And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Revelation 12:11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebY9pHMVkc

Can I give you my very frank thoughts about Sir Richard Dearlove?

A subscriber has just rightly remarked that it is questionable that a clergyman shared a platform with him to exhort the West's nascent underground church.

I regard Sir Richard Dearlove as not evil, certainly not when compared with his arch-rival, Lord Mark Sedwill.

The Dearlovite tendency in the British deep state believes in nationhood, strives for the sovereignty of the Anglo-Saxons, and pays lip service to liberties. The Sedwillites have relentlessly pushed government from Brussels, integration with Chinese communism and untrammelled immigration.

It should go without saying that Dearlove and his acolytes are severely misguided, including in their moral compass. It is now common knowledge that they allowed, or encouraged, my old colleague Chris Steele to cook up the Trump dossier—at least the second dodgy dossier to which Dearlove gave his seal of approval.

However, the overriding impression that I gain of Dearlove from his National Conservatives stump speech is of jolly hockey sticks. The man is profoundly ignorant of the world's civilisations and cultures, after a lifetime of derring-do in the unquestioning service of a British state that he evidently mistakes for the British nation.

He has apparently taken no pains to ascertain himself of the nature of the British state in its favoured activities of child stealing, drug testing and sexual abandon. I see a failure of conscience and of inquiry in him, not a choice for evil. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no indications that he or his underlings have been involved in the Cabinet Office's mind-bending.

The other wing of the British deep state, however, is rife with conscious Satanists, including, in my estimation and recollection, some who were high up at MI6 when Dearlove was in charge.

I've run into SIS people on and off in my life, and they seem to me to fall into 2 categories: either, the most tedious and dull civil servants imaginable, distilled 'elf and safety éminences grises who would be better off in the consular section of their embassies, or, faux-swashbuckling and slightly psychopathic with a childishly simplistic vision of the world. Rarely, in my experience, do you find curious and interesting people who understand nuance and try to understand foreigners properly. Pity, that.

These are British academics.

https://twitter.com/ucu/status/1663144007965212673

Listen very carefully to every word of this.

I haven't watched this. A viewer says she gained the impression from it that this think tank is talking of the imminent merger of NATO and the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQa-o8lkmPM

The CSIS panel is analysed here by Eric Zuesse.

https://theduran.com/chronicling-the-u-s-governments-planning-ww-3-in-europe/

On tonight's Oxford Union debate with Kathleen Stock.

https://truthuniversity.substack.com/p/universities-complicit-in-the-war