So, "Britain's saddest day" (FFS, seriously...) passed comparatively uneventfully, and - as even the Google doodle has finally finished its period of mourning - life may swerve vaguely back in the direction of normality - at least in terms of having a little less wall-to-wall, North Korea style, "dear leader" slavish propaganda, replete with nationally mandated mourning / mental illness.

I didn't watch "the show", but I did monitor the news coverage closely, and came across some quite magisterial examples of media-induced madness, such as the woman who claimed queuing for 17 hours to look at a wooden box was a more fulfilling life experience than having her children.

I guess before "Covid", I used to have the general sense that most people - whilst they might have blind spots on certain issues - were fundamentally sane and reasonable, but I have certainly (to put it mildly) been disabused of that notion now...

Anyway: fortunately, there was no "terror" staged at the funeral, but my prediction that certain cultural tensions were going to be severely stoked up on that day, were not entirely inaccurate.

A couple of days ago, social media started to blow up with reports of a major sectarian conflict in Leicester, between Muslims and Hindus, and that young men were being summoned from all corners of the country to come and join in with the increasingly volatile clash.

Indeed, this situation had spiralled so dangerously by yesterday, the day of the Queen's funeral, that officers who had originally been scheduled to provide security for the funeral, were redirected to Leicester, as it was felt the security risk was even bigger there. Given the Met Police said the funeral was "the biggest security test since World War Two", then that seems quite significant.

My first thought about this situation - as it always is when something is very big and bombastic and newsworthy, and deftly pressing the political buttons of so many people - was: "is this real?".

By that, I don't mean to suggest these brawling young men are holograms (that's up later, with Project Bluebeam), or that there isn't a genuine, grave situation in Leicester, with real, credible risk involved. What I am concerned with is, "has this situation developed organically or has it been set up?"

Inevitably, as is almost always the case, the answer seems to be the latter.

I don't pretend to understand all the religious and cultural issues at the heart of these kinds of clashes, and I'm not saying that genuine antipathy doesn't exist between various religious factions (of course it does), but rather that, human nature throughout the ages shows that most people just want to be left quietly alone to get on with their lives, and it is always only a small minority that wants trouble.

The social engineers who are dedicated to stoking these kinds of tensions (and why they are, we will get to later), weaponise these small few, whilst inserting their own military-trained agent provocateurs in to really inflame the situation, and then it explodes, to nationwide cries of, "something must be done!". This then enables the overlords to come in with their "solution", e.g., what they wanted to do all along, but couldn't until they'd manufactured the public mood to be amenable to it. In short: problem-reaction-solution. It's the same tired old formula every time.

As Google considers the concept of problem-reaction-solution to be a "conspiracy theory by David Icke", please note this phenomenon is also known as 'the manufacture of consent', a term first coined by two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, Walter Lippman, in his 1922 book Public Opinion, and that was also later the title of a book by Noam Chomsky. The concept of the 'manufacture of consent' is pretty self-explanatory - that, effectively, you get people to do what you want them to do, by making them believe they want to do it. This is ultimately the purpose of all state and media propaganda - to install certain beliefs and ideological frameworks into the minds of the masses, so that they think and behave in the way the ruling classes want them to, all the while believing these are their own opinions and they're acting out of free will.

So, in using these tactics, one of the next major "divide and conquer" agendas the social engineers are planning is pitting the (nominally / ancestrally) Christian world against the Muslim world, with the ultimate aim of both religions being destroyed. Christianity is much further along in that process than Islam is, having become (by design) very weak and uninfluential in the West in the post-war years, which is just how the overlords like it. They don't like any religions (except, arguably, their own), and they don't want any in the 'Brave New World' they have planned, as religious allegiance gets in the way of total devotion to the state (that's why they don't want families, either, which have historically always been the most enduring obstacle between the individual and the state). And aforementioned 'Brave New World', the book, did depict this planned future very clearly. It's important to realise that that's what Brave New World was, a blueprint, a plan: not an imaginative work of genius by a highly creative writer, but a revelation of the method by an insider who knew (author Aldous Huxley kept some very exalted company, and there's no doubt that he was "in the club").

One of the primary reasons there has been such an influx of Islamic immigration to the UK these past decades is precisely so the overlords can weaponise it into conflict later on. The much-maligned Enoch Powell wasn't "warning" us with his famous 'rivers of blood' speech - he wasn't prophetic - he was telling us. He was another insider who knew, and he knew what the manipulated end goal of mass immigration really was. As I said, most people just want to be left alone to get on with their lives, and have no intention of creating tension or discord in countries they immigrate to. Of course, in any large group of people, there's always a small minority of troublemakers, but if our societies were left unmolested by malevolent social engineers, we could deal with these problems and these people ourselves, just as human societies have always found a way to deal with and contain "bad apples", without tearing down millenia-old religious movements in the process.

But that is not the plan. The social engineers have spent decades stoking up cultural, religious, and racial tensions so they can eventually ignite them into full-blown war, and that is what they seem to be doing now.

A false dichotomy has been set up between the establishment left and right on this issue, where the left refuses to acknowledge any religious or cultural element to social unrest like that in Leicester at all, whilst the right claims the only relevant element is the cultural and religious one.

So, you've got people like Paul Joseph Watson, protégé of Alex Jones, saying stuff like this. Sure, what he says is not factually wrong, but he is a very strategic polemicist and political agitator, tasked with riling up his audience in a certain way, e.g., to solely blame the immigrants, and not to look for any hidden hands that might be using, weaponising, or infiltrating them.

And it's working. He and many like him are installing in the nominally Christian majority fear and fury that Islamic immigration is making our streets unstable and unsafe and that "enough is enough" and it's time to fight back This is, obviously, setting the stage for a war, which is being aided and abetted by the large factions of young, military-looking men, primarily from Islamic countries, who are being installed in towns and villages up and down the country. These men are being placed in out-of-the-way accommodation wholly unsuitable for genuine asylum seekers, and without the foreknowledge or consent of local councils (who, in some cases, have tried to offer more suitable accommodation, where asylum seekers could be better supported to integrate, but have been flatly turned down by the shady government operatives behind this scheme).

This engineered war will be framed as an inevitable clash of cultures, purporting to show that religious beliefs are not compatible with modern culture (solution: abolish religious beliefs, just as the NWO Blueprint 'Imagine' says), but, in fact, is all being stage-managed from behind the scenes by the ruling classes, with most of the rioting and violence carried out by highly military-trained mercenaries, dressed up as ordinary young Muslims.

So we must be prepared for this and not play into the social engineers' hands, by falling for literally the oldest political tool in the playbook - "divide and conquer". The overlords want ordinary, peaceful people fearful of and hostile towards each other (because one group is ancestrally Christian whilst one is Muslim, one is white, one is Asian, etc.), rather than having us united and supportive of each other, since a) they want us as isolated from others as possible, as they proved in lockdown, and b) if we don't fall for their division tactics, but instead network and talk to each other, we will very soon realise our common enemy is not each other, but them - and then start organising to fight back.

So, yes, obviously use your common sense and stay away from areas of mob violence, whether this is religion, sport, or booze fuelled, but don't use this as a basis to condemn or fear ordinary people. Most white men aren't dangerous football hooligans (although a small minority are). Most Muslims and Hindus aren't volatile street-fighters (although a small minority are). The real enemy, and the real danger, is as it ever was: the man(ufacturing) behind the curtain.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through Patreon, 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.