Joining Dots for Dummies

Is Bob Moran a dodgy f***er?

EDIT: I’m just adding here a link to a rather good surgical analysis of O’Neill’s turd-bucket hit-piece.

In the light of the recent revelations surrounding Bob Moran, we can reasonably conclude that he is a deep state asset whose role is to propagate the idea that AI is really flipping rubbish - thereby creating a false sense of complacency amongst the general public, priming us like domesticated animals for the final, imminent AI-driven slaughter.

Now we have that mofo Moran in the bag, we need to look around and see who has orbited his Dark Star consistently over the previous few years, in order to snare some more spooks and agents. One name comes to mind immediately. Could this man be Moran’s handler?

He is a man who has been present at virtually every public event of Bob Moran’s. I was first alerted to his shadowy existence at Bob Moran’s private view in 2025. At the time I had no idea Bob was a deep state asset and I promise that I only went to one other Bob Moran public event. Yes, I was naive and I apologise.

But this one man struck me as odd because he was wearing a suit... but with no tie. I thought it strange at the time but couldn’t put my finger on why. Now it seems a clear possibility that this was the dress of a deep state agent who was trying to fit in with a social group by removing the tie from his usual formal appearance. This man’s name is Francis O’Neill.

I’m joking, of course, in order to highlight the absurdity and danger of employing a naive guilt-by-association strategy when attempting to uncover who is to be trusted and who isn’t.

I’ve just read Francis O’Neill’s supposed ‘exposé’ of Bob Moran.

It’s a very long, rambling collection of vague, baseless accusations and ‘dot-joining’.

Let’s break down some of its key ‘special’ moments. In some ways I wish I could have gone into more detail, but it’s such a depressingly illogical pile of nonsense that I just couldn’t bear to give it more energy than it deserved. I trust that the reader is capable of going into more detail themselves and unpicking the BS should they wish to.

My advice is to take each piece of ‘evidence’ (lol) individually and see if it actually holds any water. Then go back through and pick your three best pieces. Imagine presenting those three arguments in a courtroom setting.

Unfortunately in these cases I see many people making the mistake of equating ‘lots of evidence’ with ‘good evidence’. ‘Oh there is soooo much evidence,’ they say, when in actual fact none of it is any good. Lazily they have failed to engage their critical faculties, taking the easy option of riding the torrent of weak, p*** poor logical fallacies, convincing themselves of what they want to hear.

There is also a deep sense of inhumanity in the piece. An insensitivity to the possibility of being wrong. You can see it in O’Neill’s choice of words. He isn’t just asking questions, because if he were genuinely open to the possibility of being wrong he wouldn’t use the tone that he does. He appears to be sure he is right. There is a religious zealotry about the claims that betrays a lack of real integrity.

O’Neill’s thesis is essentially that Ed the Techie was potentially controlled op and that because he was a friend of Bob’s we should question Bob’s integrity. It’s good to ask questions of course, but when we make assumptions without real evidence we lose all credibility.

---

I’ll pick out certain claims. There are so many and all of equally low substance that this response could have been four times as long .

2nd May 2026: Jacqui Deevoy posts on X that Graham Atkinson, known as the Red Pill Pharmacist, has died. Deevoy’s post receives 11 comments.

O’Neill appears to suggest here that there is something dodgy about the amount of attention Ed’s death received in comparison to Graham Atkinson’s. As evidence he cites how many comments were made in response to Jacqui Deevoy’s announcement of Graham’s death. Is this logical? The amount of traffic on Jacqui’s site has nothing to do with anything.

“2nd May 2026: One of Bob Moran’s close friends messages me to tell me that Ed the Techie had attended Bob Moran’s book launch or a book signing and that I had met him. I had only attended the launch and had not met him. Both Ed and Moran’s relationship with him are conveyed as unremarkable. Ed was apparently not significant enough for the location and event of Moran’s only meeting with him to be accurately recalled.”

Is there a logical argument being made here?

3rd May: I ask Bob Moran to explain his comments regarding Ed the Techie. I do not receive a reply.

No surprise there.

6th May 2026: James Delingpole tweets of Ed. “Am I going to have to force myself to watch one of these videos so I can see who this tragic dead person was?”

Delingpole’s close friend Bob Moran had clearly never mentioned his brilliant dying friend Ed the Techie, despite having a two hour conversation with Delingpole as Ed was dying.

Is it really so strange that Bob Moran, a popular man, would have two friends who didn’t know each other? I have friends who don’t know each other. The tone of the insinuation, referring to Ed as ‘his brilliant dying friend,’ is particularly noticeable to anyone with sensitivity.

And is it really in any way odd that Bob didn’t mention his dying friend on a podcast? Why would you? ‘Oh hi James — I just wanted to tell everyone about my dying friend...’ Ed was part of the Brighton meet-up crowd. I never met him but I have close friends who knew him and told me he was a lovely chap. He probably didn’t want the world to know he was dying. I wonder if O’Neill reached out to any of these people to get their opinion. I doubt it. That would be too much like real journalism, as opposed to the cosplay indulgence on display here.

“19th May 2026. X user Carey Sue asks, ‘Hey Bob, bit confused about your post regarding Ed the Techie and why he warranted his very own Bob artwork. Was he really such an inspiration?’ 27th May 2026. I retweet Carey Sue’s unanswered question.”

Who is some random X user to question the nature of a friendship between two men she doesn’t know?

“31st May 2026: Another of Bob Moran’s friends tells me that Moran was working on the painting for Ed in the week before Ed’s death on Monday 27th April. Moran coincidentally finished the painting as Ed was dying, and the next of kin then decided to release it. Contradictorily, Moran told Delingpole on Wednesday 22nd April he was in the middle of a creative crisis and hadn’t been painting. He was also able to produce similar cartoons for the Telegraph in one day.”

O’Neill insinuates that being in a ‘creative crisis’ is somehow at odds with being inspired in a singular instance by the death of a friend. This is pure clutching at straws and betrays a deep lack of understanding of the creative process.

“In any event we might ask why Moran would paint a picture of Ed’s funeral to give to Ed before he died. Are all those depicted in the image — Trump, Johnson, Zelensky, Homer Simpson, a muppet, and Ed the Techie — to some extent fictional characters?”

Yes, we might ask. And anyone familiar with Bob’s dark humour would assume that it was a shared joke amongst friends in a tragic circumstance — a defiant and powerful way of dealing with the inevitable.

“1st June 2026. I ask Bob Moran, ‘Would you like to join Leo Biddle and me to talk about this?’”

And what? Bob didn’t take you up on your offer after you’d made some shitty accusations in public, on his friend’s podcast without having the decency to discuss it with him first, even though you were supposedly a friend of his??? How f***ing not surprising.

“In fact Ed seems to have been a protagonist in, rather than a dupe of, the Lucy Connolly story.”

Really? A protagonist? ‘’A protagonist is the main character in a story, novel, movie, or play. They are the central figure driving the plot forward, and the audience usually follows their journey and empathises with their experiences.’‘

At this point O’Neill points out various discrepancies between Bob’s position on things and Ed’s. And this apparently points to Bob being dodgy.

“Moran is a vociferous critic of AI, declaring it to be of low quality and easily recognisable. This attitude could encourage a false sense of security should more advanced AI technology exist and be used against the public.”

This one really makes me laugh. So Bob is dodgy because he has said he thinks AI is crappy and obvious to spot. So when the next generation of AI comes along that is not so easy to spot, no one will update their opinion — but instead they will continue to hold an outdated world view because they once heard a cartoonist tell them that it was easy to recognise. Sucked into this false world view, they will be easy targets for the evil overlords who will be able to fool them so easily, because they had been so clever and got their cartoonist asset to convince a few ‘truthers’ that they would be able to identify the work of AI. Making this kind of argument is, to my mind, so desperate that I question the mental health of anyone doing so.

Bob Moran forbids modification of his cartoons, but Ed the Techie would add to each artwork a candle with a cartoon of Volodymyr Zelensky’s face on it. That this was defacement or vandalisation was acknowledged by Ed himself, who referred to it as ‘vlandalism.’ Bob Moran is a highly intelligent man who doesn’t suffer fools, so it’s surprising that he thought this was acceptable and even amusing. A recent reasonably clever modification of one of Moran’s artworks was ignored by the cartoonist.

O’Neill continues to fail to appreciate the difference between friends having a joke and strangers ripping you off. This all makes me wonder if O’Neill actually has any friends.

Bob Moran’s Friends of Israel

In this section O’Neill insinuates Bob is dodgy because someone who went to one of his shows is dodgy.

After the Pedants Revolt show the performers retired to a venue called Satan’s Whiskers.

Damning.

Moran’s book comprised a collection of his cartoons from 2020 to 2024. The first illustration in the book features the words ‘Controlled Opposition’ twice, SHILL! written in block capitals, and the imperative ‘Trust No-one!’ ‘Sheep in wolf’s clothing’ is written above ‘with a wolf in wolf’s clothing.’

And..?

Moran’s capital-letter signature of BOB has been a cause for concern to the extent that he has publicly addressed its resemblance to two 3s around the number 101, both of which have masonic symbolism.

A cause for concern for whom exactly? Paranoid, deluded individuals who have watched too many Amazing Pollys? If Bob addressed the point, he probably did it to take the p*** out of anyone daft enough to think of it as a problem.

At his exhibition entitled Paradigms, which ran 23rd May–2nd June at CasildART Gallery, Moran included an installation entitled ‘Gotcha!’ priced at £33,000.

There were lots of other works for sale that weren’t priced at £33,000. Is Bob only a little bit Freemasonic then?

Charlotte Binns was quick to defend both Ed the Techie and Bob Moran from questions. She then blocked Miri, Leo, and me on X.

I cannot understand at all why anyone would block you, Francis.

After Leo and I posted our discussion of Bob’s relationship with Ed on Substack, trained actor Abi Roberts posted numerous comments in defence of Bob Moran.

Being a ‘trained actor’ is now a sign you are dodgy. Eat your heart out, McCarthy.

Denslow asserted that the “controlled op narrative… is counterproductive and often wrong,” and said of Miri Finch and me that “it has now become very boring — they are pariahs attacking dead people.”

I’ll just leave that one as is.

Next is more of the same deranged, McCarthy-esque witch-hunting, with guilt by (tenuous) association being the name of the game.

Paying Moran a Few Bob

Then we get a whole load of bitter musings on how much money Bob’s artistic talent has brought him. Sour grapes? O’Neill himself paints and has failed to make an income from his art, whereas Bob is someone who has made outstanding and hugely respected work that has articulated the shared outrage and sadness of millions of people. His unique output has made him very collectible. No great mystery there.

Undercover Influence

This section is O’Neill rambling on about the traits he thinks identify controlled opposition. Some of it might be accurate, but this particular sentence stood out to me: ‘They do not suffer personally or professionally in the manner of a genuine dissident.’

It implies that having any kind of success is a strict no-no for anyone in the truth game. It strikes me as more victim-mentality sour grapes.

In this context we can consider, among others, the cases of Russell Brand, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Andrew Bridgen, Lawrence Fox, Fiona Rose Diamond, Debbie Hicks, Abi Roberts, Lucy Connolly, and Ed the Techie.

O’Neill is now putting Ed the Techie and Abi Roberts in the same league as Russell Brand, Tucker Carlson, and Alex Jones? This just strikes me as fantasy. Sorry Abi!

He goes on to imply that Bob also fits the same description.

Then we have more vague finger-pointing, which includes this gem: ‘He was forced to make an apology in which he emotively cited the ill health of his child.’

I find these attacks very odd. Is O’Neill implying that it’s wrong for Bob to feel some emotion when talking about what happened to his daughter?

Like Abi Roberts, he emphasises the moral rather than criminal import of lockdown, though immorality is perhaps less subject to legal consequences.

Abi and Bob are now dodgy because they talk about morality.

O’Neill ends his nonsensical drivel with this: “Buy or commission Francis’s artwork.”

No irony there.

What strikes me are the similarities between this kind of witch-hunt mentality and the dogmatic religious mindset. The essence of both is externalisation. The problems are always out there somewhere. We need to be scared, concerned, cautious, because we are powerless victims of external forces.

Nowhere in this exposé of Bob Moran is there a single piece of evidence showing Bob to have acted badly. No criticism of his works, deeds, or actions — just insinuations and vague accusations of being connected to some potentially questionable people. I find that truly disgusting.

All cult-like organisations depend on this pushing of the victim narrative. They prey upon those with low self-esteem, or those who feel aggrieved that they haven’t had the success others may appear to have had. They question the success of others and conclude that they must be compromised to have achieved anything in life. In essence, it’s sour grapes wrapped up in convoluted justifications.

And of course some people lap it up for the same reasons. Lots of people love gossip and finding out that so-and-so is compromised or controlled. It makes them feel better about their own lives and failures. It’s the flip side of hero worship. We create heroes and then love to tear them down. It’s all rather sad and childish in my opinion.

This comes at the same time that Sandi Adams is being confronted with her accusations regarding Charles Malet and I am dealing with a putrid insinuation that I am somehow partly responsible for the alleged rape of a young woman by someone i once thought of as a friend. You would expect more from these people. Why are the standards so low?

What gets passed off as research or ‘exceptional journalism,’ is often just paranoid character assassination with little or no real evidence to back it up. And of course I know the response from some to this will be that I am part of some campaign to shut down free speech and control the narrative. But again, there is no evidence for that. And it’s just another victim-mind externalisation.

Those who are truly sovereign of mind do not fall for this emotionally driven negativity. They see it for what it is. Perhaps it’s time that those people really start calling out this destructive, energy sapping indulgence, and recognise fully how much it is responsible for stalling the growth of what the truth movement could really be — i.e. the seed of a genuinely new paradigm.