Every child knows the ditty by heart (or they used to, back in those halcyon days of yore, when children still engaged in that antiquated endeavour known as ‘playing out’):
It looks like you and the others mentioned (Francis, Leo) have uncovered what amounts to 5th Column activity, from where you would not expect it. Perhaps where you should expect it.
I am starting to question James D but possibly too early to come to a conclusion.
I was on the JD chat for years. He banned all my favourite contributors and me. I couldn’t understand why he was so hostile to some, and chose foul mouthed and/or dodgy admins- now it all makes a lot more sense.
I no longer subscribe to JD's Substack. I thought some of his guests were not compatible with his Christian faith. As I commented I am genuinely questioning him, but it is too early to be certain. for me anyway.
Your comment does enforce suspicion of his position. He doesn't enjoy criticism.
Give it time. Let's not be too hasty with someone who professes the faith. I have queries not mentioned in my other comments. I am waiting, and like Paul, "Love bears all things, hopes all things and so on.
James is very engaging so I understand why you did so. He has paid a price for burning his boats with his former journalistic acolytes and others. His acceptance of Christianity also was a plus point for me and I trust he is in for the long haul. Your experience does not look good though he does not appreciate criticism and that may be the reason. To use unacceptable bad language is not in the character of a Christian in my view
JD is too much of an intellectual. I do not accept his confession of belief in Christianity - a born-again Christian? - at face value. I once emailed him my comments on the Old Testament and asked him if he accepted the OT in its totality. I never received a response.
Francis makes a good and detailed argument which I agree with. To me it looks like Moran and Delingpole etc. are part of a group to attract other high profile dissenters into a wasp trap. Red flag to me is how all these know each other, constantly associate, and interview each other.
There seems to be some sort of schism regarding James, who didn't appear to know who Ed was, and whom Ed insulted. Follow the hyperlink in my article regarding the "unprintably crude offer" and Ed is seen stating that James talks bollocks and is a clown. He's also insulted in the 'Chasing Dissent' pod where the sergeant and Ed say something about James being nuts. It's all very odd.
And why would JD have Francis on, allow him to say his observations re Bob without pushback and then allow the podcast to be published? For this reason and ones you have pointed out, I still give him the benefit of doubt.
Looking back at the now blindingly obvious controlled ops that attached themselves to JD from 2020 onwards (lozza, Abi, Charlotte etc etc) it seems to me that they have been desperately trying to contain him. It’s interesting he still has a bi- weekly Spectator column don’t you think? Another attempted form of containment perhaps
Jake Fern is a total wrongun for sure. His aggressive moonmongery gave the game away for me
If Francis is correct, and this is all a network. we have all been played like a fiddle for years. The whole movement led from the start by the overseers. Even though we knew this was their MO, they still pulled it off.
The thing that I find odd is that people who were seen as "thought leaders" pre-2020 were swept aside after 2020 and weren't deferred to by newcomers, who immediately appointed themselves "leaders" despite being very new to these issues. I frequented "conspiracy" forums from around 2012 onwards, and people I know who were doing great work then, such as the women running the Arnica natural health group, and well-known anti-vax groups, weren't appointed or (as far as I know) consulted post-2020, and instead, a core of former "normies" were suddenly seen as leaders of the resistance.
yes, in hindsight that was a definite red flag. As an outsider I didn't notice anything odd cos I was never in and around to things prior to 2020. the people with the platforms seemingly steamrolled everyone. I also think there was a deliberate strategy to flatter people, which is also another red flag but sadly very effective.
And we'd still be in the dark now if they hadn't effectively outed themselves!
i tend to agree with 90% of Miri and Francis' output , probably my must trusted researchers and both great writers.......so on this theme of double agents in the midst of the truth movement , who else do other readers consider as reliable and truthful as possible. I personally havent got on the bandwagon of "the big dogs" Icke/Jones/Pool/Fuentes ie the ones with too big a voice
Wow. Only very loosely knowing about Guy Fawkes and now this article being sort of a red pill for me, I think he's a hero and not a villain. IMO, the dissident group seem to be growing in direct correlation to the knowledge about governments as slave agents is growing.
Are you implying that Ed The Techie may not even have existed? Or is actually dead ? That the funeral was staged? I remember a Brass Eye episode which featured a segment about an Irish couple staging the funeral of their own daughter. I think it's available on yt but as it blasphemes Our Lady I won't recommend watching it.
There is no verifiable proof beyond social media posts that Ed died or had a funeral. I cannot find official funeral notices or obituaries. I can find more evidence that he existed, including a birth certificate and entry on 192 people, however, there is no clear evidence that I am aware of that he ever attended any events or clear proof that people in "the movement" ever met him. I would be very happy to see such evidence should it exist.
I think scholar, Gloria Moss, convincingly shows the Gunpowder Plot was a psyop and just like the alleged gruesome killing of Robert Hubert for his alleged setting alight of the bakery in another event that Gloria also shows to be a psyop, the Great Fire of London 1666, we have no reason to believe any "killing" occurred in either event - which isn't to say it didn't. (Suspicious of reported deaths in the Great Fire I looked up James Shirley, illustrious playwright, who supposedly died along with his wife on the same day a month after the fire of "fright and exposure". "Hmmm," I thought to myself, "I wonder if he owed money perhaps and just wanted to 'disappear'?" I looked up his oeuvre to discover a play, The Gamester, which we are told "is noteworthy for its realistic and detailed picture of gambling in its era."
What Francis doesn't account for in his analysis is that we are psychologically profiled by those in power and targeted accordingly. When Francis doesn't get answers from Bob Moran on questions about Ed he makes that mean there's something suspect about Bob whereas my interpretation is that Bob may well have been targeted in such a way as to feel a sense of loyalty to Ed and is loath to respond about him negatively.
I have personal experience of telling people about people people being agents targeting them - no question about it - and they simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Examples:
Mark Crispin Miller - crisis actor 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser befriended him
Relatives of Julian Assange - Chelsea Manning is an agent and Collateral Murder faked - won't respond to the evidence
Francis himself has been duped by "astronauts didn't land on the moon" agent, Dave McGowan, and in a rather gobsmacking way. He cites a claim in Wagging the Moondoggie omitting the starting qualifier of the sentence "Word on the street is that". Really, Francis? Firstly, shouldn't that qualifier make you rather doubtful about the claim apart from the fact that it is a pretty implausible claim at the outset.
"One of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead."
I wrote a critique of Francis's post and put a comment on his post - his response was merely to provide a link to part II. So Francis doesn't respond to critiques of his work but expects others to respond to his questions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
Francis, the reason that 9/11 activist, Matt Campbell, behaves strangely is that he's an agent / crisis actor "loved one" and analysts who've woken up to the fact that death and injury were staged (surely to goodness by now, Francis) know he's an agent, we don't need to ponder over his devil's horns.
It would be so easy to interpret Francis's behaviour as that of an agent:
--- He propagates the work of "we didn't land on the moon" agent, Dave McGowan, in the same way that agents propagate each other's work on the subject
--- He has created division among those who are in the orbit of Bob Moran
But I don't think Francis is an agent because we always need to take a nuanced approach and it helps when you know how prominent people in opposition movements are targeted by agents which Francis evinces no understanding of.
What is one to make of your meandering post? You have created a web of complexity out of something quite simple. What have the fake moon landings to do with asking simple questions which require straightforward answers? Is your knowledge about 9/11 as dismal as your apparent belief in man having landed on the moon? Do try to find out why Dr Judy Wood had to ask "Where did the towers go?", and presented her research in a book with the same title. You will learn many things about which you appear to have no knowledge.
Common sense questions require common sense answers. Do try to avoid introducing complexity into simplicity. "Orbit of Mr Bob Moran", a god-like being! Aaagh. Thank God we have realists like Miri and Francis, with their feet firmly planted on the ground.
As a subject the moon landings have nothing to do with Ed the Techie, however, Francis's lack of response to a critique of his work on the subject is similar to the lack of response he gets from Bob Moran. It's hypocritical to not respond to critiques of your work but then demand others respond to your questions no?
I'm not trying to suggest that Bob Moran is godlike by the use of orbit, for goodness sake - it just refers to people who he might see at events and so on.
I do not know anything about your critical comments on Francis's previous articles. I only became a subscriber to his substack yesterday, having only read his excellent 3 articles relating to "Ed", whoever he is/was, real or imaginary, alive or dead. If your earlier "critique" was of a similar quality to your comments here then I am not surprised that Francis considered it wise to avoid responding to your criticism. May I suggest that you carry out a comprehensive research into the subjects of moon tomfoolery and 9/11? If you do your homework diligently you will discover the truth and there will be no need to ask questions springing from misinformation. In particular, the 9/11 "truther movement", headed by Richard Gage, is a psy op designed to prevent people apprehending the truth.
I've cited from my critique: Francis’s citing of the unevidenced and at-first-sight implausible claim by Dave McGowan of Soviet scientists stating that four feet of lead were required to protect their astronauts.
The Russians/Soviets were as bad as Amrikans. Yuri Gagarin circling in space was a hoax, just as the moon tomfoolery was later. They knew each other's game but they had a tacit agreement not to spill the beans. And you are asking me to argue in favour of the rubbish spewed out by one of the conspiring parties! I do not wish to be a party to whatever the dispute was between you and Francis.
I predicted that you would do a red-herring thing in response ... and you did.
You said: "If your earlier "critique" was of a similar quality to your comments here then I am not surprised that Francis considered it wise to avoid responding to your criticism."
My response was to point out Francis's citing of Dave McGowan's unevidenced and implausible claim about Soviet scientists and lead shielding and invited you to argue for its merit.
You:
--- Didn't argue for its merit
--- Have provided no case for Francis considering it wise to avoid responding to my criticism.
Actually, I have to agree that it probably was wise ... cos there is no response to that nonsense other than admitting that it is nonsense and obviously Francis doesn't want to admit he swallowed and is propagating nonsense.
That is all I have to say on the matter ... but you go for your life with your red-herrings, SS.
He's an agent and tells lies on a number of subjects including 9/11, the Boston bombing and the moon landings. The claim that Soviet scientists said four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect astronauts is an outrageous whopper that Francis simply accepts as true.
Wagging the Moondoggie: a masterwork of propaganda
It looks like you and the others mentioned (Francis, Leo) have uncovered what amounts to 5th Column activity, from where you would not expect it. Perhaps where you should expect it.
I am starting to question James D but possibly too early to come to a conclusion.
I was on the JD chat for years. He banned all my favourite contributors and me. I couldn’t understand why he was so hostile to some, and chose foul mouthed and/or dodgy admins- now it all makes a lot more sense.
I no longer subscribe to JD's Substack. I thought some of his guests were not compatible with his Christian faith. As I commented I am genuinely questioning him, but it is too early to be certain. for me anyway.
Your comment does enforce suspicion of his position. He doesn't enjoy criticism.
Give it time. Let's not be too hasty with someone who professes the faith. I have queries not mentioned in my other comments. I am waiting, and like Paul, "Love bears all things, hopes all things and so on.
I foolishly took out an annual subscription which expires early next month.
James is very engaging so I understand why you did so. He has paid a price for burning his boats with his former journalistic acolytes and others. His acceptance of Christianity also was a plus point for me and I trust he is in for the long haul. Your experience does not look good though he does not appreciate criticism and that may be the reason. To use unacceptable bad language is not in the character of a Christian in my view
JD is too much of an intellectual. I do not accept his confession of belief in Christianity - a born-again Christian? - at face value. I once emailed him my comments on the Old Testament and asked him if he accepted the OT in its totality. I never received a response.
Yeah he doesn’t give me the impression he does actually want to know the true meaning in the OT - he just wants to talk about it.
Please see my reply above, I put it in the wrong place!
Has he really burnt his boats though? If he’s still pals with Gove but openly slates Doc Malik 🤷🏼♀️
Please see my comment just posted.
Francis makes a good and detailed argument which I agree with. To me it looks like Moran and Delingpole etc. are part of a group to attract other high profile dissenters into a wasp trap. Red flag to me is how all these know each other, constantly associate, and interview each other.
There seems to be some sort of schism regarding James, who didn't appear to know who Ed was, and whom Ed insulted. Follow the hyperlink in my article regarding the "unprintably crude offer" and Ed is seen stating that James talks bollocks and is a clown. He's also insulted in the 'Chasing Dissent' pod where the sergeant and Ed say something about James being nuts. It's all very odd.
And why would JD have Francis on, allow him to say his observations re Bob without pushback and then allow the podcast to be published? For this reason and ones you have pointed out, I still give him the benefit of doubt.
Looking back at the now blindingly obvious controlled ops that attached themselves to JD from 2020 onwards (lozza, Abi, Charlotte etc etc) it seems to me that they have been desperately trying to contain him. It’s interesting he still has a bi- weekly Spectator column don’t you think? Another attempted form of containment perhaps
Jake Fern is a total wrongun for sure. His aggressive moonmongery gave the game away for me
Very odd indeed.
If Francis is correct, and this is all a network. we have all been played like a fiddle for years. The whole movement led from the start by the overseers. Even though we knew this was their MO, they still pulled it off.
The thing that I find odd is that people who were seen as "thought leaders" pre-2020 were swept aside after 2020 and weren't deferred to by newcomers, who immediately appointed themselves "leaders" despite being very new to these issues. I frequented "conspiracy" forums from around 2012 onwards, and people I know who were doing great work then, such as the women running the Arnica natural health group, and well-known anti-vax groups, weren't appointed or (as far as I know) consulted post-2020, and instead, a core of former "normies" were suddenly seen as leaders of the resistance.
yes, in hindsight that was a definite red flag. As an outsider I didn't notice anything odd cos I was never in and around to things prior to 2020. the people with the platforms seemingly steamrolled everyone. I also think there was a deliberate strategy to flatter people, which is also another red flag but sadly very effective.
And we'd still be in the dark now if they hadn't effectively outed themselves!
i tend to agree with 90% of Miri and Francis' output , probably my must trusted researchers and both great writers.......so on this theme of double agents in the midst of the truth movement , who else do other readers consider as reliable and truthful as possible. I personally havent got on the bandwagon of "the big dogs" Icke/Jones/Pool/Fuentes ie the ones with too big a voice
Reliable and truthful: Kit Knightly, James Corbett, Mike Yeadon(+ Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, etc), Sasha Latypova, Iain Davis, and several others.
And Rusere Shoniwa !
+ Lies are Unbekoming, Esc Key, both of whom prefer to hide their identities.
Wow. Only very loosely knowing about Guy Fawkes and now this article being sort of a red pill for me, I think he's a hero and not a villain. IMO, the dissident group seem to be growing in direct correlation to the knowledge about governments as slave agents is growing.
Are you implying that Ed The Techie may not even have existed? Or is actually dead ? That the funeral was staged? I remember a Brass Eye episode which featured a segment about an Irish couple staging the funeral of their own daughter. I think it's available on yt but as it blasphemes Our Lady I won't recommend watching it.
There is no verifiable proof beyond social media posts that Ed died or had a funeral. I cannot find official funeral notices or obituaries. I can find more evidence that he existed, including a birth certificate and entry on 192 people, however, there is no clear evidence that I am aware of that he ever attended any events or clear proof that people in "the movement" ever met him. I would be very happy to see such evidence should it exist.
I'm getting the word 'exhumation'
I think scholar, Gloria Moss, convincingly shows the Gunpowder Plot was a psyop and just like the alleged gruesome killing of Robert Hubert for his alleged setting alight of the bakery in another event that Gloria also shows to be a psyop, the Great Fire of London 1666, we have no reason to believe any "killing" occurred in either event - which isn't to say it didn't. (Suspicious of reported deaths in the Great Fire I looked up James Shirley, illustrious playwright, who supposedly died along with his wife on the same day a month after the fire of "fright and exposure". "Hmmm," I thought to myself, "I wonder if he owed money perhaps and just wanted to 'disappear'?" I looked up his oeuvre to discover a play, The Gamester, which we are told "is noteworthy for its realistic and detailed picture of gambling in its era."
https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/04/the-gunpowder-plot-and-second-lockdown-on-5-november/
https://off-guardian.org/2021/11/05/gunpowder-treason-plot-2/
https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/01/the-great-fire-of-london-cui-bono/
What Francis doesn't account for in his analysis is that we are psychologically profiled by those in power and targeted accordingly. When Francis doesn't get answers from Bob Moran on questions about Ed he makes that mean there's something suspect about Bob whereas my interpretation is that Bob may well have been targeted in such a way as to feel a sense of loyalty to Ed and is loath to respond about him negatively.
I have personal experience of telling people about people people being agents targeting them - no question about it - and they simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Examples:
Mark Crispin Miller - crisis actor 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser befriended him
Relatives of Julian Assange - Chelsea Manning is an agent and Collateral Murder faked - won't respond to the evidence
Francis himself has been duped by "astronauts didn't land on the moon" agent, Dave McGowan, and in a rather gobsmacking way. He cites a claim in Wagging the Moondoggie omitting the starting qualifier of the sentence "Word on the street is that". Really, Francis? Firstly, shouldn't that qualifier make you rather doubtful about the claim apart from the fact that it is a pretty implausible claim at the outset.
https://francisoneill.substack.com/p/moon-walkers-part-1
"One of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead."
I wrote a critique of Francis's post and put a comment on his post - his response was merely to provide a link to part II. So Francis doesn't respond to critiques of his work but expects others to respond to his questions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
Francis, the reason that 9/11 activist, Matt Campbell, behaves strangely is that he's an agent / crisis actor "loved one" and analysts who've woken up to the fact that death and injury were staged (surely to goodness by now, Francis) know he's an agent, we don't need to ponder over his devil's horns.
It would be so easy to interpret Francis's behaviour as that of an agent:
--- He propagates the work of "we didn't land on the moon" agent, Dave McGowan, in the same way that agents propagate each other's work on the subject
--- He has created division among those who are in the orbit of Bob Moran
But I don't think Francis is an agent because we always need to take a nuanced approach and it helps when you know how prominent people in opposition movements are targeted by agents which Francis evinces no understanding of.
What is one to make of your meandering post? You have created a web of complexity out of something quite simple. What have the fake moon landings to do with asking simple questions which require straightforward answers? Is your knowledge about 9/11 as dismal as your apparent belief in man having landed on the moon? Do try to find out why Dr Judy Wood had to ask "Where did the towers go?", and presented her research in a book with the same title. You will learn many things about which you appear to have no knowledge.
Common sense questions require common sense answers. Do try to avoid introducing complexity into simplicity. "Orbit of Mr Bob Moran", a god-like being! Aaagh. Thank God we have realists like Miri and Francis, with their feet firmly planted on the ground.
As a subject the moon landings have nothing to do with Ed the Techie, however, Francis's lack of response to a critique of his work on the subject is similar to the lack of response he gets from Bob Moran. It's hypocritical to not respond to critiques of your work but then demand others respond to your questions no?
I'm not trying to suggest that Bob Moran is godlike by the use of orbit, for goodness sake - it just refers to people who he might see at events and so on.
Typical facile response missing the point.
I do not know anything about your critical comments on Francis's previous articles. I only became a subscriber to his substack yesterday, having only read his excellent 3 articles relating to "Ed", whoever he is/was, real or imaginary, alive or dead. If your earlier "critique" was of a similar quality to your comments here then I am not surprised that Francis considered it wise to avoid responding to your criticism. May I suggest that you carry out a comprehensive research into the subjects of moon tomfoolery and 9/11? If you do your homework diligently you will discover the truth and there will be no need to ask questions springing from misinformation. In particular, the 9/11 "truther movement", headed by Richard Gage, is a psy op designed to prevent people apprehending the truth.
I've cited from my critique: Francis’s citing of the unevidenced and at-first-sight implausible claim by Dave McGowan of Soviet scientists stating that four feet of lead were required to protect their astronauts.
I invite you to go ahead and argue for its merit.
The Russians/Soviets were as bad as Amrikans. Yuri Gagarin circling in space was a hoax, just as the moon tomfoolery was later. They knew each other's game but they had a tacit agreement not to spill the beans. And you are asking me to argue in favour of the rubbish spewed out by one of the conspiring parties! I do not wish to be a party to whatever the dispute was between you and Francis.
I predicted that you would do a red-herring thing in response ... and you did.
You said: "If your earlier "critique" was of a similar quality to your comments here then I am not surprised that Francis considered it wise to avoid responding to your criticism."
My response was to point out Francis's citing of Dave McGowan's unevidenced and implausible claim about Soviet scientists and lead shielding and invited you to argue for its merit.
You:
--- Didn't argue for its merit
--- Have provided no case for Francis considering it wise to avoid responding to my criticism.
Actually, I have to agree that it probably was wise ... cos there is no response to that nonsense other than admitting that it is nonsense and obviously Francis doesn't want to admit he swallowed and is propagating nonsense.
That is all I have to say on the matter ... but you go for your life with your red-herrings, SS.
What's wrong with Dave McGowan?
He's an agent and tells lies on a number of subjects including 9/11, the Boston bombing and the moon landings. The claim that Soviet scientists said four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect astronauts is an outrageous whopper that Francis simply accepts as true.
Wagging the Moondoggie: a masterwork of propaganda
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/wagging-the-moondoggie-a-masterwork