I recall very distinctly the first time the Madeleine McCann disappearance hit the headlines. It was summer 2007, and I was working in a large outbound call centre in London's Old Street ('Pell and Bales', since deceased, which we employees would "affectionately" refer to as Hell and Satan).

When I walked in to start my shift at 1pm (shifts ran from 1-9pm and it was right next to an enormous Wetherspoon's, so the perfect summer job, really), the breakout room coffee table had the normal splay of newspapers fanned across it, and they were all blaring about this missing child.

I certainly noticed - middle-class British toddlers going missing whilst their parents eat Tapas not exactly being the norm - but, in all honesty, I can't say I was particularly interested. I was, in fact, far more interested in squeezing in a chance to check my Facebook on the works' computer before my shift started, and I could see several of my colleagues were already busy on their desktops doing just that.

In 2007, of course, the internet was still in its most embryonic stages, and the vast majority of people - me very much included - didn't have it at home.

Meanwhile, the thought of having it on your phone was still some sort of elaborate sci-fi fantasy, akin to working alongside Data from Star Trek (or having an ever-available AI pal in your pocket to chat to...).

So, most people snatched a few clandestine minutes at work, or went to the library, or frequented internet cafes (remember them?) to get their digital fix.

This necessarily meant that people were unable to put in anywhere near the same research time into complex subjects, that they soon became able to do, once the internet first became ubiquitous at home, and then in everyone's pockets.

This shift has had a profound impact on how people respond to and interpret both news events, and "conspiracy theories", because when the Madeleine McCann story first hit the headlines, there were two narratives surrounding it:

1. The official story: Madeleine was abducted by a predator, just as her parents said.
2. The official conspiracy theory: Madeleine was not abducted, her parents killed her and invented the abduction story to cover it up.

2) - the counternarrative to the official story - developed fairly quickly, and, even with my limited internet use, I was well aware of it.

However, nobody at that time that I am aware of suggested a third option: that Madeleine was neither abducted nor killed, but rather, the whole story was a staged, special ops intelligence production, performed by crisis actors in order to propagandise the public (which, as regular readers know, is the conclusion I've come to about the Madeleine McCann case).

Fast forward to 2025, eighteen years after Madeleine's disappearance - and when everyone has continual access to the internet - and now, every big media event has more and more people rejecting both the "official story" and the "official conspiracy theory", and realising there's a third option:

"This is all fake. A staged, acted production, presented by the media as real.".

This third option has developed, because, over the years, it has become increasingly apparent that most major media events have two controlled narratives that run simultaneously:

1. The official story (for instance, Covid is a terrifying deadly plague originating from bats) and;
2. The official conspiracy theory (Covid is a lab leak from China).

The establishment controls both of these scripts, with its overt assets such as TV newscasters and politicians pushing the former narrative. Simultaneously, its controlled opposition agents, like high-profile "alternative" journalists and podcasters, push the latter. We the audience, meanwhile, are just supposed to argue endlessly about 1) and 2), therefore keeping us firmly distracted from 3) - the actual truth (as per "the pandemic", that there was no Covid).

Regarding this latest "Liverpool car attack" scenario, the official story is that the attacker was a 53-year-old white British male, whilst the official conspiracy theory is that this guy is a patsy and the real attacker was someone else - someone definitely younger, and maybe of a different race.

However, simply by extrapolating from past high-profile media events, we can conclude that the overwhelmingly more likely possibility is that neither of these scenarios are true; that both of these narratives are seeded by the establishment; and that Liverpool was simply another closed-set, staged fraud - a media-crisis production, using actors and AI.

So, no "attacker" of any age or race, because there was no attack: just more media street theatre, presented to the masses as real for propaganda purposes.

As always with these sensationalist, theatrical events, there are about a million holes and anomalies in "the official story", including the ludicrous assertion that "survivors" of the obviously very fake "Manchester Arena bombing" miraculously managed to be at, and survive, the Liverpool car attack, too.

What are the chances?!

Some people have said, "well, quite high, because Manchester and Liverpool are close together."

However, this actually is not true at all (the "quite high" bit, that is, not the neighbourliness of Manchester and Liverpool).

Due to the fact that the media hyper-focuses on "terror attacks" (or events performed identically to "terror attacks"), and gives them enormous amounts of coverage, people falsely, if understandably, believe that their chances of being caught up in such an event are reasonably high.

In reality, your chances of ever being involved in a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small, to the extent that the odds of dying via terrorist attack are smaller than the odds of drowning in your bath.

So, the odds of being present at one alleged terror attack (Manchester Arena) and then managing to survive another one (Liverpool), are somewhere in the general region of <0.0001%. About the same chances as drowning to death in your bath twice.

Nevertheless, "survivors" of one high-profile media event miraculously popping up at another is a theme we've seen before, and is a particularly tell-tale signature of a staged event. I expect this is entirely intentional - it's not simply that the MI5 stable of crisis actors isn't big enough for all desired productions, so they have to keep recycling them.

On the contrary: intelligence agencies plant these "tells" on purpose, to let us know that this is a theatre production, so, as per their own code, they've made it clear it's not real, so it's up to us if we continue to fall for the deception.

What's extremely encouraging about this, however, is the huge upswing in people no longer willing to be deceived.

It used to be the case that, anyone suspicious of the "official story" was immediately funnelled into "the official conspiracy theory", and, if they then questioned that, and said, "hang on, this doesn't add up either, I'm starting to think this is all fake", they would be furiously leapt upon by an army of incensed gatekeepers:

"It's crazy people like you that make conspiracy theorists look bad!"

"Not everything's fake, you know! You just sound insane when you say that!"

"Real people were killed in this event, you monster! How dare you question their families' grief!"

And so on and so forth.

Initially, these tactics were very effective at shutting down legitimate suspicion of official narratives, because, of course, nobody wants to be seen as a bad person: an insane, unfeeling monster who doesn't care about the suffering of innocent people.

So, it is very gratifying to see that, over time - and as people have had more access to the internet, enabling them to more closely scrutinise events - these manipulative tactics are losing their power.

That is because we are regaining ours.

The Liverpool event suggested to me that we have now reached a tipping point, where a majority (even if it's currently a small majority) of conspiracists' first reaction to an event is:

"Is this even real?"

Which is, of course, the first question we should be asking of any highly publicised media event, before rushing in and responding emotionally (yes, I know we're emotional beings: the overlords know it too, that's why they relentlessly target our emotions with their propaganda drives, in an effort to completely bypass our reason).

If an event is real, then that's easy to prove, and it's not offensive to ask for such proof. After all, the truth doesn't fear investigation (only lies and liars do).

Yet upon closer inspection, it tends to become very quickly apparent that many/most high-profile media events are, in fact, not real, and have, to greater or lesser extents, been staged. Sometimes acted out using real people, sometimes dispensing with real people and using AI. Do real people sometimes get hurt? Yes, real people do sometimes get hurt on movie sets (hence why high-profile actors will use stunt doubles, to minimise the risk of harm to themselves). They're still movie sets, though.

These events are staged by the establishment in order to push certain political agendas, and to manufacture the consent of the public for what the overlords want. We can be sure about that, because these dramatic, high-octane events always just so happen to coalesce with an agenda the overlords are trying to push.

The Liverpool car attack, for instance, dovetails precisely with the war on cars, and cars as "lethal weapons". "It's not safe to have them on out streets, we need a lot more restrictions on private vehicle ownership, and eventually, an outright ban altogether!"

That's why we keep having "terror attacks" where people randomly drive their cars into crowds, a decidedly odd and untraditional form of terrorism, rather than using the standard gun / bomb approach. It's to get the masses seething about cars, how dangerous they are, and calling for huge restrictions on the number of vehicles on the road - just as the overlords desire.

Then we have the "Southport attacks", an event which - as well as setting the stage for Lucy Connolly, Twitter Convict to scare us all out of free speech - was about curtailing knife ownership, as has been confirmed by one of the "survivors" of the Southport attacks now running a high-profile anti-knife campaign, replete with catchy slogan and the support of various actors and celebrities.

These events are basically an elaborate form of "product placement", the product in these cases being the political agendas the ruling classes want to implement.

It's no secret that this is what the international mass media is really for, rather than simply existing to innocuously report "the news".

As Noam Chomsky observed in his 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the mass media:

"are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion."

In other words, the mass media exists to propagandise you into doing what the ruling classes want you to do, rather than the government explicitly forcing you to do it, because this is a more effective way of ruling over a populace.

Some historical examples...

The ruling classes want a war in Afghanistan? Rather than forcing the populace to comply with what would otherwise have been a deeply unpopular initiative, they instead staged a "terror attack" to manufacture the masses' consent for it.

The ruling classes want a gun ban? They stage the tragic murder of schoolchildren, and voila, the populace - who would otherwise have resisted - are all for such a ban.

There are many similar examples.

Some people will tell you that, whilst the ruling classes certainly exploited these events to drive agendas, the events themselves were nevertheless real. That is to say, the ruling classes are merely opportunists, passive recipients of what happens "naturally", rather than active facilitators who engage in organising such things themselves.

I say that this theory is fatally flawed, because there is no way such ruthless control freaks as the ruling classes would leave things up to chance like this. If they want to bring in, for instance, a gun ban, they can't rely on a school shooting "just happening" in the desired timeframe - or ever - and, even on the off-chance it did, if it's real, they have no ultimate control over how the narrative develops.

They can't control how the victims' families will behave, for a start, and whether they will be prepared to give lengthy interviews to the media, which is a vital component of these operations being successful.

In a real school shooting scenario, it's extremely likely the parents would be too overcome with grief to want to speak in any detail to the media, and if they do speak, they can hardly be relied upon - in such a state of intense trauma - to say "the right things" and to agenda-push as the overlords desire. These are ordinary people, after all, not slick media-trained actors, so it would just be an uncoordinated mess that would be very ineffective in optimally propagandising people.

Therefore, in order to ensure these events go exactly as the ruling classes desire and have exactly the effects they want, they, of course, don't wait for them to "just happen" - God knows when and involving God knows who - but instead, they produce them themselves, with every active participant a scripted, contracted actor that the establishment is in complete control of. It is the only way they can ensure the events progress as they desire, and as these events are so central and key to their management of the population, they make sure they get them right.

They also have a tried and tested playbook that they use every time.

I predicted that, as soon as the "Liverpool car attack" was announced in the media, we would quickly see a highly amplified Twitter account "say the wrong thing" and be seen to be subject to harsh penalties, just like Lucy Connolly, in order to reinforce the idea that free speech is in jeopardy and we can't speak out without being severely punished.

Lo and behold, within hours, a previously little-known comedian named Andrew Lawrence made a rather mild joke on the subject (as comedians are wont to do), stating that:

"To be fair, if I was in Liverpool, I'd drive through crowds of people to get the fuck out of there as well."

At the time of writing, this Tweet has been viewed a staggering 5.5 million times, Lawrence's name is all over Twitter, and he has been given blanket mainstream news coverage, including from the BBC, Sky, ITV, The Independent, The Metro, The Telegraph, The Mirror and many others.

I don't know who needs to hear this, but giving a previously obscure performance artist that amount of mainstream news coverage isn't "cancelling" them, it's publicising them.

Millions of people who had never previously heard of Andrew Lawrence, now have, and are leaping to his defence as a persecuted free speech hero, just like Lucy Connolly.

For an "edgy" comedian like Lawrence to be slammed by the mainstream media like this, is excellent publicity and will see his star skyrocket, just as always happens with extensive, coordinated media hit pieces on supposedly "anti-establishment" types. If you're styling yourself as anti-establishment, then obviously, the establishment media has to be seen to not like you. If they were nice about you, you'd have no credibility as "alternative".

I note that Andrew Lawrence still retains an active YouTube channel with over 150,000 subscribers, so his supposed "cancellation" doesn't even extend to YouTube taking him down, something which they do to much smaller fish all the time (I lost my YouTube channel at less than 5,000 followers, and I know many others have similar stories).

Andrew Lawrence isn't being cancelled. To be cancelled is to be ignored. He is being publicised and amplified, and that's for a reason.

In short, Andrew Lawrence is to Liverpool what Lucy Connolly was to Southport: an ostensibly "persecuted political martyr" there to scare you out of free speech.

"You can't say anything these days, or they destroy your career, just like they did to Andrew Lawrence, or send you to prison, like Lucy Connolly."

That's what you're supposed to think.

Even though Lawrence's career is far from destroyed (the opposite) and Connolly very likely isn't really in prison.

But this is a war on perception ruled by deception, so it's about what the ruling classes can manipulate you to believe, via media illusion (including social media) and propaganda.

To sum up, whenever the ruling classes want to bring in a major social change - free speech restrictions, car bans, knife bans, war - they simply stage a high-profile event that will result in the masses clamouring for it.

Problem-reaction-solution.

And it works every time.

Or it used to...

As I said, the internet has been a bit of a double-edged sword for "them". Sure, it's given them infinite access to our data, and the ability to track our every move in a way that is beyond the wildest dreams of even the most tyrannically controlling psychopaths of the last several thousand years, but...

There's a flipside: the internet has truly democratised the spread of information, meaning it is no longer the sole preserve of the elite-controlled and bankrolled mass media institutions, but now, every "citizen journalist"- or even "Twitter researcher" (there are some absolute research gems on Twitter, I Retweet them often) - can have a voice, and the more that these voices are able to make themselves heard, the more our understanding of our world is profoundly and permanently shifting.

The biggest power the overlords have over us is their ability to deceive us, and the most powerful weapon in this deception is the mass media.

So once we see the mass media for what it really is, the power of the cheap parlour magicians behind it disperses - just like one of their smoke and mirrors staged tricks.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (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 this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.