A few people have enquired what I think of "the Uxbridge stabbing" - a high-profile, allegedly fatal stabbing incident, where (we are told) an Afghan immigrant brutally slayed an innocent dog-walker, whilst injuring two other people (this query was posed to me before the "Huntingdon train stabbings", which I shall also opine upon...).

Without investigating any further, my immediate thought about Uxbridge was "fake", precisely because I was being asked about it.

When real knife violence occurs (and it certainly does), news of it doesn't sweep around the world instantly, and the event doesn't become the "one big thing that everyone's talking about" overnight.

The fact that the "Uxbridge stabbing" instantly hit the headlines everywhere, and dominated not just the national but the international conversation as well, with even Elon Musk weighing in on it, is enough for us to strongly suspect that the event was contrived. The more recent "train stabbings" have enjoyed the same kind of instant, high-octane publicity, leading me to a similar conclusion.

The contrast is stark when compared to real knife violence.

When a 16-year-old boy was killed in Huddersfield town centre in April, in the middle of the day on a busy shopping street, nobody online asked me about my thoughts on it - even though I live in Huddersfield - because very few people outside of Huddersfield had heard about it. This event was kept pretty low profile, with minimal national press attention, and not a huge amount of local attention, either. I went to a popular local pub the day after it happened, and none of the conversations I could overhear were referencing it - whereas when there's a major national event that's all over the headlines, it dominates pub discourse everywhere (I remember back in March 2022, overhearing two very blokey blokes earnestly discussing over their pints whether Will Smith did the right thing when he "slapped" Chris Rock at the Oscars - they concluded that he did).

The reason real events aren't publicised and promoted by the press the way fake ones are is because, if they're real, then, by definition, the social orchestrators don't control the narrative. They don't know what the consequences of the event will be, or how the involved parties and their families will react. It's therefore too risky for social scriptwriters to give a lot of publicity - and therefore a lot of potential power - to real events, centred around people and narratives they don't control.

So, real events are invariably kept low-profile, not sensationalised, and not made into big national talking points. They may well get some press attention, especially locally, but they will very rarely become "the one big story everyone in the country's talking about", the way the fake, staged events invariably do.

Fake, staged events are obviously entirely under the control of those who are faking and staging them, and so these are the events that get the massive promotion and high-profile press attention. Hence my slogan, "if it's headline news, it's a ruse".

Something that is very sensationalist and very high-profile is also highly likely to be very fake. The more theatrical it is, the more likely it is to be literal street theatre: intelligence agency spycraft, presented to us as if it is real, in order to propagandise us.

In order to successfully propagandise us, the parties behind the propaganda need to be sure they are completely in control of the narrative arc, ensuring it hits all the right notes, and the only way they can be completely sure of that, is to script and stage it themselves.

The Uxbridge stabbing is just too politically "perfect" to seem authentic, touching as it does on so many predictable emotional triggers: the assailant is a Muslim immigrant, the victim a white Briton. The victim was walking his dog, and Britain is nothing if not a nation of dog-lovers. The victim worked as a binman, meaning he was a humble salt-of-the-earth type, a real grafter, not frightened of getting his hands dirty. The assailant was a workshy layabout, living it up at the tax-payer's expense. And so on and so forth. It' s just the pitch-perfect scenario to maximally rile up the disaffected right-wing that the establishment is constantly trying to inflame and manipulate with fake events (see: Lucy Connolly, Graham Linehan, Charlie Kirk, etc).

Add to that the fact that Elon Musk affects to be outraged about "Uxbridge" and that really should be all we need to know to gauge how authentic this scenario is likely to be.

Why was Mr Musk not equally outraged about the school-aged boy brutally slain in Huddersfield back in April? If anything, that event was more tragic, involving as it did a 16-year-old boy rather than a 49-year-old man, and so one might expect more outrage.

Yet we heard, comparatively, crickets.

The reason for that is that the Huddersfield event was real, and therefore, it's not in actor Elon's script to respond to, any more than Ross from Friends is going to articulate views on a real stabbing.

The establishment is invested in relentlessly manufacturing fake terror attacks, riots, and assassinations that appeal to people's prejudices and get them wound up, because when people are wound up - operating purely from their primal emotions of anger and fear - they're not thinking rationally, and this makes them far easier to influence and control. That's why all propaganda targets emotion, never reason, and why all fake events push on as many emotional triggers as they can.

Obviously, out-of-control immigration is a problem and needs robust tackling, for many economic and social reasons - but it's not a big problem because you're at risk of being randomly stabbed to death by an immigrant when you're walking your dog. You're not. That's just ludicrous fearmongering, and you're more likely to die slipping over in the bath than you are to be stabbed to death by a stranger.

But the ruling classes and their lackeys and useful idiots online want you to feel as if this is something you're in danger of, so you'll be consumed with anger and - crucially - fear, which makes you extremely suggestible and easy to control. Fear is the number one weapon of all governments everywhere where it comes to controlling their populations, so obviously, governments are highly incentivised to create (that is to say, stage) events for people to be fearful of.

Therefore, the people who are fanning the flames of fear around evil immigrants stabbing strangers, are little better, in my opinion, that those who did the same about the evil far-right "rioting" (in reality, these "riots" were mostly patchy or non-existent, peaceful, and resulted in zero fatalities).

Neither of these situations are accurate representations of reality. Immigrants aren't walking around murdering strangers waking their dogs, any more than "the far-right" are riotously murdering minorities. It's all just media fabrication and fakery designed to keep people angry, frightened, outraged, and at each other's throats - and, of course, so hero-saviours, Reform, can swoop in to save the day (it really does seem that, at the moment, everything is a publicity stunt for Reform).

This has been tediously underlined with the "Huntingdon stabbings" - which even eye-witnesses admitted looked fake and "like a Halloween prank" - because whilst the alleged attackers weren't immigrants, they were non-white. One black, one "of Caribbean descent". So this is obviously designed to provoke the right-wing into making "racist" statements about the attackers, in order that the left-wing can react with, "you see?! It's not really immigration they're concerned about, they're just racists!!" - especially as it has since turned out that the man of Caribbean descent initially identified as a culprit, was wrongly arrested, and he has since been released from custody without charge.

"They" often do this: they throw out red meat red herrings to rile up the right, they did it with Southport when they intentionally circulated the fake news that the attacker was a Muslim immigrant. They knew the right would instantly leap on this, and then would have egg on their faces when it was revealed as untrue, thereby giving the left ammunition to demonise the right as bigots and racists. They've done exactly the same with these "train stabbings".

"You see?! You evil racists thought he was guilty just because he was black! And he was innocent all along! See how racist and evil you are?!"

Cue the left and the right being at each other's throats, yet again.

It's so predictable, it's almost as if it's scripted.

Which, of course, is because it is.

Another big fat clue that all this - both the Uxbridge and Huntingdon "events" - are fake is that intricate details about the supposed attacks and alleged attackers, including their names and faces, have already been released to the press and public, ahead of any trial or conviction - and this flies in the face of all laws governing press conduct around crime. The press are strictly prohibited from disclosing the kind of details surrounding criminal offences that might prejudice the chances of the accused getting a fair trial. How could the Uxbridge or Huntingdon alleged attackers get a fair trial when they've already been so demonised by the media? Obviously they couldn't, and that's generally a massive tell that the event is fake: because laws about not prejudicing trials don't apply to fake events staged by actors.

These fake events are thrown in our faces in as highly charged and emotive a manner as possible, with plenty of red herrings and plot twists to mislead and manipulate, in order to create maximal hostility and tensions between various political and social factions, as they rage against each other, looking to allocate blame.

Why do the social controllers want to foment this kind of hostility and division?

It's all part of their ordo ab chao - order out of chaos - philosophy. They are busy creating maximal conflict between groups - between left and right, natives and immigrants, blacks and whites - with the goal of ultimately creating a huge clash, which eventually results in the destruction of the right-wing, religion, race, gender, and nationality, because these things are just too divisive and dangerous.

This is what they want, and they tell us all the time in their predictive programming and revelation of the method: John Lennon's 'Imagine' is the theory, and the BBC's Years and Years is the practice.

We are being pushed to collaborate in "proving" how destructive differences between people are, by reacting angrily to various high-profile "attacks" and seeking vengeance - therefore demonstrating that said differences relentlessly result in violent clashes and bloodshed, so it's much "safer" for everyone for differences to be abolished. No countries, no religions, and no possessions, just as John Lennon said - and, as Years and Years strongly hints at, no races or genders, either. Genders, you see, not only result in sexist discrimination and oppression, but homophobia and transphobia as well. Best to stamp them out (a political party in Canada appears to be trailblazing the way for that currently).

So, every time we get publicly riled up about some high-profile "attack" that is blamed on an evil immigrant or the evil far-right or whichever demons of the day group we are doing this week, we are playing right into what the malevolent social scriptwriters desire: we are consenting to co-create their desired future, by "proving" how much anger, fear, and violent destruction results from the differences between people.

The other major agenda item the malevolent manipulators of reality are openly pursuing - and we got a major preview of this during "lockdown" - is stopping you from going outside or travelling, because it's simply far too dangerous. The evil immigrant / ferocious far-right bogeymen aren't attacking people in their homes, after all, it's only when people have the brazen temerity to go outside - walking the dog, using public transport, etc - that they are so perilously endangered.

The recent "train stabbings" have been very deftly designed to inspire fear of travelling by train, because - and as the Daily Mail has already helpfully spelled out - on a train, there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide (other than the loos, but they're not very effective hiding places, as fare-dodgers everywhere can attest).

If you see a knife-wielding maniac running down a street, there are plenty of options to get away from them, but in a completely contained environment like a train, you are entirely at their mercy - that's the message we are supposed to take from the "train stabbings".

In short, the ruling classes are now trying to do to trains what they've already done to planes - paint them as uniquely dangerous contained units of potential terror. So we can tediously expect security at train stations to be massively ramped up in the wake of these "attacks" - and a consequent precipitous drop in the number of people who are prepared to use these vehicles (and who start petitioning their employers to work from home instead. You know, for their safety).

Interestingly, and ominously, on the subject of trains, my local train station recently closed for a full 30-day period (and required the two pubs that are on site to close their doors for the entire month as well, thus doing further huge damage to an already profoundly struggling local industry).

The ostensible reason for this was to "replace a bridge". Yet there was nothing wrong with the existing bridge. A conspiracy theorist might speculate, therefore, that this bridge has been intentionally replaced with one that is less secure, and designed to fail some years down the line, in the continuing war against travel, the fomenting of fear, and the creation of "15-minute cities", where people very rarely stray far from home - if they do at all.

I mean, why risk walking your dog and getting murdered by an immigrant, when you can have a robo-dog instead, who doesn't need walking? So much safer, and of course, better for the environment, as robo-Rover doesn't require all that nasty climate-change-driving meat to sustain him!

Why risk getting a train to work, where you could find yourself trapped with a deranged, probably black, man wielding a weapon? Simply work from home instead, where you're safe. (This was also the message we were meant to get from the obviously very fake "attack on a Ukrainian model" in North Carolina.)

Massive amounts of fear, paranoia, and hostility between groups are being sown on purpose to accelerate the agenda.

In other words, the ruling classes are spoiling for a fight.

They can't get their desired fight, however, unless we give it to them. As ever, they need our consent, and this is what these fabricated "attacks" are about - riling up the native populace (especially the white, right-leaning populace) enough that they will turn violent - and they tell you very explicitly this is what they want: Elon Musk has just in the last few days declared that civil war in the UK is "inevitable".

They want you violent because then they can handle you - arrest you (which, amongst other undesirable outcomes, allows them to take your DNA by force), get you into their system on their terms - even have you incarcerated.

We need to not fall into that trap. The resistance is not going to be optimally effective from prison.

We know that the freedom movement is heavily infiltrated, and so we inevitably have to be wary of high-profile people appearing to "get arrested for the cause" with no real lasting consequences (e.g., Graham Linehan), because that is typically not how it is for genuine people. Graham Linehan was supposedly "arrested by armed guards", but the incident has had no lasting consequences for him and his glittering career has gone from strength to strength.

Don't be fooled into believing that is how it would be for you, if you were to face an armed confrontation with police - such as in a "civil war" situation - or that getting arrested is some sort of glamorous badge of honour. This is certainly not the case at all - arrest can be and often is a deeply harrowing and traumatic experience, with legitimate people who have gone through it invariably not in any hurry to repeat the experience.

Arrest is part of the criminal justice system and it's unpleasant: it's meant to be, to act as a deterrent. Sometimes arrest is unavoidable, but if you can avoid it (and you generally can, with the most rudimentary strategic steps), it's certainly very wise to, since as a state dissident, it's really not a brilliant idea to be forcibly detailed by armed agents of the state.

Especially because that enables the state to build up a database of the DNA samples of its enemies (I know there is some debate as to whether DNA is even a thing, but even if it's not, once you're known to police and they claim to have your DNA on file, then they can claim to have found it at the scene of crimes). To reiterate, once you are in police custody, they have a legal right to take things from you by force: DNA, your photograph and your fingerprints. They do not require your consent or cooperation to do this.

This traumatic, invasive, and potentially dangerous experience is just one reason of many you should think very carefully before getting arrested, and be very sceptical of people who showboat and boast about their alleged arrests (don't forget, these can be staged just like everything else), without being explicit and honest regarding what the real consequences can be. Getting arrested is not trivial, not just a funny story to tell at parties, so if you're going to risk it, please ensure you are as informed as possible about what the experience can entail, and what the far-reaching future consequences could be.

To quote from solicitors Corker Binning:

"Being arrested is an extremely serious matter. Even if no criminal proceedings result, simply the experience of being detained at a police station and interviewed under caution is not one which many are keen to repeat.

Thinking further ahead, what are the long-term consequences once a criminal investigation is complete?

For most professionals (whether or not regulated), a criminal conviction or caution (which is sometimes treated as a conviction even though it involves no further immediate consequences for the offender) is an even more serious matter. In particular, a standard Disclosure & Barring Service check (‘DBS’ – formerly Criminal Records Bureau ‘CRB’) required for many professional and voluntary roles will disclose both convictions and cautions provided they have not been ‘filtered’ by passage of time (for example, an adult caution will cease to be disclosed on a standard DBS check six years after being issued.)[1]

Even if you are swiftly de-arrested, or later establish that the arrest was wrongful, this may not be sufficient to prevent professional or bureaucratic problems down the line. The mere fact of your arrest will be a matter of record on the Police National Computer (PNC). Furthermore, if you were arrested for a recordable offence (which includes all but the most minor offences) then your photograph, fingerprints and a non-intimate DNA sample will likely have been taken (by force if you refuse to consent) and run as a ‘speculative search’ against samples related to previous unsolved offences."

You would have to have a very good reason to risk all this, since - other than giving self-styled "thought leaders" something to show off about - what does getting arrested actually achieve? In what actual way does this assist the freedom movement to achieve its goals?

What it does definitely do, however, is enable the state to build up a comprehensive database of those who oppose it, including their photographs, fingerprints, and DNA samples, whilst making these people's own lives more difficult, and threatening their professional futures. So you can certainly see why it's something disingenuous controlled opposition would want to encourage, in order to further weaken and fragment the opposition.

In fighting back, we need to think more smartly than this: than simply delivering ourselves straight into state hands.

To win the war we are in (and it's infinitely more of a psychological and spiritual war than it is a physical one), we cannot react to enemy propaganda as they want us to: getting enraged - and potentially violent - every time there's a new sensationalised, high-profile "stabbing" or "shooting", blamed on the big bogeyman of the moment. This is because, if all groups simply keep fighting each other as their overlords want them to, the inevitable consequence is mutual destruction. And that is very much the enemy's goal.

This does not mean you have to support unfettered immigration or be best friends with people with radically different views to your own. Rather, it's about strategy - military strategy - which the ruling classes are certainly experts in.

Instead of letting them play us like fiddles whereby we react predictably to all the puerile propaganda they relentlessly throw at us, what strategies are actually going to get us what we want?

In other words, what battle tactics will result in victory?

As The Art of War said...

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of one hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Knowledge is power.

Know how they operate.

Know how they wish us to react to what they do.

And never, ever, give them what they want.

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.