A Guide to Identifying Camp 2

In my recent interview promoting Camp3News.com, I outlined my "three camps of awareness" framework and suggested that it might be helpful to have a guide to spotting those in Camp 2.

I summarised my "three camps" framework in the clip below:

In what follows, I spell out the "three camps of awareness" framework in more detail, before offering some thoughts on how to identify those in Camp 2.

Camp 1

Camp 1 is for the "normies" who uncritically accept official narratives and generally believe whatever the legacy media tells them. They get their talking points from "the news."

Their worldview is the product of having been heavily propagandised their whole lives. They have never learned to see through the propaganda or to think for themselves, despite believing that "no one tells me what to think."

Although Camp 1 has been rapidly shrinking since 2020, it still accounts for most of society, which is why so-called "strategic narratives" remain effective.

Camp 2

Camp 2 is for those who have doubts about Camp 1. They may realise, for instance, that commercial airliners cannot completely destroy 110-story steel-framed skyscrapers, let alone collapse a 47-story steel-framed building without touching it.

They realise that they have been lied to about highly significant events – by their own governments and by the broadcasters they once thought they could trust. They endure the emotional and psychological dislocation caused by that realisation.

They discover, with relief, that they are not alone in Camp 2. There are many others like them who have lost trust in mainstream institutions and are asking critical questions about how power really works in today's world. Some fall for the deceit that "we're all in together," united in the struggle against Camp 1.

What they do not realise is that Camp 2 is just another holding pen. From the very beginning, it was designed to hoover up sceptics and contain dissent. Social media is, in that respect, a social containment mechanism.

Camp 2 is led by well-known figures who dominate the "alternative media" scene. Their view counts tend to be artificially boosted by algorithms. Even when they are temporarily "cancelled," they emerge in a better position than they were before.

Their role it is to win the trust of those in Camp 2, only to keep a lid on potential resistance in various ways.

Although they tell the truth on certain issues, their purpose is ultimately malign, i.e., to distract and mislead dissenters, so that the ugliest truths (which underpin the power structure) do not enter into public consciousness. Like the three witches in Macbeth, they "win us with honest trifles, to betray [u]s in deepest consequence."

It is not just the Pied Pipers of Camp 2 that matter. Everyone who follows their tune becomes an active disseminator of propaganda, as per NATO's Cognitive Warfare doctrine of 2020. Thus, even seemingly well-intentioned actors can fall foul of Camp 2 propaganda and unwittingly serve as mouthpieces for it. In other words, not everyone in Camp 2 is a bad actor. Many simply get duped.

Camp 2 is a space where grifters and opportunists thrive, exploiting public distrust of Camp 1 to win people over, mislead them, and take their money.

To the uninitiated, Camp 2 seems like a bold and courageous place full of freedom fighters. In reality, it is a hall of mirrors.

Camp 3

Camp 3 is for those who are genuine about finding the truth and who pursue it in an authentic way. It does not claim to have "The Answers," but it at least strives for an honest approximation of the truth.

It is only a "camp" per se insofar as those in it feel marginalised, isolated, and stigmatised. It is a lonely and ugly place to be. Not only are the illusions of Camp 1 exposed, but so too are those of Camp 2. The sheer grotesqueness of the power structure reveals itself in ever finer detail.

Those in Camp 3 are banned, shadow-banned, and otherwise censored. The algorithms work against them. Videos which are being watched tens of thousands of times show view counts in the tens or perhaps the hundreds.

They are mistrusted, not only by those in Camp 1, but also many in Camp 2, who are not yet ready to process their ideas. For example, to some in Camp 2 it might seem radical to claim that "nanothermite" destroyed the Twin Towers, or that "SARS-Cov-2" was generated in a Wuhan lab rather than being naturally occurring. The idea that classified military technology was used on "9/11" or that the entire "Covid-19 pandemic" was a psychological operation, rather than a genuine public health emergency, is simply a bridge too far in terms of awareness.

Those in Camp 3 are systematically targeted – by censorship, smear campaigns, harassment, lawfare, death threats, and even murder in extreme cases.

Between Camps

The distinction between the three camps is not intended to be hard and fast. Individuals can move backwards and forwards between camps, depending on circumstance.

For example, they may set foot in Camp 3, only to find that it is too uncomfortable and then retreat back to Camps 1 and 2.

Or, they might reach Camp 3 on some issues but not others – the "pandemic," say, but not "climate change." This is understandable, given the large amount of effort needed to research any given topic adequately. While drowning in Camp 1 and Camp 2 propaganda, and while often having day jobs and/or family commitments, many people simply do not have time.

Or, people may feel "on the cusp" between camps, depending on how far along their journey they are. They might value the work of those in Camp 3, for instance, but also still feel attached to certain commentators in Camp 2 whom they have not yet seen through.

One feature of Camp 3 is the constant self-reflection and willingness to challenge one's own assumptions that is required. One never smugly assumes to have found "the Truth" or commentators who are "100%" reliable.

This entails open-mindedness to the possibility of there being more than three camps of awareness. Some have suggested that there may be a Camp 4, rooted in a spiritual/religious dimension – an even higher level of awareness. While a potential Camp 4 cannot be demonstrated empirically, it would be mistaken to rule it out as a possibility. Indeed, for all we know from our limited perspectives, there may be even more levels of awareness to reach, and we should have the humility to recognise that.

Identifying Those in Camp 2 – Propaganda Techniques

For those who have left Camp 1, and are aware of Camp 3, the challenge is how to spot those in Camp 2.

The rest of this article proposes guidelines for how to do so. Although certain names are named, the aim is not to produce a list of whom to trust and whom not to trust. I may have got it wrong in some cases. You should not rely on my judgment.

Rather, the aim is to provide a list of criteria that readers can apply when making their own assessments of which commentators are authentic and reliable and which are not. The aim is to get readers to think in a more structured and critical way about the "alternative media" they are consuming.

I reserve the right to update those criteria as thinking around them becomes more nuanced. This is a difficult and complex topic. Essentially I am attempting to construct a detailed theoretical framework that no one has ever tried to construct before.

An obvious starting point is propaganda techniques. Because Camp 2 is a holding pen like Camp 1, similar propaganda techniques are deployed. They include:

One-way Forms of Communication

This is what veteran propaganda specialist Mark Crispin Miller calls “suasion” (as opposed to "persuasion"). As in Camp 1, the aim is not to persuade, but to indoctrinate, typically by repeating the same message over and over to as many people as possible. The same positions are endlessly rehashed, without any evidence of learning or intellectual development.

There is no scope for meaningful dialogue or discussion. Any objections will not be properly acknowledged. Awkward questions will not be answered honestly. For example, when I asked Richard Gage why the Freon tanks beneath the Twin Towers were not damaged by the extreme underground temperatures which he alleges, this supposed expert claimed not to have known about the Freon tanks.

Coordination of the Message

As with Camp 1, if multiple talking heads are "on message" and are pushing the same concept or narrative (e.g. "the New Normal"), beware. For example, when two high-profile influencers, Candace Owens and Russell Brand, both converted to Catholicism in the same week in April 2024, just three week after Jordan Peterson's wife Tammy, while certain Camp 1 figures were also doing the same, there was ample reason to suspect that a narrative was being crafted.

Narrative Over Scientific Evidence

In Camp 1, "The Science" (a propaganda construct used to win public trust) has replaced real science, be it in terms of "climate change" or "pandemics." Strategic narratives about false flag terrorist attacks are contradicted by primary scientific evidence.

In Camp 2, similarly, narratives about extreme temperatures having been involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers do not match the observable scientific evidence. In the absence of hard scientific evidence, everything else is potential propaganda, subject to narrative manipulation.

Ignoring/Downplaying/Twisting of Counter-Evidence

In Camp 1, the legacy media routinely ignore, downplay, or mischaracterise evidence that challenges official narratives. For example, the protestors who marched in their millions against the Covid "measures" and who lined the streets of Canada during the Truckers' Convoy were described as "fringe" and "far right," if they were reported on at all.

Similarly, when evidence is presented that contradicts a Camp 2 narrative, it typically gets overlooked, trivialised, or distorted so that it is not taken seriously even if it manages to enter public consciousness.

For example, topics involving classified military technology, such as weaponised LENR and weaponised nanotechnology, are typically suppressed or ridiculed for no good reason.

The case of James Corbett in that regard is particularly interesting. Undoubtedly a Camp 3 personality in other respects, it is peculiar that he continues to maintain his relationship with Richard Gage and associates. One has to wonder whether, as one of the preeminent voices on "9/11 truth," he was somehow reined in and told to toe the Camp 2 line. Again, the boundaries between camps are not always hard and fast.

Use of Thought-terminating Clichés

Just as Camp 1 uses terms such as "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-Semite" to stigmatise opponents and close down debate, so terms such as "shill" and "controlled opposition" serve a similar function in Camp 2. Empty finger-pointing and epithet-hurling help no one, however, and are common traits of Camp 2 fake debates.

False Dichotomies

Camp 1 loves false dichotomies: the Cold War, the two-party system, etc. It does not matter which side one chooses: the result is always war, austerity, accelerating inequality, and transnationally coordinated attacks on the working classes.

Camp 2 also loves false dichotomies: Muslim hijackers vs. remote-controlled aircraft (ignoring impossible flight and crash dynamics); lab leak vs. naturally occurring virus (precluding consideration of no virus); Reform as an "alternative" to the two-party system (as though a new party will materially affect the nature of the system), etc.

Ad hominem Attacks

These are attacks against the person, not the argument.

In Camp 1, for instance, the legacy media labelled Richard D. Hall "Britain's sickest man" ahead of his high-profile trial in the High Court of Justice. This was the day after a Summary Judgment had been passed against Hall which prevented him from including his key evidence in the trial. The aim was to prejudice public opinion against Hall so that people would not think to examine his evidence in relation to the 2017 Manchester Arena incident.

By the same token, in Camp 2, calling Dr. Judy Wood "a totally crazy person," or engaging in any of the other countless attacks on her character, provides a pretext for not bothering to engage with the content of Where Did The Towers Go? Indeed, one of the most common characteristics of Wood's critics is that they have not actually read her one major work.

I was subjected to a barrage of ad hominem by Sabrina Wallace last year. It was not an effective way of trying to discredit my contribution to the second Omniwar symposium.

Any attack against the person, rather than the argument, should be regarded as a red flag.

Smear Campaigns and Attempts at Reputational Damage

These are deployed by Camp 2 just as they are by Camp 1.

For example, in Camp 1, certain X (then Twitter) accounts operated by the 77th Brigade were identifiable, for those in the know, by the fact that the Swaledale Mutton Company appeared near the top of their followers lists. Those accounts (which came to be known as the "Mutton Crew") were used to mass-report other accounts and engage in emotional provocation and harassment to drive dissenting voices off social media.

Similarly, when Young Mi Lee and Daniel Broudy published a controversial longtidunal study of the "Covid-19 vaccine" ingredients, they were viciously attacked online and offline in what was obviously a coordinated campaign that was largely driven by X accounts showing the mouse emoji in their bios. The campaign was successful: Broudy left social media.

A Favourable or Neutral Wikipedia Page

Wikipedia is a controlled platform, viz. the Philip Cross affair. It bans certain individuals, such as Judy Wood, from having a page and smears and misrepresents others who pose a threat to the control system.

If a supposedly critical individual or organisation has a favourable or neutral Wikipedia page, caution is warranted. They may be in Camp 2 rather than in Camp 3.

Funding Arrangements

Always follow the money. Where is the money coming from? Is there transparency around funding sources? Multiple considerations need to be taken into account.

Dependence on Major Donors

Those who are beholden to major donors are likely to find their independence compromised to a greater or lesser extent.

In Camp 1, funding streams often trace back to the major foundations, billionaire philanthropaths, and the complex network of corporations, governments, and international organisations that fund initiatives such as "vaccine passports," interoperable digital ID schemes, carbon credits, etc., as well as the pseudoscience needed to legitimise them.

In Camp 2, similarly, it is highly problematic when major donors are involved. For example, questions need to be asked about the role of wealthy British businessman Jeremy Hosking in bankrolling "alt media" personalities such as Andrew Bridgen and Laurence Fox. Are they anything more than handsomely remunerated actors performing for their paymaster?

Debt For Equity Arrangements

Using debt as an instrument for restructuring a country's economy is a longstanding tactic of neoliberalism, enacted through the IMF and World Bank since the 1980s at least.

Similarly, predatory capitalists can seek to use loans (sometimes interest-free) to a company/enterprise as a means of creating financial dependence, which can later be leveraged to demand a controlling stake in that company/enterprise.

If the demand is refused, the funding can be pulled and the company left in a precarious position, as apparently happened to OVALmedia, an independent documentary film making company, at the hands of German businessman Marcel Jahnke (use your browser to translate into English if you do not read German).

The fact that Jahnke now has a 20% stake in UK Column is therefore significant, as is the fact that a £250,000 long-term liability appeared on the balance sheet of Akita Media Ltd (the legal entity behind UK Column) in the last financial year – which is publicly available information on Companies House.

Until such time as UK Column clarifies its relationship with Jahnke, it is reasonable to question its continued independence.

Jahnke was one of my first Founding Members on Substack and, in my only communication with him, he offered to buy my son's power chair outright after I launched a crowd funder in July 2025. I thanked him for his offer, but declined his money given that the £4,000 target had already been smashed within 24 hours thanks to overwhelming public generosity. I have now cancelled his subscription.

Advertising and Sponsorship Deals

With advertising and sponsorship deals, commentators automatically lose their critical edge when it comes to the sponsor or the sponsor's industry. The same has long been true in Camp 1, with newspapers refusing to publish anything that might undermine their major investors.

In Camp 2, there is a similar correlation between the level of sponsorship accepted and the degree of compromise being made. Not all sponsorship is bad, but I personally chose to turn down multiple offers of sponsorship in the summer of 2025, which were magically offered just as my Brownstone fellowship was about to expire. It felt like I was being co-opted.

Health supplements and gold are popular sponsorship products in the "alt media." It is worth asking critical questions about the sponsors as well as the recipients of the sponsorship. For example, how different is flogging health supplements to flogging Big Pharma products? Granted, Big Pharma products are more likely to cause harm, but what evidence is there that either makes us well?

Similarly with gold: like any asset, it can go up, but it can also crash, as when it recently dropped 20% in a single week. Where gold is presented as a hedge against potential inflation caused by the end of the fiat currency system, fear-mongering tactics are being deployed, just like in Camp 1. If the debt-based fiat currency system is replaced by an asset-based technocratic system, as is the plan, there will be no hyperinflation, just a managed transition. But whatever the future holds, you will end up paying commission on your gold.

Scams

It is important to be on guard for scams. Many commentators have products to sell, and there is nothing wrong with that per se.

However, when someone with Jeff Berwick's troublesome past is promoting a miracle machine purportedly capable of curing virtually any condition for $10,000 a unit, it seems likely that desperate people are being exploited. Ana Mihalcea's promotion of the same scheme is equally troubling.

The Corona Investigative Committee raised over 1 million Euros in donations. Reiner Fuellmich unlawfully diverted 700,000 Euros into his and his wife's private accounts and was later found guilty of embezzlement. Many still think he is a hero or a martyr, but the 134-page legal judgment sets out all the relevant facts and is damning.

Nicholas Martin, on behalf of Mark Steele, wanted me to promote their claim that London’s ULEZ cameras are equipped with radar and lidar neuro-strike weaponry. I spent several days looking into it, before concluding that they were running a scam aimed at raised £10,000 through a non-refundable crowdfunder, ostensibly to cover costs for a legal campaign. It would be interesting to know what happened to the money raised.

Paid Trips Abroad

These need to be closely monitored. Who is paying whom and why? What networks are being cultivated, and to what end?

I myself went on a paid trip to Spain courtesy of the Brownstone Institute last year. It is appropriate to ask questions about that trip. I can honestly say, however, that I saw nothing untoward while I was there. No one tried to tap me up. No one made any unusual requests of me. I was not required to publish anything afterwards. There was no obvious "agenda," just a free and open exchange of ideas and an opportunity to meet new and interesting people.

In other contexts, however, there are obvious problems. Particularly for countries like China and Russia, from which Western journalists may only report with state approval, who arranged the necessary visas, to what end, and in what sense can the "journalism" produced still be deemed "independent"?

Jeremy Nell's (Jerm Warfare's) trip to China in September 2025 raises questions in that respect, as does James Delingpole's trip to Moscow the same month, as does Matthew Ehret's trip to Sochi, Russia, in November 2025. All three commentators were willing to report favourably on China/Russia in ways that were scarcely differentiable from foreign propaganda, supposedly in the name of "getting beyond Western propaganda."

The bizarre spectacle this week of UK Column reporting on DEFRA (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) from China (17:15) – the location being confirmed by Brian Gerrish in Extra – only adds to the mystery of what on earth is going on. According to UK Column, it is "okay to be pro-China," as their recruitment of Carl Zha confirms.

Funding for Nonprofits

Just as institutional credibility is important to Camp 1 (viz. the kudos that comes from being part of "the professions"), so it is important to Camp 2.

Whereas people may have doubts about individuals conveying their own viewpoints online, many are more likely to take seriously the position of an institution, particularly if it is a legally registered organisation with tax-exempt (charitable) status (presumed to be acting for the good of society).

Under IRS rules, a nonprofit must receive at least one third of its total support over a five-year period from public sources to maintain public charity status. The remaining two thirds can come from non-public sources, potentially even a single source, provided the IRS does not deem those sources to be in control of the board or operations or to be the beneficiaries of those operations.

Behind the scenes, however, it is anyone's guess what gentlemen's agreements may have been reached. This lack of transparency should encourage greater scrutiny, not greater trust, of nonprofits.

For example, only 40% of the income for the International Center for 9/11 Studies (operating as the International Center for 9/11 Justice) comes from "public support" (see Part II, Section C, 14). Where does the other 60% (i.e., $120,000 of tax-exempt funding) come from?

$10,000 of IC911J funding in June 2024 came from DAFgiving360, formerly known as the Schwab Charitable Fund, which has service agreements with subsidiaries of the Charles Schwab Corporation. For any critical thinker, this should raise alarm bells.

Additional Hallmarks of Camp 2

In addition to the propaganda tactics and funding arrangements discussed above, there are further tell-tale signs when Camp 2 is involved.

Proximity to the Power Structure

If a commentator is close to the power structure through which the transnational deep state operates, they should automatically be treated with suspicion.

For example, this may involve evidence of ties to royalty, aristocracy, intelligence agencies, investment banks, foundations, legacy media, governments, the military, the judiciary, international organisations, etc.

This does not mean that every "alt media" commentator with such ties is automatically a bad actor. However, given the countless levels of deception perpetrated by the deep state, it does mean that they should not be given the benefit of the doubt.

Unless it can be shown otherwise, it is more likely that they are still part of the power structure and working for it.

Alignment with State Power

We know that the legacy media is, in practice, nothing more than a propaganda arm of the state.

Camp 2 also falls quickly into line with state power. For example, when Richard D. Hall was found liable for harassment in October 2024 following a dubious High Court trial, a variety of "alt media" figures, including Miri Ann Finch, Abi Roberts, Aisling O'Loughlin, and Francis O'Neill, instantly took the side of the State and were quick to condemn Hall, despite not bothering to familiarise themselves properly with the facts of the case (search "Failures Within the 'Alternative Media'”).

Invisible Networks

Camp 2 is characterised by invisible networks that coalesce around wealth and power. I declined an invitation, for instance, to join a secret event hosted by Abby Rockefeller in September 2025, to which 25 well known "alt media" personalities (mostly American) were invited. The fact of being invited did not imply any culpability, but I imagine that most attended without informing their subscribers, thus rendering themselves susceptible to Rockefeller manipulation and control.

In a different context, J.J. Couey has made similar claims regarding the "health freedom movement" and its controlled nature (he refers to "national security actors" reading from the same scripts to produce an orchestrated circus show). Although I know less about that particular scene and am not endorsing Couey's specific claims, I suspect that he and I are coming from a similar place when it comes to recognising the existence and extent of invisible Camp 2 networks.

Saviour Figures and Broken Promises

In Camp 1, Donald Trump is presented as a saviour figure who will defend the United States against "globalists." In reality, he is delivering the United States directly into the hands of the technocrats.

Camp 2 has its own saviour figures in whom people invest their trust, only to be betrayed. RFK Jr. is one obvious example as he refuses to challenge the PREP Act and promotes wearables.

But there are many fake heroes out there. Some are manufactured to encourage people to surrender responsibility for taking action themselves. Others are narcissists and opportunists, particularly self-styled "leaders" in the "freedom movement." You will know them by their deeds.

Questionable Credentials

When new "heroes" with high view counts are offered up for public consumption, it is always worth checking their track record. For example, Brett Weinstein claims to be fighting Goliath, yet he is the brother of Eric Weinstein (MD of Thiel Capital) and pathetically modelled a bandana as a face mask in 2020.

"Nurse doctor" John Campbell emerged as a prominent critic of the "Covid-19 vaccines" in 2022 – having previously used his large YouTube following to encourage everyone to get injected. He also took down a video he did about the controversial longitudinal study of the "Covid-19 vaccine" contents mentioned earlier.

Andrew Bridgen was feted as a "hero" of the "Covid resistance" for his speeches in Parliament in 2022, yet he previously voted for "lockdowns" and the mandatory injection of care home workers, and he promoted "Covid-19 vaccination."

Dr. Aseem Malhotra was celebrated (not shut down) for his critical stance towards the "Covid-19 vaccines" after he started speaking out against them in September 2022, yet he was one of the "TV doctors" who had pushed them. His much-hyped documentary, First! Do No Pharm (2024), in which he was the star, does not mention the Covid era. He now advises RFK Jr. as well as Abraham House, which appears to be promoting Big Tech's takeover of healthcare.

Muddling Up Of Genuinely Subversive Ideas With Nonsense Ideas

Many people since 2020 have become much more open-minded to ideas that would previously have sounded far-fetched or preposterous.

Whilst this is a good thing, it is also easily exploited by those looking to sow confusion or to profit from the increased public appetite for "alternative" information.

Open-mindedness and searching for the truth can get conflated as every "alternative" theory under the sun is entertained, no matter how well or poorly researched. As Ben Davidson told James Delingpole (1h 19-21m), the risk is that "your mind becomes so open that your brain falls out."

All "alternative" theories are promoted because they challenge Camp 1, yet the end result is to blur the boundary between Camp 2 and Camp 3. Worse, the critical thinking skills needed to reach Camp 3 are thereby actively hindered.

Lawfare

Increasingly we are seeing the use of lawfare, or the threat of lawfare, being used to shut down critical inquiry and real investigative journalism – not only by states (as in the Richard D. Hall case), but by Camp 2 actors as well. Robert Malone's failed $25 million lawsuit against the Breggins is one high-profile example.

I myself was tacitly threatened with legal action by Charles Malet last week in order to dissuade me from publishing certain content, over which I had taken reasonable care, e.g. by challenging claims made and playing Devil's Advoate on UK Column's behalf. When I ethically offered a right of reply to UKC, I received the following:

It is in the public's interest to see this email, because it shows how the game is played and how information quietly gets suppressed.

Would UK Column actually have sued me, given that I did nothing wrong and acted according to professionally recognised standards of journalistic integrity? Who knows?

Do I want to find out? No, and therefore the mere threat, thinly veiled as it is, is sufficient to make sure I do not publish the content in question or give permission for anyone else to publish it.

Evidence of Cult Thinking

Camp 1 works through techniques of cult indoctrination, and so too, in certain instances, does Camp 2.

This typically manifests in a closed-mindedness whereby demands are made that you agree completely with a particular position/theory/commentator.

Doctrinal purity is involved: it is not enough to agree with only part, or even most, of the doctrine being advanced. Rather, the doctrine is to be accepted in its entirety, and is to become central to one's worldview.

If any of these conditions are not met, the Camp 3 critical thinker typically gets attacked.

We see this, for instance, in the aggressive behaviour of certain "no virus" proponents (I am agnostic on the issue, but I object to being bullied into conformity).

It surfaced again recently in Andrew Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist's attack on me for not accepting absolutely every element of Where Did The Towers Go? I was outrageously likened to Jim Fetzer and described as “silly” and perhaps “not a good guy.” Johnson wrongly claimed that I refuse to challenge all three of climate change, global energy, and terrorism narratives. I was bizarrely blamed for being “prolific” and for having a Powerpoint presentation ready for an interview that was agreed nine months in advance.

Because I dare to challenge the Hurricane Erin hypothesis and the significance of Wood’s magnetometer data, while remaining agnostic on the Hutchison effect, I appear to be persona non grata in the Wood camp — despite having published multiple overt defences of her work.

I first presented my counter-evidence in an article that was proof-read by Johnson himself (see the acknowledgement at the end). I did the intellectually honest thing by running my doubts past him first before publishing. But instead of rebutting my specific, evidence-based concerns point by point, Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist resorted to smears, innuendo, and ad hominem. Such behaviour is not conducive to the pursuit of the truth.

Mystification of Class Relations

Fundamentally, a global class war has been unfolding since 2020, in which a numerically tiny yet disproportionately powerful transnational ruling class has gone to war against the rest of humanity in a bid to subjugate, and ultimately enslave it, under a system of global technocracy.

Commentators who work to obscure that fundamental reality cannot plausibly claim a place in Camp 3.

Common mystifications involve poorly substantiated appeals to extraterrestrials, breakaway civilisations, and ancient bloodlines (where hard evidence is always thin). Blame gets attributed to specific ethnic or religious groups (Jews, Muslims, Jesuits, etc.). Multipolarism is promoted (i.e., BRICS as a healthy counterbalance to Western power, rather than all states collaborating to institute global technocracy). Some critics maintain that there are good and bad people within all classes (thereby misunderstanding the nature of class conflict).

Conclusion

As Debi Evans, Ant Critchley, and I discussed in our interview, people are getting fatigued by the information overload generated in the "alt media" space. They are not sure whom to trust – understandably, given the extent of the rottenness on display – and may retreat into listening to just one or two "trusted sources."

That is the wrong approach. No single source should be regarded as entirely trustworthy. Every source should be considered critically. Taking in a diversity of opinion is the way to go, provided one has a reliable way of filtering it and knowing what some of the red flags are.

What I have sought to do in this article is to provide a framework for filtering out Camp 2 content. Those who are serious about the pursuit of the truth need a framework for screening out the noise.

It is my hope that if truth seekers deploy the above framework to the content they are consuming, they will be much better able, in a short space of time, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Support My Work

If you enjoyed this article and are not a paid subscriber, please consider leaving a one-off tip for an amount of your choosing.

If you would like to make a one-off or recurring donation to help fund my work in general, I would be most grateful. There are numerous ways of doing so.

If you have not done so already, please consider taking out a subscription – free, paid, or gold-tier.