Jeremy Nell, Marcel Jahnke, and China - Part 4
Part 4 - Howlers
Introduction
For anyone who has made it to the end of this series, I should probably point out and correct a series of howlers made by Nell in his hit piece on me.
Basically, his entire piece relies on the reader not having read my Guide to Identifying Camp 2. Rather, in classic Camp 2 fashion, it is based on caricatures and misrepresentations.
“I don’t like public spats, and I don’t consider this one to be such,” Nell writes, before publicly attacking me for no good reason. Among other things, he accuses me of “armchair theorising,” of being “divisive and dangerous,” of being a “gatekeeper,” of creating paranoia, of alleging guilt by association, and of “encouraging people to retreat into isolated purity.”
It is an obvious case of “too much protesting.”
Particularly unpalatable in that context is his disingenuous feigning of politeness and confusion. For example, his use of “David” instead of “Hughes” makes it sound as though we are friendly and on first name terms, and it also comes across as patronising.
Nell claims that what motivated him to write his piece was mere “confusion about [my] article – what it’s trying to achieve or what his end goal might be.”
Evidently he did not read it properly, then, for the “end goal” was clearly spelled out:
[T]he 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.
There are no grounds for confusion here, unless Nell is insinuating that I was lying. Negative insinuations are a Camp 2 tactic.
On the Three Camps of Awareness
Moving on to some of the howlers, Nell claims that my “three camps of awareness” framework is unoriginal because
The ‘Third Camp’ concept dates back to the mid-20th century, particularly in socialist thought led by figures like Hal Draper. It was originally defined as ‘Neither Washington nor Moscow’, rejecting both Western capitalism and Soviet-style communism in favour of an independent socialist stance.
This is ridiculous. The “three camps of awareness” is a framework to explain perception management. It has nothing to do with mid-20th century socialist politics or Cold War non-alignment.
On the three camps, Nell writes:
By dividing humanity into three neat camps, he creates exactly the kind of false dichotomy he criticises in others.
People don’t fit into tidy categories.
Someone might be genuinely sceptical about certain official narratives whilst accepting others. They might be partially correct about some issues whilst completely wrong about others. They might evolve their thinking over time, moving between different levels of awareness on different topics.
Again, did he not take the time to read my Guide to Identifying Camp 2 properly before writing this? In a section titled “Between Camps,” I wrote:
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” [...].
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.
It is as though Nell took my words and sought to twist them against me, relying on his readers not having read my article.
“And why three camps?,” Nell asks. “Why not five? Or 100? Or 547?”
Yet, I had pointed to the need for “open-mindedness to the possibility of there being more than three camps of awareness.” Again, Nell seems to be twisting my own words against me – a highly dishonest form of argumentation.
He claims that the “three camps of awareness” framework is “just another form of ‘us versus them’ thinking dressed up in sophisticated language and word salads.”
I was not aware that “three camps” is a word salad. “Us vs. them” obviously makes no sense in the context of three camps. Rather, the whole point of the framework is to move beyond the false dichotomy of “us” vs. “them.” Contrary to the claims of Camp 2, “we” are not all on the same side against “them.” Attempts to impose false unity should be treated with suspicion.
“Monopolising the Truth”?
According to Nell, “David’s framework demands that we view everyone through his particular lens, forcing everyone into predetermined boxes.” Apparently, it is “reductionist” and I seek to “monopolise the truth” in a kind of “cult-thinking.”
Really? What I actually wrote was:
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 is the opposite of “monopolising the truth” and trying to force people into “predetermined boxes,” for it requires mental agility and a willingness to concede when one is wrong.
Nor is there anything crude or “reductionist” about the framework, which is why I “reserve the right to update those criteria [around the three camps] as thinking around them becomes more nuanced. This is a difficult and complex topic.”
Nell goes on:
Perhaps most unsettling is the implicit claim to be the sole arbiter of authentic truth-seeking. By positioning himself as the enlightened observer who can identify the ‘real’ truth-seekers from the controlled opposition, David assumes a position of ultimate authority that should make any critical thinker deeply uncomfortable.
Moreover, he accuses me of being a “gatekeeper of authentic resistance” – “the ultimate insider who can reveal which outsiders are really insiders in disguise.”
Again, this is a gigantic misrepresentation of what I actually wrote:
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.
So much, then, for positioning myself as an “ultimate authority” who alone determines who the real “insiders” are. Why does Nell insist on twisting my every word?
“Knowingly or not,” Nell claims, “David is encouraging people to retreat into isolated purity rather than engaging in nuance and complexity.”
Not so. I note that “I am attempting to construct a detailed theoretical framework” and that my thinking around the three camps — in which I encourage people to take an interest — is becoming “more nuanced” and “complex.” Once again, Nell has taken my exact words and deceptively reframed them.
“We need intellectual humility rather than attempts to monopolise truth,” Nell states.
This feels like gaslighting. I have stressed the need for “intellectual humility” in many interviews. I also wrote that “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.” It takes some nerve to try turning the phrase “intellectual humility” back against me.
Subjectivity and Objectivity
Nell caricatures my “three camps of awareness” framework as “a highly subjective interpretation that conveniently places him and those who agree with him in the virtuous ‘Camp 3’ whilst casting doubt on pretty much everyone else.”
Yet, the whole point of the framework is to help remove subjectivity from the equation when deciding who in the independent media is trustworthy and who is not. The categories it deploys are intended as objective criteria.
For example, it is not “subjective” to claim that funding arrangements can compromise impartiality. It is a fact. Critical thinkers can then consider that criterion when forming their own assessment of particular individuals and organisations based on known funding arrangements.
If certain commentators tick multiple Camp 2 boxes, they deserve to be treated with caution – not because I say so, but because there is an objective rationale for doing so.
It is not about me trying to elevate a select few commentators into a position of “virtue.” I was perfectly clear:
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.
Scope for Disagreement
Citing my concerns about James Corbett’s ongoing alliance with Richard Gage and the “International Center for 9/11 Justice,” Nell claims that “David can’t simply accept that someone might disagree with his assessment.”
Is that so? Andrew Johnson disagrees with my views on Hurricane Erin, but I am happy to accept that we have, for now, reached a point of reasonable disagreement.
Johnson is one of many commentators to have raised evidence-based doubts about Gage’s role. The fact that I share his doubts is also reasonable, and therefore so too is my concern about Corbett’s relationship with Gage. It is all evidence-based, not a “cult-like” demand that everyone agrees with me.
Nell asserts that my “three camps of awareness” framework is “unfalsifiable [...] anyone who doesn’t fully conform must, in his view, be compromised in some way.”
Why is the framework unfalsifiable? Any of its many criteria could be challenged. For example, take dependence on major donors. Is it, or is it not, true that “Those who are beholden to major donors are likely to find their independence compromised to a greater or lesser extent”? That is a falsifiable proposition.
As for the claim that anyone who does not conform to the framework must be compromised in some way, it ignores what I had to say about intentionality:
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.
Such people are not “compromised,” just misled.
Dividing the Opposition?
Nell’s hit piece continues:
By encouraging people to view other dissidents with suspicion and to constantly police one other [sic.] for signs of ‘Camp 2’ behaviour, he creates a paranoid atmosphere that destroys the trust necessary for effective collective action. Rather than building bridges between different strands of alternative media, his approach pushes for endless infighting and purity tests. It transforms allies into enemies and turns every disagreement into evidence of possible infiltration or control.
How naive does one have to be? Ever since Sunstein and Vermeule (2009, p. 224) called for “government agents (and their allies) to “enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories,” it has been undeniable that there is state infiltration of the “alt media.” Of course we should be suspicious!
Nell refers on multiple occasions to “controlled opposition.” Does he think that bridges should be built with those suspected of being in it?
What about all the dishonest grifters? Should we “build bridges” with them, too? Will they help good and honest people to take “effective collective action,” or just take their money?
What of those pushing propaganda while dressing it up as truth seeking? Should we “build bridges” with them, or call them out for what they are doing?
We do not need “purity tests” (another allusion to cults) to work out whom to trust. It is not a question of adhering to some kind of sacred and inviolable doctrine. Rather, it simply involves working through a series of rational criteria, as set out in my framework.
Nell accuses me of
classic Art of War divide-and-conquer tactics. Whether intentionally or not, David’s framework atomises the opposition and prevents coalition-building that might actually threaten the establishment.
Is that so? Am I seeking to atomise the opposition, or am I seeking to discern who really belongs to it?
“If everyone is potentially controlled opposition, if every funding source is suspect, if every platform is compromised,” Nell claims, “then no meaningful action can ever be taken and no information war can be won.”
Well, obviously. But not everyone, and not every funder, and not every platform is compromised. Discernment is required to work out who is not, and my “three camps of awareness” platform is designed to aid with that discernment. The information war is won by getting to and spreading the truth, not by creating alliances with paid liars and other bad actors.
Nell concludes that my framework “creates a paralysing paranoia that helps existing power structures far better than any controlled opposition could.”
On the contrary, my framework is empowering. It helps people to think for themselves about the “alt media” content they consume and challenges power by providing a tool for exposing the “controlled opposition.”
“Most importantly,” according to Nell, “we must recognise that our enemy isn’t other dissidents who don’t share our exact worldview. Our enemy is the actual power structures that oppress us.”
Except, often it is both. Because when certain “dissidents” turn out to be nothing of the kind, then the problems with Camp 2 are every bit as serious as those with Camp 1. As I wrote in my article (ignored by Nell), the idea that “‘we’re all in together,’ united in the struggle against Camp 1,” is a deceit.
UK Column
“Consider his strange attack on UK Column,” Nell writes. “Rather than engaging with the actual content or challenging specific ideas, he focuses on financial speculation and guilt by association.”
It was not an attack. It was an evidence-based observation about financials, coupled with a right of reply extended to UKC that was met with a thinly veiled threat of legal action. If I had any interest in “attacking” UKC, I would just have gone ahead and published the final section of the interview I did with Debi Evans. As I told Charles Malet, however, I have no interest in getting involved in a fight that is not mine.
Nor was there any “speculation” in what I wrote about UKC. It is provable fact, using publicly available information from Companies House, that Marcel Jahnke acquired a 20% stake in Akita Media Ltd. in 2024/25, the same financial year that a £250,000 long-term liability appeared on the balance sheet.
Nor did I allege any guilt in that section. I merely noted that, “Until such time as UK Column clarifies its relationship with Jahnke, it is reasonable to question its continued independence.” For example, when I asked Charles Malet “whether or not [Jahnke] is a Person of Significant Control and whether he exerts any editorial control,” he ignored the question.
Soon afterwards, Nell, Malet and Mike Robinson put out a 20-minute segment in which they publicly discussed Jahnke for the first time. As indicated in Part 2 of this series, I did not find it convincing. More recently, Mike Robinson emailed a written statement on Jahnke to select UKC members (see the comments section on Part 3), which again I did not find convincing.
Jahnke himself is yet to make any public comment, despite having been offered a right of reply by Michael Ginsburg.
Conclusion
Nell’s gratuitous hit piece on me is so flawed, and contains so many obvious errors, that there is an air of desperation about it.
Why did he write it, given that there was no good reason to do so, and given that he had to stoop so low in consistently twisting and misrepresenting what I had written?
Remember, Nell produces podcasts on an almost daily basis. He is constantly busy, and prides himself on his family life. Why would he make sure to carve out the time to attack me?
Did he write it himself? Was he told to write it? Who knows?
Are such attacks designed to send a warning sign to those asking too many awkward questions? If so, they are a form of flak, of the kind Camp 1 likes to dish out. As I have said many times, any mirroring of Camp 1 propaganda tactics is an automatic red flag when it comes to identifying Camp 2.
Is the goal of such attacks to tie me up in spending time responding to them? Who knows, but as with Sabrina Wallace, 9/11 Revisionist, and others previously, it does take time and effort to defend one’s reputation against lies and slander.
Hopefully the effort has been worth it as new information about Chinese influence, Marcel Jahnke, and the compromised state of the “independent” media has come to light.
Support My Work
If you valued this content 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, including wire transfer, Paypal, crypto, UK cheques, and BMC.
If you have not done so already, please consider taking out a subscription to davidahughes.net or upgrading an existing one – free, paid, or gold-tier.
