It’s been some time since we last heard from Guidance 2222. In the heyday of the Hampstead SRA hoax he was one of the most prolific YouTube posters, and most of us will remember his infamous walk through Hampstead, in which he paused to bully a woman and her child in the garden of Christ Church cottage.
This new release, though, is a horse of a different colour: while Guidance covers the usual Hoaxtead tropes (children weren’t lying, baby-eating cult really does exist, etc.), starting at about 33:37 this video takes a wholly unexpected turn.
Speaking directly to the viewer, Guidance starts: “Yeah, so I just want to talk about the Hampstead case, the Hampstead cover-up, my involvement in it”.
When I’d seen the videos—the shocking videos—at first all I could do was just re-upload the videos and spread the word….I went down to the school, I put them videos online also, just trying to spread the word.
Later on UK Column comes on claiming they went down there….they couldn’t have someone such as myself, not affiliated with anyone, dealing with the case. It was their little thing to be dealing with.
He describes how he was contacted by Abe and Ella, first by email and then by phone: “They’d seen the videos, they appreciated my work. We became a little team, trying t0 spread the word”.
However, Guidance now admits, “This case is weird, very weird, right from the start”:
There were people like Paul Joseph Watson calling it a hoax before the evidence even hit the mainstream. It was too early. Obviously some people had prior knowledge; people in the alternative media had prior knowledge.
Maybe it’s just a hoax after all?
And then Guidance says something truly startling: “When these people call it a hoax, maybe they’ve got a point”.
Say what? Could you repeat that please?
He explains that people like Belinda, Sabine, Brian Gerrish, “the shill Maloney were all working in the background”. Apparently this gave him pause, as did some of the tactics used by Charlotte Alton Ward:
See, this is the thing—Hampstead Research was there. They thought they was going to be in control dealing with this, but they just went overboard, there were too many names coming out, too many people allegedly involved, mistakes being made, people’s names being mentioned without them even being involved.
And then it comes out that they’re dealing with the McKenzie friends—Jacqui Farmer staying in Belinda McKenzie’s house….There were too many bad links, too many agents.
At the end of the day, it was looking more like some kind of psyop—a way to put doubt in people’s minds. Hampstead Research was putting up people’s Facebook accounts that weren’t even mentioned by the children.
He says that at first he responded to Jacqui Farmer, but it quickly became obvious that “something was not right with (Hampstead Research’s) setup”: for example, he cites the blog’s covert links to Belinda’s Association of McKenzie Friends, and the McKenzie Friends’ links to paedophiles.
(Can we get a big “we told you so”, please?)
So what’s it all about?
Guidance says he’s come to believe that Hoaxtead’s purpose was to create confusion around the issue of child sexual abuse, and to “put doubt in people’s minds” about high-profile and VIP sex abuse cases.
He says he still believes that RD’s children were victims of a cult. However, he thinks they were “used by the cult for a bigger operation—a psyop”.
Ultimately, he says, he’s left with confusion:
I don’t know what the answer is. I tried my best. But what can you do? When it’s the mum and the boyfriend’s case…it’s up to them now, they wanna deal with it. They’re calling it mind control now, that’s their big thing—they got their t-shirts, their mugs, their nutritional seminars. I told them I don’t agree with it, and I still don’t agree with it. There’s nothing more I can do.
He doesn’t forget about Hoaxtead Research: “You had trolls, spamming everyone with negative comments—anyone who got involved, they had their pictures put up, they were badmouthed”.
But he notes that on the other side, “there were too many agents, too many donation buttons”.
This alternative media, a lot were calling it a hoax well before the information had even hit the public domain—they were made aware of evidence long before, so they were able to decide where they stood….
You got people like Shurter and Opperman saying that they believe Abe is in the cult, but the mum is legit. You got Angie saying similar stuff…and they all seem to have these donation buttons.
They don’t take you all the way, they don’t tell you the whole truth….these people, they’re no good, they’re in it for the money, in it for the confusion.
Hold onto your hats, because we’re about to say something we never thought we’d say: we’re in agreement with Guidance 2222 on many of the points he raises.
Yes, we were as shocked as you are.
But give him his due: he’s quite right that this was planned from the start.
He is right that the links between the hoax promoters are strange, and that a surprising number of “alt media” people knew about this case long before it hit the mainstream. He’s right about the ubiquitous “donate” buttons, as would-be journalists try to cash in on the hoax.
Obviously we disagree on some fundamental points: we know the children were coerced into saying what they did, and that no “cult” exists in Hampstead, Satanic or otherwise. We don’t think the hoax was created as a psyop, but rather that it was part of a callous and cynical plan, developed and perpetrated by Belinda, Sabine, Charlotte, Abe, and Ella.
But we do agree that this case has caused some very real damage to the issue of child sexual abuse, as it has helped to create an atmosphere of doubt and scepticism that could serve to poison future cases; and it has drained away support that ought to be going toward helping real survivors of sexual abuse.
Overall, we confess we’re surprised to hear Guidance come up with such a nuanced, thoughtful, and thought-provoking analysis of Hoaxtead. We hope this is the beginning of an upward trend.