Hugo Talks Exposed

Whatever Happened to 'Wise as Serpents'?

Did you hear the joyous news? The mysterious, disembodied, London-accented voice that broadcasts under the name HugoTalks has made the most extraordinary confession.

“I was an intelligence agency psyop designed to infiltrate Awake communities and sow confusion, division and misinformation, while pushing a Luciferian agenda” he begins, arrestingly. “But then suddenly God spoke to me and made me see the error of my ways. Now I have embraced Jesus, I have renounced all my past lies, for deception is the work of the devil. Today my only watchword is truth!”

If you’re scouring the HugoTalks back catalogue for this account of his Sauline conversion I’m afraid you’re going to be some time: the guy behind HugoTalks never actually said this and my belief is that he never will. That’s because I don’t trust him and the main reason is (not that I didn’t have my suspicions before) a deep-dive investigation I just watched, titled ‘Who is Hugo Talks? His many names and faces.”

To understand my reservations you really must watch it yourself. It’s only half an hour and by the end you’ll be clear in your mind that this is not some wanton hatchet job but the work of somebody who has put in hours of research and wants to give ‘Hugo’ the fairest of fair hearings. You’ll likely conclude, as I did having heard the evidence, that there remains something very fishy indeed about Hugo Talks. His alleged conversion to Christianity may be his biggest red herring yet.

I mention Christianity because a lot of people do when attesting to why they believe that Hugo is the genuine article. “Ah but he has been born again and his message has changed completely!”, they’ll explain. Or: “His knowledge of the Bible is really deep and if he brings more people to God’s word then I can’t see anything wrong with that.” Or, an even bigger guilt-tripper, this one: “He’s just a young man trying to come to terms with his newfound faith and he may have good reasons to keep his identity secret and I think it’s terribly unfair that you’re taking seriously this doxxing attack that has been made on him by some anonymous person on the internet.”

When I read comments like this two pieces of scripture spring to mind. The first is from Luke 15: “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.” And the second is from Matthew 7: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

As you probably know, I’m a Christian. I’m not claiming to be a particularly good one or expert one. But I do know that there are certain basic prerequisites you need to qualify as a half-way convincing one. One of these - see above - is recognising the importance of repentance for sins you have committed. Another is to place a very high premium on truth, for lies are the work of the devil.

How does this square with what we know about Hugo Talks?

Well perhaps the most significant thing we know about Hugo Talks is that he is shadowy, deceptive and evasive. We don’t know what he looks like, how old he is, let alone what his background is. What we do know now, thanks to some diligent digging by an anonymous techie clearly adept with the Wayback Machine, is that since 2017 he has been running a number of web channels under various noms de plume.

These include a fan site dedicated to the activities of Meghan and Prince Harry; a film review channel; a channel promoting obscure post-rock music; and a channel involved in some manner of New Age therapy.

Now none of this is damning of itself. I too have dabbled in film criticism. I too used to be quite heavily into post-rock and have seen arguably its finest exponents Mogwai play on about five or six occasions. I too have been a huge admirer of Megan and… nah, just kidding, that one really is a mite troubling. Even so, I’m perfectly prepared to give Hugo Talks the benefit of the doubt on all these scores. What I’m much more suspicious of, however, is his iconography.

One of the great giveaways when you’re trying to spot people on the dark side is their obsession with signs and symbols. If you’re not on board with the Luciferian/New World Order agenda, it’s all just random numbers, colours and dates. But for followers of the occult this stuff really matters. It’s part of their secret language by which they communicate with one another, largely unnoticed by those not in on it.

Hugo Talks’s various online offshoots - some of which he has tried to delete, presumably to avoid this kind of scrutiny - are full of this dubious symbolism: use of the colour purple (as preferred by the Rulers of the Darkness of this World), his choice of names such as KINGBATHMAT (redolent, not accidentally I suspect, of King Baphomet) and Sacred Ape (which edgily yokes together two heterogeneous concepts - divine creation and evolutionary theory), his logos including a sort of feline devil creature, his promotion of something called the Mairorum society with its logo of an all-seeing eye within a triangle, the dark and disturbing artwork. Individually, perhaps, none of these is conclusive. But cumulatively? I think it would require an act of wilful self-deception to look at this evidence and go: “Nothing to see here.” Especially so when you add in all the other things about the Hugo Talks project that don’t make sense, such as the remarkably high productivity rate suggesting that this is the work of more than one hand.

So I really don’t see it as an egregious case of doxxing that this Hugo Talks character has been identified as a Sligo-based father of at least two, with musical leanings, named John Bassett. (Not least because that name could be yet another false lead in these onion layers of deception). I don’t believe it really even matters who he is because it just distracts from the only thing which does matter: on the evidence accumulated so far, this guys’ websites are not to be touched with a barge pole.

Yes, I know there are some who argue that this obsession ‘our side’ has with rooting out traitors, ‘controlled opposition’, gatekeepers and so on does us no good because it just promotes an atmosphere of paranoia and mutual experience and makes us do what They want.

But I disagree. What ‘They’ want is to screw us over every which way. Among the many which ways they do so is by infiltrating Awake groups - or using websites as lures for Awake groups - and then exploiting the insider positioning and the false trust they have gained thereby in order to advance their nefarious causes.

[What those nefarious causes are one can never presume to know. Which to my mind presents a bit of a problem to all those people blithely saying “Oh I don’t care whether he is or isn’t to be trusted. I’ll just take the stuff that’s useful for me and discard the rest.” Well, sure: but if the whole website has been designed to play you and you deceive you, how can you be sure you’re not going to fall for one of its tricks? And why would you bother wasting your time on it anyway, given that there are so many other sites out there which you can be more certain have been produced by bona fide Awake types?]

This isn’t idle supposition, here. It’s what They do. All the bloody time. Furthermore, it’s what those of us who are Awake KNOW They do all the bloody time.

Which is why I find it so odd that the kind of people who are perfectly on board with the idea that the US Deep State happily murdered nearly 3,000 people in a false flag operation on 9/11 and that the Moon Landings were faked yet go into paroxysms of outrage and defensiveness when someone suggests that a minor-league podcaster whose Awake opinions they quite liked during ‘Covid’ and after may in fact be an intelligence services psyop.

I think the Christian thing has a lot to do with it. It’s amazing how gullible some Christians can become when they hear that someone else is a Christian. I’ve noticed it on previous occasions when I’ve expressed doubts about Jordan Peterson. “But isn’t he a Christian?”, someone will ask, as if the answer yes - which they haven’t even researched by the way, they’re just taking it on hearsay or basing it on something oblique he might once have said when asked about his religious beliefs - would provide instant proof of integrity and authenticity.

But anyone can call themselves a Christian and not mean it.

And the fact that they like to quote scripture - as Hugo Talks apparently likes to do these days - is no proof of good faith either.

Remember the scene where the Devil tempts Jesus and urges him to throw himself from a high place because the angels will surely stop him falling. Satan is quoting Psalm 91. But does that make him one of the good guys or just another deceiver using a cloak of righteousness to hide his evil intent?

And isn’t the history of Christianity since Jesus the history of a belief system which has continuously been infiltrated by the forces of darkness because they consider it to be such a threat?

That’s why Jesus warned his disciples to be ‘Wise as serpents and harmless as doves.’

A lot of us seem to be pretty good at the dove like innocence; the serpentine wisdom not so much.