I learned the big conspiracy news of the moment the way one often does these days: from my local pub quiz text group. When asked how likely it was a certain member would be attending the quiz that week, they replied, "about as likely as the Southport attacker turning out to be a Muslim terrorist"...

"Ah, I see!" I thought, my subterfuge spidey senses tingling. "So that's how they're going to play it..."

('They' meaning the usual shadowy cabal 'they', not the members of my local pub quiz team.)

I recorded my thoughts on the "Southport attacks" at the time, which you can read here.

As we all recall, these "attacks" served as the torch paper for igniting racial and political tensions all throughout the country, although these tensions mainly manifested as online spats, rather than the "terrifying riots" the media kept erroneously reporting.

Not a single person died in these supposedly horrendously violent assaults, and even serious injuries were rare.

There was basically no more trouble than if there'd been a big football match on. A small handful of drunk thugs scuffling with the police is absolutely standard for any Saturday night in a big city, especially in the summer months, and in reality, this was nothing different.

Nevertheless, the media and government made sure to amplify the fear and hostilities as much as they possibly could, and my own local council terrified the local populace half to death with their ludicrously over-the-top scaremongering about a "far-right riot" that was supposedly happening in the town centre.

The council went so far as to suggest people closed their businesses and barricaded themselves in their homes, because a few bored teenagers in balaclavas might be turning up to shout things.

As it turned out, not a single "far-right extremist" of any description did turn up, and the only people who gathered in the town centre were the police, and about five counter-protestors, holding "hate will not win" signs.

I wrote the council a very stern letter about their attempts at domestic terrorism, and to my astonishment, actually received a few positive replies from council members who agreed that their colleagues should not be attempting to race-bait and terrorise with ludicrously over-emotive correspondence warning of a riot-that-wasn't (indeed, one of my local councillors even made the local press calling out the riot as "fake news").

The (mostly fake or hugely exaggerated) "riots" soon died down nationwide and I wasn't really expecting to hear much about the "Southport attacks" again - just as we've never heard anything more about the supposed "Leicester Square attacks", with the two events having a very odd shared theme...

Taylor Swift.

Every bit of mainstream media coverage you read on the Southport attacks never misses the opportunity to remind you the children were at a "Taylor Swift themed" dance class, as if this is such an important detail, it has to be reiterated in all reporting.

Similarly, the girl who was supposedly attacked in Leicester Square was a tourist here to see Taylor Swift.

What are the odds, huh? Female children randomly attacked by strange men they have no relationship to (which is so vanishingly rare a phenomenon in criminology as to be basically non-existent) within the same few weeks, and both directly connected to Taylor Swift.

A completely irrelevant detail that the media needn't have mentioned at all, but nevertheless do, in every bit of coverage on these incidents.

So what's the significance of repeatedly mentioning the Swift character?

"It's occult code for "Didn't actually happen," says James Delingpole, and I suspect he's probably right.

Taylor Swift is, after all, the ultimate stage creation: currently the world's most famous theatrical performance artist.

So to link this name repeatedly to high-profile media events would seem to be the cabal's way of informing us (as they always have to do) that these events that repeatedly invoke her name are performative theatre, too.

(It may also be of note to mention that Taylor shares a surname with famous satirist, Jonathan, with "Swiftian satire" defined as: writings that are satiric and ironic using parody and exaggeration.)

Now there's been a very sensationalist "plot twist" in that the supposed culprit in the Southport attacks is actually a Muslim, and an al-Qaeda training manual was found in his home.

You may recall that at the time of the attacks, there was originally - what turned out to be - "fake news" circulating online that the attacker was a Muslim. This was widely shared by many on the "right", only for them to end up with egg on their faces when the news turned out to be fake, which caused the "left" to foment in paroxysms of self-righteous glee and call everyone a racist.

Yet now the tables have turned once again, and it turns out the attacker was a Muslim after all.

It's such predictable "playing both sides" from the cabal controllers, and they always do it. First they rile up the right ("the attacker was a Muslim immigrant!"), then they rile up the left ("actually no he wasn't, look at these far-right racists spreading lies"), then the right again ("ah, so he was a Muslim after all!"), and on it goes, ad infinitum ad nauseum...

They keep complete control over the narrative by having both "sides" relentlessly at each other's throats and not stepping back to see the bigger picture, i.e., who's producing and directing this sensationalist world stage drama (and remember, the supposed Southport attacker is an actor), and what is the intended grand finale?

To understand that, we have to go way back to 1971, and look at the New World Order blueprint that was Tavistock John Lennon's 'Imagine'...

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

The social controllers have been quite explicit that they want to eradicate all religions, and they've already been quite successful with Christianity, meaning England and Wales are no longer majority Christian countries.

The one big religious obstacle that remains for the cabal, then, is Islam.

They're desperate to get rid of it, but bombing Islamic countries to smithereens doesn't work, just as bombing Christian countries through the world wars didn't work to destroy the religion (it was only social and psychological engineering after the wars that caused Christianity to fall).

So they have a new approach: they have to turn enough people against Islam that it inevitably falls, which involves importing a lot of Muslims into Western countries and then accrediting various crimes - both real and faked - to them, so hostility towards the religion increases and increases.

For example, Muslim grooming gangs are real and people are rightly appalled by them.

Muslim terrorist incidences are often faked, but nevertheless work to fan the public mood further in the desired direction.

So, of course, it makes perfect sense for the "Southport attacker" to be labelled - not just a Muslim - but a Muslim convert, because he wasn't born into a Muslim family. Therefore, this is meant to show us how pervasive Muslim influence has become in Britain, and that even Christian boys born and bred in the UK are not safe from its radicalising threats.

To be clear, I am not saying the threat from radicalised Islam is not real, but rather, social engineers are not just relying on real incidences of terrorism or radicalisation to shape public mood, they are fabricating them, too, to help expedite their goal.

Their goal is to destroy all religions so that the only "higher power" and authority in anyone's lives is them. They want to destroy religion for the same reason they want to destroy family, community, gender and so on - so that people completely lose their defining identities and there are no longer any obstacles between us (the individual) and them (the state).

Therefore, their "perfect citizen" is a single genderless atheist living alone in a pod, owning nothing, subsisting on UBI and bugs, and communicating with the world only through screens.

Abolishing religions - all religions (except, of course, their own) - is key to their achieving this "dream", as religion connotes with bigger families, more integrated communities, people leaving the house more to go to religious and cultural events, etc.

So, obviously, that has to go.

So that's why they're telling us the Southport attacker at a "Taylor Swift themed" dance class was a Muslim convert. It's a performance to advance the agenda, just as very high-profile media events often/always are.

It's very important when analysing these events that we prioritise keeping a cool head and not giving into overly-emotional impulses that might get us into trouble.

Obviously, any event that involves the alleged death of children is going to be promoted in the press in the most emotive terms possible that are designed to get you riled up.

Of course it's a tragedy when children die, but please remember that, sadly, thousands of them die every year all over the world and we don't express horror or outrage about every one of these deaths, because we don't know about them.

And why don't we know about them?

Because the media doesn't tell us.

So we must be aware that. whenever the media very sensationally promotes the death of children then - real or faked - they are doing this to try and manipulate a particular reaction out of you.

A reaction that might, for example, land you in prison.

So let's all take the chance to take a step back, analyse the situation calmly, and decide how to progress in a way that advances our own interests, and not "theirs".

Yes, the threat of radicalisation and terrorism is real.

But that doesn't mean the predator class doesn't manufacture incidences of these things too, in order to advance their own agenda.

It's been said many times, but it remains absolutely true that the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance.

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.