“Where are all those climate sceptics now?”, the blanket-gnawing thumb-sucker asked rhetorically in the headline. The implication, of course, was that Global Warming was now so totally real and deadly and beyond reasonable doubt that all those fools who used to question it had by now, quite rightly, fled into hiding for fear of the righteous retribution they fully deserved for their toxic, planet-destroying denialism.
So I wrote a reply in the Spectator which gently but firmly put the bed-wetting hysteric back into his cot. Climate, I explained, is not the same thing as weather. Just because it’s sunny doesn’t mean we’re doomed. Nor should we bomb the economy back to the Dark Ages on the basis of an untested theory that the harmless trace gas CO2 might somehow be used as a control knob for world temperatures.
You’ll find the piece here, if you’re interested. It’s a quick, easy read, nicely catty in places, but I don’t think it tells you much that you don’t know already. I’ve been making these Climate 101 arguments for years, most notably in my book Watermelons, which I first published in 2012. But they’re the points you make to a Normie audience, like most of the Spectator’s readership, rather than to the kind of Awake readership I am mainly addressing here.
What I didn’t mention in the Spectator piece, because it muddies the argument, is that yes of course all this freakishly hot weather we’ve been having is man-made. But the men doing the making aren’t ordinary, decent, God-fearing folk like you and me. Rather, they are the dodgy geezers in charge of all those weather-manipulation programmes - HAARP, NEXRAD, chemtrails and so on - which the Predator Class has been using for decades now to achieve its usual nefarious ends: death, destruction, immiseration, starvation, disaster capitalism, re-zoning, etc.
You can’t talk about this stuff in the mainstream, of course, because it just makes the readers think you are a nutter.
The Powers That Be know this. That’s why whenever I write a piece like my Spectator one, there’s a character who pops up regular as clockwork in the comments section to remind everyone of my batshit crazy belief system, viz:
James also thinks that Dinosaurs are fake, space doesn't exist, Paul McCartney died in the late 60s and the Southport killings never happened (check his X feed). He is, frankly put, completely mental.
Comments sections, as we know, are heavily infiltrated by bots and the intelligence services (if there is any difference between the two). Their mission is to create what is known as “manufactured doubt.” [See ‘Everyone Is A Baddie’, below]
This naturally invites the question: should us truth-seekers lay off the more esoteric conspiracy stuff in order to make our arguments more Normie-friendly?
I faced this dilemma when I was updating Watermelons, the book I wrote debunking the climate scare, originally published in 2012. Back then my Weltanschauung was pretty much a Normie one. Sure I sensed, not least because there was so much evidence to support it, that environmentalism was a form of elite conspiracy against ordinary folk. But there’s a lot I have discovered since which in my relatively Normie days would have struck me as outlandish.
For example, I had no idea of how big a role one family - the Rockefellers - had played in teeing up the climate scare, from the 1950s onwards. This they could do not only because of their access to virtually limitless resources, but also because they control so many institutions - newspapers, ‘scientific’ research centres, universities and so on.
Nor was I aware of the technologies which they (the global elites) have been using to manipulate weather in order to generate the headline-grabbing events - ‘wild fires’, hurricanes, floods, even earthquakes - which they then use further to ramp up the climate scare. “They’ve even got this space beam, called a Directed Energy Weapon, which they can use to zap the super yachts of inconvenient billionaires and destroy areas of Hawaii that they want to redevelop into 15 minute neighbourhoods, but which doesn’t work if you paint your roof blue,” I can imagine trying to explain to the James-Delingpole-of-ten-years ago. I doubt that he would have been terribly convinced.
And obviously I didn’t know - no Normie does: it would do their head in - that the people behind all this stuff, the tiny Cabal that runs the world, are all Satanic paedophiles.
But how much of this new information was it wise to include in my updated edition of Watermelons?
I thought long and hard about this and eventually decided: all of it.
You might wonder what relevance the Cabal’s Satanic paedophilic predilections have to a book about global warming. My rationale for this is not dissimilar to the one I offered recently to one of my podcast guests when he accused me of being ‘obsessed’ with this issue and of just using it to trawl for click-bait. Essentially, if you are fighting a war it helps if you know what makes your Enemy tick.
“But why would they do this?” is the question Normies most usually ask when you try giving them an overview of Who Really Runs The World.
Sure you could fob them off with the usual Normie-level explanations involving ‘money’ and ‘power’ but you would be doing the truth a disservice.
The people we’re talking about already have more than enough money and power. While they are not averse to acquiring more of both, neither of them is an itch they continually need to scratch. Doing evil, on the other hand, is a constant requirement in their tormented lives because the dark gods whom they serve require it of them.
Just because something is true, though, doesn’t mean that one is morally bound to mention it on every occasion. That Spectator piece I mentioned earlier provides a good example of when not to tell the whole truth. Had it said: “Global warming isn’t real because it was invented by trillionaire, child-eating Satanists who use gigantic death lasers to cause wild fires so their minions can clean up on the re-zoning and turn us all into slaves” it would likely have had fewer positive reader responses.
For some in the Awake not-a-community this is precisely why one shouldn’t waste any time writing for the mainstream media. Why involve oneself with an industry whose relentless lies and misreporting and disinformation made the Covid scam possible? Why write for an audience so wedded to the Normie paradigm that you have to pull most of your punches and muffle all your truth bombs? Why accept even a single slime-coated penny from one of the tentacular branches of the evil Beast System?
Well I don’t do it for the money, that’s for sure, because the money in journalism these days is dismal. I think I get paid less now for the fortnightly TV column I’ve been writing in the Spectator since 1997 than I did when I started it.
Rather I do it because it enables me to reach an audience who would never otherwise see my stuff because they don’t move in conspiracy circles. Yes, by and large you could call them Normies. But so are the vast majority of people in the world. And I don’t believe that the fact they think wrong things about most stuff is sufficient reason to write them out of my existence.
Whenever I read one of my more hardcore fellow conspiracy loons railing against Normies - how disgustingly fully-jabbed they are, how spectacularly they shat the bed during ‘covid’, how quick they were to demand that we Awake folk should be excluded or defunded or even imprisoned for refusing to submit to an experimental medical intervention - I think: “Yeah. We all know this. But what you’re doing is like picking on a kid with Down’s Syndrome.”
As Jesus almost said, the Normies will always be with us. Some of them are members of our families. Others of them are our friends. Others are the kind of randoms with whom one might find oneself trapped at a house party in August in a particularly remote part of Scotland.
To you, O pure ones, this may afford the perfect opportunity to demonstrate just how selfless and committed you really are. No more birthday cards for, or interactions of any kind with, family members who persist in believing that 9/11 was planned by a bearded man in an Afghan cave. No more friendships with anyone who calls them ‘contrails.’ As for that Scottish house party - let conviviality and generosity be damned: spoiling 15 other people’s holiday is a small price to pay for the ongoing fulfilment of your holy mission to enlighten the world as to the non-existence of viruses.
To me, though, this is snobbish zealotry. Apart from the fact that I don’t at all hate Normies - I just feel a bit sorry for them - I am averse to living in a world of self-enforced isolationism where the only people I talk to are the ones who more or less agree with me. Isolationism strikes me as the kind of behaviour one might expect from the evil elites we’re trying to overthrow. “Oh you mustn’t associate yourself with them. They are the profane. They are not privy to the recondite knowledge that makes us special,” is what Awake purity spirallers are basically telling us. Excuse me? Really?? Well if that’s the deal then I can’t see how our New Jerusalem is going to be a significant improvement on Their New World Order.
So this why I still write - though not very often, it must be said - for the mainstream media. But it’s a tricky balancing act. Part of my schtick throughout my writing career has been always to tell my readership exactly what I think. And you can no longer do that when you’re an Awake person writing for a Normie audience, because your basic assumptions are so very different. For example, when I’m writing for an Awake audience, I can take it as read that almost no one will believe in Evolutionary Theory and that quite a few of them will recognise it as a freemasonic conspiracy in which the devious, hypochondriacal, 33rd degree freemason Darwin was, of course, a leading player. But a Normie readership would consider such things anathema. They’ve been trained to think of Darwin as one of the greatest heroes of English history and of evolution as being so well established that it’s no longer theoretical. Diss Darwin - (unless the whole point of the piece was dissing Darwin, in which case you’d have no choice) - and you’d lose your audience as quickly as if you’d told them that ‘Shakespeare’ is evil and that anyway he wasn’t even the author, even though both those things are the case.
One of the most painful lessons I’ve learned in the public speaking side of my career is the importance of assessing your audience. Misjudge their tastes and you die horribly and might as well not have bothered. The same is true of writing. That’s why, whenever I write for the mainstream media I try not to mention that we haven’t been to the moon till at least the second or third paragraph. I’m a bit like a crocodile stalking a herd of migrating wildebeest gingerly approaching my river, aware that the slightest untoward move could frighten one and cause the whole lot to stampede on top of me. ‘Don’t frighten the wildebeest!’ as I am ever wont to say.
My problem here is that I have an incorrigible streak of mischievousness. In the TV column, for example, which I write once a fortnight I try to act as if I don’t know that TV is a gigantic brainwashing device and that all drama is a form of social control. But occasionally I just can’t help myself from slipping in cheeky insider references to characters like Alan Watt, whom nobody save fellow conspiracy loons will ever have heard of. I suppose it’s the equivalent of all those one-eye gestures and triangle hand shapes and so on that actors and politicians and churchmen use to signal to one another that they are members of the Big Club. But unlike the Big Club members I’m not doing it to get a hit of adrenochrome or promotion higher up the ladder leading to Satan’s arse. I just want to read someone in the comments section going: “Yes, James, I got it and I’m totally with you. I’ve been reading you for years and I’ve followed you down the rabbit hole. Keep doing what you are doing!” [I do actually get such messages sometimes. But not as often as I’d like].
But, as usual, I digress. We were talking, you may remember, about global warming. And we were wondering how much it’s safe to tell the children - aka the Normies - about this jolly important subject. Should one stick to the old arguments with which they are comfortably familiar - natural cycles, etc? Or should one try to move the discussion on and red pill them into realising that the climate industrial complex is more malign than they could have realised in their wildest dreams?
For reasons already stated, I’m going mainly with the first option. Take the win! Be happy and grateful how many people out there in the mainstream who now recognise that climate change is a hoax! Their profound climate scepticism may - who knows? - be their gateway drug to ever-increasing Awakeness.
The argument against this policy, though, is that to a degree you end up doing the Enemy’s work for them. That is, They don’t want you talking about chemtrails, HAARP, NEXRAD, Directed Energy Weapons, ‘elite’ depravity, Rockefellers, Satanic Ritual Abuse, etc so, by self-censoring, you are sort of surrendering to their evil will.
Also, if you form too close an alliance with mainstream climate scepticism you find yourself with some awkward bedfellows. This is why I don’t maintain much contact with the old chums who, five or ten years ago, I would have considered my staunchest allies in the great climate wars. It’s not that we’ve fallen out, exactly. It’s more that we’ve developed irreconcilable differences on certain other issues.
One of my old sceptic chums, for example, has been vigorously pushing the lab-leak theory on ‘Covid’ and has even written a book about it. I think this is an utterly bollocks theory - an Establishment cover-up narrative posing as dogged truth-seeking. But I wouldn’t want to say this to his face because it would be just rude.
Another is a rabid zionist. In fact, I’m guessing most of them probably would be if you asked them.
Quite a few - I can think of at least four - claim that chemtrails don’t exist and have been known to post about it on Twitter in a most annoying way.
But I’m not going to name and shame these people. I don’t understand this game we are apparently required to play where every time a Normie says something wrong and stupid we have to beat them to death with our pram toys. Who made that the rule, anyway? Why aren’t we allowed to do what I generally do in these situations, which is to roll my eyes, mutter “Twat!” at whoever has said the wrong and stupid thing, and then forget about it so I can move on to something more important? As I’ve said before and I’ll say again: Don’t feed the demons!
Anyway, while I’ve got you, if I’ve still got you, I’d like to borrow your crowd-sourcing services for a moment, if I may. I’m interested in hearing from any of you who can cast light on the phenomenon of man-made wild fires, like the ones at Lahaina and Pacific Palisades, and like the ones that nearly destroyed my mother’s house at Stourbridge in the West Midlands last week.
The “official” conspiracy theory on the Stourbridge fires is that they were started by kids inspired by some crazy new TikTok trend. But “kids following crazy new TikTok trend” sounds like a case of plausible deniability to me. Correct me if I am wrong but are not most of these so-called ‘wild fires’ actually started by arsonists in the pay of redevelopers who are in turn run by the Cabal? Is it even possible for a ‘wild fire’ to be started by, say, a broken bottle? [I mean broken glass isn’t like a magnifying glass, is it? Is this perhaps one of those urban myths They sow in our imaginations to make us more susceptible to the idea that ‘wild fires’ are caused by ‘careless’ picnickers, smokers and such like?] And to what extent do They now rely on Directed Energy Weapons these days? Or is it still mainly Old School: bloke in hoodie with matches and a can of petrol?
Article by James Delingpole
James Delingpole is a writer, broadcaster and truth seeker. He hosts the Delingpod - the world’s most entertainingly shambolic ‘conspiracy’ podcast.
DelingSTATS — Views: 171 • Unique visitors: 149
Feedback
Comments can be posted by Special Friends and VIPs. Log in or upgrade to join the discussion.
No comments yet.