar military/intelligence scheme going on with The Beatles. It is widely and credibly rumoured that the group wrote none of their own songs, and that these were, in fact, produced by high-level social engineers such as Theodore Aldorno (an extremely talented pianist who had originally planned for a career as a composer), with ties to the Tavistock Institute and Frankfurt School. In short, secretive and powerful bodies of subversive intellectuals conspired to dramatically change the culture with incredibly catchy, almost hypnotic music, using floppy-haired pretty boys as the photogenic "front". Note that the first hyperlink in this paragraph mocks this theory, without providing the slightest scintilla of evidence that it's not true, which is the CIA-approved method for quashing challenges to the official narrative, and why they invented the term "conspiracy theory."

However, in applying even the slightest sliver of logic to the situation, we can see that it almost certainly is true - at the time of The Beatles meteoric rise to unfathomable fame, they were four callow teenagers without any formal musical training of any sort. Out of all the brilliant and accomplished professional composers in the world (such as, say, Theodore Aldorno), is it really plausible that four amateur youths could collude to construct awe-inspiring, professional-level melodies - again and again and again - that captured the hearts of the whole world?

No, it's not.

It would be astonishing to have even one such preternaturally talented youth in a locality, never mind three, four, or more who knew each other. Far more plausible, then, that they were just following the now long-established "boyband" model - pretty faces to smile at the cameras and look good for the fans, with the real musical powerhouses writing the lyrics and composing the music behind the scenes.

In the greater conspiratorial scheme of things, this represents a fairly 'vanilla' theory: one that's been circulating for decades and isn't really that controversial to those who know "all the world's a stage". But this does not represent the full extent of my conspiracising: it merely sets said stage... What follow is, to the best of my knowledge, an entirely original "conspiracy theory", that I came up with all by myself, so I can't always "reference" my ideas by echoing what other people have said. What I can do, however, is extrapolate from things we do know, use logic and reason, and arrive at an (er, hopefully) persuasive conclusion...

My theory is that The Beatles were not "four ordinary lads from Liverpool" who grew up in average family homes, but rather, they (with the possible exception of George, but more on that later) were residents of Strawberry Field Children's Home, selected in infancy to be sculpted by the military and intelligence agencies to rise to later stellar change agent fame. The boys would have been placed with families at some later point in their childhoods (as foster children often are) to give their "official stories" credence, but they would have remained under the tight guidance and control of their handlers (and potentially their "families" were such handlers - I mean, doesn't "Aunt Mimi" just sound like the name of some kind of coded MI5 spy?).

I arrived at this conclusion because the extraordinary amount of social influence possessed by people as famous as The Beatles, gave them enormous power, and there is simply no way the control-freak establishment would allow "four ordinary lads from Liverpool" to have that kind of power, unless said establishment was entirely confident that they remained completely in control of them.

The only way of ensuring that level of total control is to train future assets up from early childhood with MK Ultra style programming (and this is something that it is known proliferates with child stars in Hollywood, and for the same reasons, with actress Roseanne Barr confirming: "MK Ultra rules in Hollywood"). If you've never heard of MK Ultra, it's no "conspiracy theory", it is a now-declassified behavioural modification and perceptual management (e.g., brainwashing) programme, used by intelligence agencies to create, in effect, mind-controlled slaves through drug use and trauma. These slaves can then go on to be used for a range of roles, one of which is as "stars" - e.g., highly visible public figures who profoundly influence the public.

MK Ultra was not brought to public attention until 1975, meaning it was heavily in use in the decades before that, having evolved from work that began in Japanese facilities and Nazi concentration camps in the second world war - around the time The Beatles were being born.

MK Ultra was fundamental to Machiavellian social subversives looking to so profoundly change the world, because they couldn't do it alone - they needed change agents to perform on the world stage, who looked and acted the part. A group of fat old men (as the "elite" generally were / are) are not going to capture the hearts and minds of the world's youth: good-looking, charming young men are.

So, if you are a devious social engineer looking to create and manage a powerful change agent, then you require that agent to be under your tight management at all times - that means they remain useful assets, rather than the dangerous liabilities they would be otherwise. If such change agents were not under your complete control at all times, they could go rogue, going "off script" and using their incredible influence to effect changes not in your interests. So, those behind MK Ultra style mind-control - so-called 'handlers' - are always acutely attuned to this possibility.

Note that MK Ultra programming can start to fail as subjects age, due to natural neurological changes in the brain, and many MK Ultra assets are sacrificed in their thirties for precisely that reason. This may have been why John Lennon, who died just weeks after his 40th birthday, was killed. The establishment didn't invest an unprecedented fortune training him up from birth as a supremely powerful agent of global change, to have him spend five years babysitting and baking bread, which is what he reportedly did after the birth of his youngest child, Sean, in 1975, and if "they" - the shadowy they behind all major events and cultural phenomena - couldn't get him back on script, they would have just had him killed. "They" do this all the time when they can't control their assets, e.g., Princess Diana (whose death was actually ruled an "unlawful killing", not an accident).

But back to The Beatles' beginnings... If you look carefully, you will see that orphanages and the foster care industry have for many decades been prime recruiting grounds for various forms of government experimentation, and for obvious reasons: there are no pesky parents around to get in the way and object to their children being enrolled in such schemes. Leading on from that, we also know what a central role orphanage Strawberry Field played in the early Beatles' lives, compelling them to write one of their most popular and enduring songs.

But why would an orphanage be of such significance to boys ostensibly from loving family homes?

When we delve a bit deeper into the Beatles' backgrounds (or their alleged backgrounds), we find an unusual amount of trauma and instability: both John and Paul losing their mothers at young ages; John barely knowing either of his parents and growing up with an 'aunt' (who it is officially reported did get social services involved with the family); Paul having little memory of his mother and having - especially for that time - a significantly older father (40 when his first child Paul was born). Ringo, meanwhile, was a child of divorce, at a time when divorce was rare and stigmatised, and barely knew his father, whilst spending much of his childhood in hospital with various ailments.

The only one of the four who purportedly had a normal, stable, undramatic childhood, was George. He was also the one who went the most "off script" later on, and who met a rather odd - and significantly premature - death (he was 58). Officially attributed to lung cancer, Harrison's death followed soon after what appeared to be a bungled assassination attempt, and Harrison himself had expressed repeated concerns about being killed. If it is true that George was not subject to the same level of childhood trauma-brainwashing as the others (he being the only one not to lose a parent through death or divorce), then we can speculate that he may not have been programmed as "effectively" as the others.

An interesting theme we can see with the other three Beatles is that none of their primary caregivers dedicated their earlier adulthood years to raising children, at a time when that was unusual. John's Aunt Mimi and her husband had no children of their own (through choice) and would have been in their forties when they took on John. Paul's father did not become a parent until he was 40, and Ringo Starr's mother only had one child - very unusual for a working-class woman of the time - who spent much of his childhood away from the family home (allegedly in hospital).

There are some interesting questions here, then, regarding what these people were really doing in their twenties and thirties. Of course, the "official backstory" of the Beatles has an explanation, but all good spies have cover stories. Is it possible they were in fact working for the state and intelligence agencies, being trained up for their crucial roles as handlers of such important assets later on? Remember that Liverpool is a port city, locations which often have close and complex ties with military and intelligence agencies. Both John's father, and Stuart Sutcliffe's, served in the navy, and Sutcliffe's father is reported to have gone on to become "a civil servant" - one branch of civil service is intelligence agency MI5.

So, my theory is that - with the possible exception of George - the "official back stories" of The Beatles are not wholly true. That John, Paul, and Ringo were either orphans or foster children resident at Strawberry Field, who were likely placed with families later on to give them legitimacy as "ordinary lads from Liverpool", but who were actually wards of the state (there are a lot of strong hints in various Beatles literature that John Lennon's mother was a prostitute, which could certainly be seen as a reason for the state removing him from her custody), who had been programmed from early childhood, using military mind-control technologies "perfected" in the second world war, for their later stellar rise to success.

Ringo's lengthy childhood stays "in hospital" could very well be code for (as it often is in such cases) going to military programming centres. The deaths of John and Paul's mothers (care givers they were attached to) could have been arranged intentionally, as sacrifices to trauma brainwash John and Paul (an essential part of mind-control techniques being to sacrifice something the victim loves). The death of Stuart Sutcliffe could also certainly fall into this category. None of this is really far-fetched once you have studied the true history of the establishment and its well-documented use of MK Ultra style techniques to mould and manage future powerful people.

The smoking gun for me, though, has always been this very famous picture of John Lennon as a small child. Can anyone come up with a valid explanation for why he is wearing a cap with the letters 'SF' on it... other than that he was a resident at Strawberry Field? (Note that the emblem does not match those of any schools he is said to have attended, nor those of any primary schools in Liverpool.)

Now, let's take a look at some of the lyrics from the very dreamy, almost hallucinogenic (LSD played a key part in MK Ultra techniques), 'Strawberry Fields Forever':

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

"Nothing is real" - ? Hmm... A conspiracy theorist might say that is rather indicative of - well - a conspiracy: a ruse to defraud the public with actors and change agents who aren't at all what they seem?

"It's getting hard to be someone" = it's getting hard to keep playing the part?

"Misunderstanding all you see" - you, the audience, are being sold an illusion?

These are certainly very "interesting" lyrics...

Moving on, many have, of course, made much of Lennon's improbable relationship with Yoko Ono, a very strange woman who differed so wildly from his usual type. John Lennon liked his girlfriends to look like Brigid Bardot, to the extent he encouraged first wife Cynthia to dramatically alter her clothes and hair so she would more resemble the French star (and he admitted to putting similar pressure on other girlfriends). So, for a man who could have had pretty much any woman he wanted - probably even Bardot herself - why would he abruptly leave his Bardot-resembling wife, for a woman who bore no resemblance to his professed physical ideal? Yes, "true love", sure, possibly: but also possibly (and probably) something else.

The circumstances of Lennon's alleged first meeting with Ono are extremely odd and her communications with him, highly esoteric (handing him a bit of card reading 'breathe' and so forth), and to me, scream "programming triggers" and "handler", e.g., someone who manages MK assets by triggering various aspects of their programming with certain words - in effect, MK Ultra assets have "passwords" to "activate" them, just as technological devices do. Interestingly, Ono hailed from Japan, the country where MK Ultra is said to have originated, and came from a very elite family, her father a wealthy banker and her mother descended from Samurai warriors.

As any Beatlemaniac will tell you, as soon as Yoko Ono came on the scene, it was the beginning of the end for The Beatles - so was she sent along as Lennon's new "handler", to induct him into a new mission, once his change agent role in The Beatles had achieved the desired effects? By the time The Beatles broke up in 1970, the culture was unrecognisable to how it had been ten years before - mission accomplished, time for the next one?

Of course, where it comes to the subject of The Beatles split, accusatory fingers have been pointed at Paul, too, and I also believe, I'm afraid to say (I did warn you at the start...) in "PID" - Paul is Dead - and that the original Paul was bumped off in 1966 because he was going off-script. Original Paul was too traditional and not keen on promoting the pro-drugs, free love message to teenagers, so they got rid of him. Replacement Paul was much more of a hippy.

As I said earlier, if an MK asset has programming that starts to fail, they will be killed, as they are far too dangerous if the programming stops functioning effectively, and that's what I think happened to Paul (and possibly later, John too, and perhaps even George).

It is beyond the scope of this essay to lay out all the evidence for "PID", but I delved into all the PID theories years ago (it was my gateway conspiracy theory!), and the evidence really is very persuasive: for example, the Italian forensic scientists who were sick of reading the "conspiracy theories" that Paul had been replaced, so sourced verified photos of him pre and post his alleged death date (November 1966) to measure scientifically and prove it was the same person.

They published their absolute shock and astonishment when they found the opposite, that it was definitely NOT the same person.

There's extensive further corroborating evidence that you can dig into for yourself (this resource is a good place to start), but suffice to say, I'm convinced, and if Paul was indeed killed (sacrificed as his programming was failing), then that lends further weight to my overall theory.

If Paul was an ordinary man from an ordinary family, then intelligence agencies killing him off and replacing him would be impossible to pull off, as obviously, his family would notice and raise the alarm. But if Paul's "father" wasn't really a relation, but another military asset - a handler - that Paul had simply been placed with to create a credible backstory - if his "father" and other supposed family members were all effectively "in on it" - then it would be possible. Yes, I know this all sounds a bit far-fetched, but again, we must remember just how much social power The Beatles had. They were as famous as anyone has ever been, or ever will be, and for that kind of colossal and unprecedented cultural power, you can expect colossal and unprecedented things to be happening behind the scenes to control it.

Indeed, Hunter Davies, The Beatles' official biographer, admitted in a later edition of his book, that a lot of what had been reported in the first book, wasn't true. That it was heavily edited (to appease the families, Davies claimed, by making the boys' childhoods appear happier than they had been) and depicted a very different impression of The Beatles' early lives (especially John's) than matched the reality. So, by Davies' own admission, he was lying and writing fiction - but just how much was he lying and how much of his book was fabricated?

"Nothing is real", remember? The Beatles tell you this themselves (as the 'code' of people high up in the club requires them to do) in what is one of their most famous records, and the one that gives the biggest clue to their real origins. We must ask again: why would an orphanage (of all places) have had such a profound impact on them?

John Lennon said in a Rolling Stone interview that he "felt a connection to the orphans", adding, "there was something wrong with me, I thought, because I seemed to see things other people didn’t see.”

What exactly is he alluding to "seeing"? And do orphanages really allow random neighbourhood children to come and closely associate with their charges? How is it that he got to know these orphans well enough to develop "a connection" with them? It's obvious from just how deeply and profoundly this environment shaped John Lennon that he did more than just play in the surrounding gardens by himself.

The official story is that, at the time, the orphanage only took girls. It's admitted they went on to take boys "later", so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they made the odd exception beforehand - especially if they were handsomely incentivised by government and intelligence agencies to do so. We can see now from the "asylum seeker" situation that it is very easy for central governments to override local councils and get them to agree to unorthodox accommodation arrangements, so if the government can force councils to take thousands of military-aged men against their will, I'm sure they'd have no problem getting a children's home to take a few babies.

What we have to always remember is that, where it comes to post-war popular culture in the Western world, it really is the case that "nothing is real", that there are layers and layers of lies and illusions, and that - if we take what we are told at face value - we will indeed "misunderstand all we see", just as the lyrics from Strawberry Field's Forever tell us. Intelligence agencies like the CIA and MI5, and social engineering initiatives like The Tavistock, have conspired to create a completely false cultural climate, and what we think of as "modern culture" is a fraud - a mirage perpetuated by the media - for purposes of social engineering and crowd control.

If you're reading this article, it's likely that you can see that with Covid - that the whole thing has been faked by the media to manipulate people and to change the cultural climate. If you can see that about one social phenomenon, please understand that these kind of ultra-manipulative machinations didn't just start in the last two or three years. They have been going on for much longer than that.

If you are new to this scene, you may be tempted to scoff, "oh come on, not everything's a conspiracy theory", and to that I say, it depends what you mean. Your day-to-day life, your family and friends, your job, are not conspiracies. But all major world stage events and people that get a lot of global media attention, almost always are. They are strategic stunts and high-level psy-ops to shape your perceptions, thoughts, and behaviours in a bid to mould them to the ruling classes' desired ends.

In the 1960s, the ruling classes had three primary goals (which are still their three primary goals): 1) To reduce the population; 2) To break up families; 3) To break up communities.

The Beatles were instrumental in this, by their role in the creation and promotion of a "youth culture" which had not really existed before (the word 'teenager' was not widely used until the 1950s). This new culture of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, so different to anything that had gone before, was key in alienating younger people from the older generation, hence expediting the break up of families and fracturing of communities, and concomitantly helped to usher in the sexual revolution, which was essential in reducing the birth rate.

By changing people's attitudes to sex and convincing them to see it as a primarily or exclusively recreational activity, rather than a procreational one, people began having dramatically less babies. You would think that if you wanted to reduce the birth rate, encouraging people to engage in more potentially reproductive activity would be a completely paradoxical approach, but actually, it isn't, since once people see sex as recreational rather than procreational, they are far more likely to willingly engage in contraception and abortion, and getting people to do these things themselves, rather than imposing such measures by force (which had been tried before) is a far more effective strategy for limiting births. You can read more about the real history and purposes of the sexual revolution, and the deeply dubious characters behind it (ardent eugenicists and Nazi-sympathising racists, mainly) in my essay here.

To sum: after the mass sacrificial ritual that was the Second World War, the same people behind that turned their attentions to decimating society and reducing the population in other ways. It's easier to get rid of people by stopping them being born in the first place, than it is to kill them, hence the introduction in the 1960s of the Pill, legal abortion, and the sexual revolution, the combination of which caused the birth rate to plummet. But to get these things to catch on, they needed to be aggressively promoted by the world-famous change agents of the time.

The invention of "youth culture", as promoted by The Beatles and other big names in popular culture, helped to drive an enduring wedge between the generations, which led to dramatically increased atomisation and isolation, which makes people more controllable. The first thing abusers do to enable complete control is isolate a person from their previous communities, so that's what the social engineers of the '60s did, too. These themes are very well explored in the popular TV series, The Wonder Years, which depicts almost perennial conflict between 1960s parents and adolescent children: we are given to believe things were "always this way", that parents and teenagers have always been at each other's throats, but this is not true, as culture rarely shifted so dramatically as it did in the 1960s, thus creating so many things to argue about.

Before that, the cultural values and expectations of parents and children were often more or less the same, and still are the same in cultures which do not participate in modern culture, such as remote indigenous tribes. If you asked societies which do not consume mainstream or social media at all, "are your teenagers constantly fighting with their parents?", the answer would be a resounding no. This militant "generation war" is an entirely concocted phenomenon, exclusive to societies that have TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, and so on.

This idea that it's "natural" for parents and children to have wildly different beliefs and standards to the extent they constantly argue, is another modern fabrication. Subversive social engineers created this phenomenon through schools, universities, the media, and most importantly, popular (youth) culture, aiming to stop the traditional culture from being transmissible, inevitably leading to its collapse. It's obvious really: if parents cannot pass their cultural values onto their children, as said children are too subsumed by modern youth culture, then nobody carries the culture on. The same thing continues today, with "woke" Generation Z constantly at war with their 'bigoted' Gen X parents.

These confected conflicts exist, because creating them is a more effective strategy for collapsing a culture, than is invading and bombing it, because you meet with much less resistance. The brainwashed youth think they are destroying their culture by choice (because it's boring, backwards, oppressive, transphobic etc.), and the "dinosaur" parents who try to defend the culture soon die off, so within a couple of generations, the hostile occupying forces have won.

Remember how the overlords want you: lonely, isolated, atomised, cultureless, family-less, community-less - and more people qualify for that description now than at any previous point in history, and this is all a direct result of social changes put into motion through the 1960s - by military-managed change agents like The Beatles.

If you still don't believe me, consider the following lyrics:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

The question is, is that an excerpt from John Lennon's Imagine, or Klaus Scwab's latest speech at the WEF?

No countries? (e.g., One World Government)

No possessions? ("You'll own nothing and be happy.")

No need for greed or hunger? (Because greed becomes impossible once the only currency is government-controlled CDBCs and bug-paste is very satiating?)

'Imagine' is a New World Order blueprint from someone as "in the club" as it gets - whoever actually wrote it used super-famous change agent Lennon to release it in 1971, telling us what the endgame was, now our traditional culture had been successfully subverted through the 1960s. I repeat that there has been no cultural shift so dramatic and all-encompassing as the one that occurred in that single decade, and to make those kind of extraordinary changes so quickly, the social engineers needed a different level of fame, a different kind of idol and "influencer" - so, different strategies had ti be deployed to create them.

In effect, The Beatles weren't "real": they were military-intelligence creations from the start, primed from very early on to change the culture permanently, and they have probably done that more successfully than any other change agents in history.

Yes, I know, everyone hates me now for besmirching such irreproachable icons and idols, and some tiresome individuals will inevitably respond with "well, I usually deign to approve of what you write, but you've gone too far this time" (I already have a response for you, so put on your favourite bit of hypnotising Beatles military-grade mind-control and have a read...).

Seriously though, I do understand entirely just how strong the pull of The Beatles mythology is, to the extent that said pull is the primary reason (and, to be honest, probably, er, the only reason) I went to university in Liverpool. I was, for all of my adolescence, transfixed by The Beatles (I had a friend with cool older brothers who successfully weaned us off Take That), not as much for their music as for their mythology. So I was thrilled to be living in their very own hometown, and used to love to wander the mythical streets of Merseyside (Mathew Street, Menlove Avenue, Forthlin Road), then going down to the docks, gazing out to sea, wistfully imagining that there was once a time, that four boys who would go on to change the world, were walking these streets too... So I really, truly do understand just how compelling and powerful mythology is.

And that's exactly the point. So do the social engineers.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements, paywalls, or wealthy corporate backers - making it truly independent. If you would like to contribute to help this resource remain both independent and freely available to all, please do so through BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.