As any self-respecting theoriser of conspiracies is aware, nothing that is churned out by the Baal-worshipping behemoth that is Hollywood (named after the Holly tree, which was traditionally used by wizards to make spell-casting wands) is ever simply filler fluff or meaningless 'entertainment'. Such productions always have a much deeper and darker purpose - namely, predictive programming.

It appears to be a key part of the ruling classes' karmic code that they have to reveal their plans to us in advance (so-called 'revelation of the method'), and then, if we neither effectively object or stop them, this qualifies as our 'consent', so they are immunised from moral retribution as they go ahead. Defectors from high-level elite families have confirmed that this is how these dynasties operate - that they have very strict and rigid 'laws' - but that their laws are not our laws (and our laws do not apply to them, or so they believe).

The preferred vehicle of the ruling elites to reveal their plans to us appears to be Hollywood films and big-budget TV series. These not only reveal the overlords' future plans, but also play a key role in co-creating them, by working to normalise whatever behaviour is being presented. Soap operas, for example, have long been a central part of social engineering - whenever the elites desire a social change, they simply introduce it in a soap opera, knowing within a few years, this behaviour will have been adopted by the public at large, as they mimic what they see on the screen. Human beings are naturally great mimickers - it's how we learn to walk and talk, after all.

Before this was done in soap operas, it was done in magazines, and a former staff writer for Cosmopolitan magazine revealed in her autobiography how Cosmopolitan played a fundamental role in staging and creating "the sexual revolution". Cosmo's staff writers were instructed in the 1960s, by the magazine's shady higher-ups, to construct fictitious "case studies" about "empowered and independent young women" who eschewed monogamy and family, in favour of a series of short-term flings with rich older men who could help advance their careers.

None of these case studies were even remotely based on real people (and the author of the memoir, Sue Ellen Browder, advises that case studies in magazines and newspapers almost never are), but their purpose was to "predictively programme" Cosmopolitan's readers - impressionable young women - so they began to think, "well, if this is what all the other cool girls are doing, I'm going to do it, too". They mimicked what they thought was already the norm, as human beings are inclined to do.

Hence, the sexual revolution got into full swing, by predictively programming the masses, and thus covertly manipulating them into co-creating the desired outcome.

With this in mind, there is something fundamentally inaccurate and misleading in the predictive programming we see in The Handmaid's Tale.

It is my belief, and has been for some time, that society is on course for a dramatic cultural revolution, of a very similar nature to the one we saw unfold on-screen, as modern day America mutated into the Republic of Gilead. I've written about this many times, observing the increasing visibility and cachet given to "cool young conservative activists" (such as Candace Owens, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Tate), and drawing particular attention to young UK author, Louise Perry, a veritable Serena Joy for the world stage if ever I saw one.

I think most readers are familiar with the unremittingly bleak misery that is the televisual depiction of Gilead, and I don't think things will get THAT bad (I don't think zealous depopulationists are going to be interested in kidnapping any women as broodmares, for a start). But I do certainly see a similar level of rigid social control, and curtailments on where we can go and when, and how we can dress (there's very little material difference between the Handmaid's "hoods", and modern "face masks", except the latter is more dystopian as it obscures more of the face). The "15-minute city", for example, and what are euphemistically known as "climate lockdowns", all mimic a similar level of oppressive social control to that which is depicted in The Handmaid's Tale.

When social engineers tried to impose this level of oppression and control most recently, throughout "Covid", they were met with very robust resistance, and widespread civil disobedience. Many of us ignored and dismissed "the rules" - never wearing face masks, dismissing guidelines about how often and how many friends and family we were "allowed" to see, and so on. And, generally speaking, these rules were easy to dismiss, as the authorities simply did not have the boots on the ground to enforce them. Remember when "the rules" said you could not leave your house more than once a day? Well, who on earth was going to police that, and how? I almost never see police on the streets these days, and lockdown was no exception.

Likewise for having friends round when it "wasn't allowed". There are nearly 30 million households in the UK, versus just 164,000 police officers. Even if every police officer dedicated every working hour to patrolling the nation's households, they still wouldn't have a hope of getting around more than a fraction of them.

So, in real terms, these rules and restrictions were meaningless as they were effectively unenforceable.

I think that will abruptly change, though, with the ever-inflating number of what are - almost indisputably at this point - UN soldiers being stationed all across the UK in very large numbers. The whistle-blowing funeral director, John O'Looney (an unfortunate moniker, I know), claims he has received inside intel that these men are military-trained, officer-level UN assets, who have been trained up in the Ukraine and Turkey, and are now here waiting to be deployed. And deployed they will be, O'Looney says.

I believe they are here to enforce - just as the armed state agents in The Handmaid's Tale did - the cultural revolution we are on the precipice of, and to make rules and restrictions that were effectively meaningless the first time round, very difficult to escape or resist this time.

So, thus far, The Handmaid's Tale could be seen to be giving a rough social blueprint as to what the overlords have in mind (whether they will succeed in their malignant plotting is another matter), but one profound inaccuracy in the depiction of cultural revolution we saw in The Handmaid's Tale was this: in Gilead, it is the previous "liberals" - college teachers, radical feminists, social progressives - who revolt and fight back. June, Janine, Moira - all the heroines are shown, from flashbacks to their previous lives and in statements they make to each other in Gilead, to be unabashedly liberal and progressive in every sense.

Okay, you may say, but Gilead is ultra-conservative, steeped in twisted religious dogma and regressive social stereotypes, so of course it's the liberals who fight back.

To this I would say, please examine the last three years. Who is it who has been outspoken, defiant, kicked back, rebelled, and challenged authority?

It's not the liberals. On the contrary: the more left-wing and liberal a person or organisation considers themselves to be, the more zealously and aggressively they have pushed the rules and restrictions. Overwhelmingly, the resistance has come from those who self-define as more centrist, libertarian, or conservative (hence the tediously lazy stereotype that rejecting vaccine mandates or lockdown restrictions is a "right-wing extremist" position).

This is because, for most of this century, and certainly the last ten years, liberalism has become the dogmatic social orthodoxy, the inflexible status quo, and, effectively, the national religion, whereas the voices that are challenging powerful authority and questioning social contagions belong to non (or ex-) liberals.

I grew up amongst all the liberal attitudes common to the '90s (when liberalism was a lot more sane), but as I progressed through my twenties, I increasingly started to reject it, discovering books like "Liberal Fascism". My rejection grew more intense the more intolerant and aggressive my "liberal" friends started to become, on social issues they had previously not appeared to have given the slightest modicum of thought to (e.g., the EU - I had never seen such a display of mass, rabid, social insanity that was the Brexit debate... until, of course, Covid).

Now I consider "liberal" to be a dirty word, as it has become a synonym for totalitarian tyrants who want to muzzle small children, sterilise teenagers, and forcibly inject the rest of us with eugenic poisons.

So, forgive me if I remain sceptical about the idea that, in a Gilead-style cultural revolution, the personality types described above would be the ones to gallantly swoop in and save us...

The most important thing to understand about so-called "liberals" is that they don't actually invest any emotional or moral currency in their so-called "principles". We saw this illustrated with stark precision with Brexit. Before 2016, almost none of these people could have coherently explained even what the EU is, never mind why they are so passionately attached to it, but, come the referendum, it miraculously became the focal point of their lives to the extent family relationships are lifelong friendships were irrevocably severed, if people fell on the "wrong" side of the divide.

I vividly remember one liberal friend expressing her tear-stained dismay on Facebook, in light of the Leave result, that she "couldn't believe she wasn't European any more".

Another friend declared "it's disgusting that the racists have won. Is the homophobia next?" (sic).

These people are both university-educated, by the way.

I include these examples as they illustrate quite clearly that many of the most impassioned defenders of Remain - and almost all liberal cause celebres - haven't got a clue what they are talking about. They have not adopted their pro-Remain, or pro-Covid, beliefs out of deeply-seated convictions; these are not positions they have thought through carefully and arrived at their conclusions based on where their rationale and moral compasses take them.

Nope, they have simply stuck their fingers up to the wind, seen what the "fashionable" beliefs are, professed to possess them, and then started loudly proselyting them, denouncing any heretics or unbelievers with the modern descriptors for such people (racist, sexist, homophobic, et al).

What so-called liberals do - again and again, over any and every issue you can think of - is find out what belief system authority wants them to have (what is pushed by The Guardian, the BBC, the big corporations, the universities), and then set about obeying as hard as they can, and demonisng anybody who does not, with a religious level of fervor.

This is what they believe makes them "good people". Have you noticed how, if you ever enter into debate with a "liberal", they will relentlessly refuse to look at anything other than "official sources"? Well, who decides what an official source is - the officials who create them? Lol. It's such a preposterous position - "I don't believe that officials lie to me and I won't believe it until the officials in question admit it".

Their refusal to look at the enormous abundance of evidence contrary to their own beliefs is rooted in their desperate desire to obey powerful authority at all costs, and their primal terror of challenging the status quo. Fundamentally, these people are cowering moral cowards, the adult equivalent of the kid who sucks up to the school bully to prevent them from being bullied themselves, ignoring the pleas for help of the smaller kid from the year below being pulverised by said bully. That kid probably misappropriated someone's culture or committed a microaggression, so fully deserves what's coming to him, shrugs the liberal.

That's why liberals have suddenly become completely obsessed with transgenderism - again, having barely given it a second thought until about five years ago - because the symbolic "school bully" will give them absolute hell if they don't (see what's happened to J. K. Rowling and literally any other prominent public voice that challenges the trans lunacy).

What you will note if you go into any environment, online or off, dominated by liberals is how much they GUSH. Instead of saying, "oh, that's really good, I like that", it will be "oh my GOD, this is the most AMAZING and PHENOMENAL thing I have EVER seen, you are a GODDESS amongst mere mortals!" (this is just when you bring them their decaf, fair-trade, almond-milk latte).

Have a look, for instance, at the comments on this utterly absurd (I really struggle to believe it's not parody) advert, where a grandfather demonstrates his "acceptance" of his transgender grandchild by donning some gaudy circus make-up. Look at the gushing in the comments, the over-the-top, hyperbolic, really beyond parody fawning.

You always see this in anything to do with any liberal "cause", and it's much more uncommon in other circles. Yes, people express their appreciation for things, sometimes enthusiastically, but never quite like this. "The gush" seems to be almost exclusively a liberal phenomenon.

So why do liberals do it? You've heard of fight, flight, freeze, right, the three well-known trauma responses? Well, there's another one: fawn. This response comes from a disordered place of terror perhaps more than any of the other three do, because, as I said about the school bully, liberals do this purely to protect themselves from victimisation or attack. If they can come across as really, really, REALLY liking whatever malignant force is behind their latest adopted trend, maybe that malignant force will leave them alone and concentrate their dark energies on others.

It is for this reason that I identify the primary thing The Handmaid's Tale got wrong - that the liberals will be the force that most stridently opposes any new 'Gilead'.

On the contrary: they will be its most strident enforcers.

As soon as the dominant social narrative flips (and it will), the terrified, cowardly liberals, with the moral depth of a puddle and simply looking to appease whatever scares them the most, will immediately become the most devout foot-soldiers of the new regime - exactly as they did in Covid.

Covid demonstrated irrefutably that the "liberal" belief system is not based on reason, evidence, ethics, morality, compassion, or logic - it's simply based on being reflexively obedient to authority, and as Stanley Milgran proved in his famous experiments, that is the most profound motivating factor for most people. Appeasing authority. Milgram clearly demonstrated that most human beings (about two-thirds) will inflict hideous pain and suffering on innocent strangers, up to and including death, if a perceived authority figure tells them to.

That is why "liberals" enforced Covid. It's why previously super-libertine, pro-promiscuity The Guardian agreed with the government when it banned casual sex ("there is really no way to safely get close enough to strangers for casual sex without a hazmat suit", The Guardian said), and why a whole generation of people whose mantra had previously been "my body, my choice" instantly did a 180 and decided the world's bodies belonged to the government.

It's because "liberal" isn't any longer a synonym for open-minded, accepting, or anti-dogmatic - it's a synonym for authoritarianism, and authoritarians, by definition, do whatever authority tells them.

So, under the new regime, the new Gilead-style dystopia, the most zealous adherents, the most ruthless enforcers, will not be the "Junes" and the "Moiras" - such people will fall lockstep into line, obeying the dominant social dogmas, just as they did in pre-Gilead days, when they were high-ranking members of the cultural elite, deeply involved in enforcing orthodoxies, e.g., university lecturers.

No, the ones who will resist and rebel will be those who have already proven their mettle in that regard, who have already shown their willingness and ability to stand against the crowd and challenge widespread social dogmas, whatever the cost.

So, in a "Gilead" style revolution, I would actually put my money behind a "Serena Joy" before a "June". In challenging the liberal shibboleths of the pre-Gilead world, Serena Joy demonstrated immense bravery, even putting her own life at risk. Of course, she got a lot wrong and ultimately she was tricked - she was a useful idiot for the higher-ups, who used attractive, ambitious young women to usher in their revolution, knowing that as soon as the revolution was complete, such foot soldiers would be thrown under the bus. This always happens in revolutions, and will no doubt happen to today's prominent "cool" young conservatives.

Yet it is clear that once ultra-misogynistic Gilead is established, Serena Joy realises she's been duped, and that she must challenge the established order, just as she did pre-Gilead. This is particularly well demonstrated when she leads a group of female campaigners to petition the Commanders to let little girls learn to read.

She has a finger removed for her temerity, but this goes to show: people who buck the trend and oppose dogmatic authority in one situation, will do it in another. People who don't, won't. In reality, there is no way that a "June" would be anything but a vacuous coward, obeying the rules and keeping her head down, and as if to demonstrate that, here is the actress who plays her - without the slightest shade of irony - wearing a facemask.

In conclusion: anyone who's been able to withstand the last three years standing firm and maintaining their principles, despite the torrential tidal wave of insults, abuse, threats, and many and various forms of loss, is a moral force to be reckoned with, who cannot even begin to be compared to someone who's idea of "activism" is wearing a Ukraine-flag facemask (yes, they're a thing...).

In the putative oppressive and tyrannical cultural revolution that may be coming, our best hope at resisting it is certainly not going to be through so-called liberals, but via the efforts of the "far-right extremists", whose only real "extremism" lies in their paramount commitment to opposing tyranny and preserving liberty - and this approach can only be described as being universally "right", insofar as it is - and always will be - on the right side of history.

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 free to all, 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.