Small Clues: John and Irina Mappin – A Transatlantic, European, and Russian Web

John Mappin’s early ambitions and Hollywood work

John Mappin styles himself as an heir of the illustrious Mappin & Webb jewellery dynasty, although public records of a direct inheritance or large family fortune are conspicuously absent [1]. In an anecdote he often recounts, Mappin’s teenage inspiration to enter show business came from watching The Muppet Movie. A scene in which a Hollywood agent tells Kermit the Frog he could “make millions of people happy” supposedly sparked John’s youthful Hollywood dreams [1].

In his mid-twenties, after an elite education at Winchester College (making him an “Old Wykehamist” [2]), John moved to Los Angeles to pursue an entertainment career. By his own admission this venture “failed completely”, and he never achieved more than a few minor acting credits in the 1990s [3]. During these Hollywood years he circulated socially with a “Brit Pack” of expatriates, name-dropping encounters with Elizabeth Hurley, Hugh Grant and others, although independent media and memoirs offer no evidence that he was more than a fringe participant in their scene [4].

It was in Los Angeles that Mappin discovered the Church of Scientology, an affiliation that would later come to define him in the UK. In 1991, Mappin claimed, a chance stroll past a party at the Scientology Celebrity Centre piqued his interest. He quipped that he “waved through the window and a person waved back”, a folksy origin story for his subsequent six years of intensive Scientology study in Hollywood [5][6]. By his account, “by the time I got to chapter four [of L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics], I was so excited…”, and soon he was meeting high-ranking Scientologists in Los Angeles and bombarding them with questions [6].

Mappin became a zealous convert. He networked with celebrity Scientologists (proudly noting he met John Travolta, though he was “yet to meet Tom Cruise”) and later boasted of introducing “God knows how many people” to Scientology himself [7]. This immersion in Scientology’s teachings became, in his words, his “salvation” from the hedonistic Hollywood lifestyle. By the late 1990s he had sobered up, left the party scene, and returned to England a committed Scientologist [8].

Irina Mappin’s shadowy background

If John’s background is colourful yet verifiable in parts, the early life of his wife Irina Mappin is a virtual blank slate. Public descriptions of Irina (maiden name reported variously as Kudrenok or Ablakova) are contradictory and devoid of concrete detail. Friendly press accounts refer to her as “Astana-born” (Astana, now Nur-Sultan, the capital of Kazakhstan) and even note that the Kazakh flag is often flown atop Camelot Castle in her honour [9].

Official biographies for an investment venture list Irina as born in Soviet-era Kazakhstan, while claiming her family lineage is Russian, Belarusian and Tatar [10][11]. This aligns with society gossip. One acquaintance, the columnist Taki Theodoracopulos, was told that Irina was “the descendant of a Russian-Tartar prince, a Kazakh”, suggesting noble Eurasian ancestry [2]. Yet tellingly, a British profile by William Cash referred to her as “Irena, a Romanian”, indicating that even basic facts such as nationality are muddled [12].

Irina herself has used multiple surnames (Kudrenok, Ablakova and eventually Kudrenok-Ablakova-Mappin) in different contexts, but no marriage record or legal documentation has been produced to explain these name changes. Although John and Irina reportedly married in Kazakhstan around 2001, no civil registration from Kazakhstan or the UK has ever surfaced, nor have any wedding photographs or witness accounts. This level of opacity is highly unusual for a high-society couple.

No verified records exist of Irina’s early life: no school alumni lists, university degrees or prior career postings in Kazakhstan or elsewhere. Publicly, she seemed to materialise out of thin air in the early 2000s when she appeared by John’s side at Camelot Castle. Her “biography” is pieced together only from later PR statements. For instance, claims that she was raised around art and entrepreneurship in a prosperous Kazakh family (her parents are said to be Alexander and Venera Kudrenok, owners of an Astana window factory called Yasnyy Vid) circulate in press releases, but Irina’s own role or even her family link to that business is unsubstantiated. The company’s records list no Irina as a shareholder or director.

William Cash noted that not only had Irina “converted to Scientology, along with the rest of her family”, but that when he met them in London she was clad head-to-toe in Prada with a Louis Vuitton bag, suggestive of sudden wealth [13]. The lack of any paper trail for her alleged education or prior work, combined with the chameleon-like shift in personal narrative, is reminiscent of how deep-cover operatives construct personas. Observers have pointed out that Irina’s profile bears an uncanny similarity to that of Anna Chapman, the Russian “sleeper” agent unmasked in the United States in 2010. Like Chapman, Irina appeared in Western elite circles with a glamorous backstory but no verifiable past, assumed multiple identities and quickly married into citizenship and social standing [14][15]. There is no direct evidence that Irina is a spy, but seasoned journalists and counter-intelligence experts find the “negative signals” – the total absence of confirmable life history and the tightly managed legend – highly suspicious.

Camelot Castle: marriage, money and an unusual hotel

John Mappin returned to the UK in the late 1990s and soon made a dramatic purchase: Camelot Castle Hotel, a Victorian-era cliff-top hotel in Tintagel, Cornwall. As he tells it, he spotted the castle on a trip to Cornwall in 1999, “made an offer to the owner on the spot”, and thus acquired his own Arthurian fortress [16].

The funding for this purchase remains opaque. The Mappin & Webb family business had actually been sold off decades earlier, in the 1950s, and by most accounts whatever wealth remained in John’s immediate family was modest. Yet John suddenly had the capital to buy and later sporadically renovate a castle, even driving a brand-new Bentley in the early 2000s [8]. One theory is that Scientology connections or investors played a role.

Camelot Castle quickly became more than a hotel. It was a base for Scientology recruitment and proselytising. Visitors in the 2000s often found New Age and Scientology literature slipped under their doors, or an invitation to write to “Merlin” (a gimmick where guests who left their address would later receive unsolicited Scientology materials) [17][18]. Many unsuspecting tourists, lured by the hotel’s romantic name and advertised luxury, arrived to discover an atmosphere that one guest described as “creepy… filled with terrible art” and fronted by hosts keen to share Scientologist ideas [19]. Unsurprisingly, Camelot Castle amassed scathing reviews. TripAdvisor is littered with one-star accounts of dilapidated conditions and unwanted ideological “sales pitches” [20].

Despite actively operating as a hotel with paying guests and even hiring staff (local gossip speaks of a revolving door of managers and underpaid workers from Eastern Europe), the corporate entities behind Camelot Castle show almost no financial activity. Companies House filings for Mythological Hotels Ltd and Camelot Castle Ltd, the entities John and Irina have used, report negligible revenue or assets year after year. How the Mappins maintain the property and their lifestyle, including frequent travel and a London pied-à-terre, remains a mystery. Some speculate that donors or foreign benefactors subsidise their activities, given the Mappins’ high-profile political evangelism that often aligns with certain geopolitical interests. Financial records research is ongoing; thus far, no clear funding source has been documented in open sources.

Turning Point UK: bridging US and UK right-wing activism

One of John Mappin’s most consequential ventures has been facilitating transatlantic links between American and British right-wing populists. In 2018, Mappin played a key role in establishing Turning Point UK (TPUK), the British offshoot of Charlie Kirk’s pro-Trump youth organisation Turning Point USA. The official launch of TPUK in London, an invite-only event on 11 December 2018 at the Royal Automobile Club, was hosted by John Mappin himself [39][40].

John had persuaded his friend Charlie Kirk to expand his movement across the Atlantic and personally organised a lavish introductory soirée for Kirk and his entourage in Knightsbridge [41]. The launch guest list was a who’s who of right-wing media provocateurs and Brexiteer elites: Andy Wigmore (of Leave.EU notoriety), Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars, journalist James Delingpole and socialite Amanda Eliasch were in attendance [39]. Also present were politicians such as Nigel Farage and hard-line Conservatives. Cabinet ministers Priti Patel and Jacob Rees-Mogg sent supportive public messages as TPUK went live online [42].

In short, Mappin positioned himself as the UK connector for the American MAGA influencer set. He provided the venue, the networking and presumably some funding for TPUK’s launch, earning him a reputation as an “original financial backer” of the group [43].

Notably, Kirk did not act alone in exporting Turning Point’s brand. TPUK was co-founded by Kirk and TPUSA’s then communications director, Candace Owens, which underscored a deliberate strategy to globalise their youth movement’s reach [1]. Owens later married into British high society. Her husband, George Farmer – son of a Conservative peer – served as TPUK’s inaugural chairman until April 2019 [1].

The Mappins helped bridge these US and UK networks, hosting and funding gatherings for figures such as Kirk and Owens. Photographs underscore the Mappins’ transatlantic role. In one image, John and Irina stand alongside Charlie Kirk and Owens, smiling in front of a Christmas tree in London [44]. That tableau – American conservative firebrands mingling with a British hotelier and his Kazakh-born wife – was novel in 2018.

It was only the start of the Mappins’ networking ambitions. Over the next few years Camelot Castle would welcome a procession of alt-right and “conspirituality” personalities. They gave platforms to vaccine sceptics, anti-5G activists and fringe scientists on Camelot TV. By 2019, John and Irina were hosting black-tie dinners for the cause. In June 2019 a £180-per-head TPUK fundraiser dinner saw Nigel Farage seated at Mappin’s table, across from John and next to millionaire guests and controversial figures such as Amanda Eliasch [45][46].

Politico Europe reported that at that dinner Mappin was introduced as a “millionaire hotelier” who had shared conspiracy memes about George Soros, feeding into antisemitic tropes [45]. In other words, even as mainstream critics lambasted these events, the Mappins were successfully forging a coalition of Trumpist Americans and Brexit-era Britons, united by anti-globalist, anti-“deep state” sentiment.

The Mappins’ role as network-builders extended to Europe as well. A striking example came in early 2023 in Gstaad, Switzerland. Theodoracopulos, better known as “Taki”, a long-time conservative social commentator, wrote about an outdoor lunch orchestrated by “my friends John and Irina Mappin” where they introduced him to a “twenty-six-year-old blonde, blue-eyed beauty”, Dutch pundit Eva Vlaardingerbroek [47][48].

Eva, a rising star in Eurosceptic and anti-globalist circles and a regular on Fox News and GB News, charmed the older generation present. Taki jokingly proposed on the spot and noted that Eva was as “brainy as she’s beautiful”, leading mass farmer protests in the Netherlands [49][50]. The key detail is why the Mappins set up this meeting: ostensibly to “discuss Ukraine” in a convivial setting [47]. Over lunch, John and Irina echoed talking points about the folly of Western support for Ukraine and how “Putin has much more support in Russia than western media admit”, while Eva nodded along in agreement [2].

In essence, the Mappins brokered a cross-generational alliance that day, connecting an old-guard aristocratic Putin-sympathiser (Taki) with a telegenic new face of European populism (Vlaardingerbroek). The event, detailed in The Spectator, plugged the Mappins into the heart of the elite continental far-right circuit. It signalled their transition from mere fans of alt-right figures to connectors who unite influencers from the United States (Kirk, Owens), the UK (Farage’s circle) and Europe (Eva Vlaardingerbroek and others).

The Mappins also cultivated ties with maverick British figures such as James Melville (a prominent anti-lockdown commentator) and MP Andrew Bridgen (expelled from the Conservative Party for anti-vax conspiracies), further bridging mainstream politics with fringe narratives. Even members of the UK royal circle were indirectly touched by their networking. John has claimed that his friends Lord and Lady Plunket, both courtiers, privately briefed Queen Elizabeth II about Charlie Kirk’s youth movement, and that the late Queen “loved the idea that Charlie was bringing younger people back to the Church”, showing a favourable interest [52][53]. This anecdote, though impossible to verify, was published in a major newspaper shortly after Kirk’s death and illustrates how far Mappin’s influence, or at least his boastful storytelling, had reached by 2025.

It was not just public events. The friendships were personal. Mappin and Kirk became close friends and, by Mappin’s account, the two couples (John and Irina, Charlie and Erika Kirk) even travelled together to Jerusalem in March 2019, a trip John later cited as evidence of their shared “Christian” values [3]. No contemporaneous independent source confirms this trip; the claim comes from John’s own interviews. Still, it aligns with Turning Point’s pro-Israel stance and the Mappins’ penchant for evangelical diplomacy. Such excursions and collaborations underscored how tightly knit the transatlantic youth conservative movement had become, with Mappin operating as an intermediary and patron.

The DGB Group affair: green finance meets populism

One of the murkiest chapters in the Mappins’ story is their involvement with DGB Group N.V., a Dutch “green” investment company. DGB (short for Dutch Green Business Group, later rebranded DGB Group) presents itself as a developer of carbon-offset projects: planting trees, conserving land and generating carbon credits to sell in the booming ESG market. In 2020–21, John and Irina Mappin emerged as significant shareholders in this publicly listed company. By early 2021 they each owned 14.9 per cent of DGB’s shares, just under the 15 per cent Dutch disclosure threshold [54][55]. John was even referred to as DGB’s “founding chairman” [56].

This was an eyebrow-raising pivot. What was a British hotelier and QAnon promoter doing at the helm of a Dutch sustainability firm. The answer seemed to lie in networks rather than ecology. In March 2021 DGB announced it had appointed Nigel Farage, freshly retired from electoral politics, as an adviser on its board [57]. Farage, a vocal climate-change sceptic, was an unlikely ambassador for a green venture. It soon emerged that it was John Mappin who had introduced Farage to DGB and helped recruit him [58]. In fact, Mappin and Farage had been close allies in the pro-Trump, anti-EU scene; Farage had already attended Mappin’s TPUK fundraiser, as noted earlier. It appears the Mappins saw DGB as a vehicle to mainstream their influence by leveraging environmental investing, a trendy sector, while actually furthering their culture-war agenda. Farage’s involvement guaranteed media attention.

Almost immediately, this plan ran into controversy. Other DGB shareholders and executives baulked at the sudden infusion of British populist figures. By late 2021, reports of an internal power struggle surfaced. John Mappin and his allies were accused of attempting a hostile takeover of DGB via stock manoeuvres, while the original Dutch management resisted. There were questions about transparency, as DGB had essentially reverse-listed into a dormant shell company on the Amsterdam exchange, a printing company turned carbon-credit firm [55].

In the chaos, Farage’s promised role became tenuous. By early 2022 Nigel Farage told the Financial Times that “at the moment my relationship [with DGB] is in abeyance”, signalling that his advisory position was on hold amidst the infighting [59]. DGB’s chief executive even issued statements downplaying Mappin’s influence, insisting that the company “of course” did not endorse QAnon or conspiracy beliefs despite its new British patrons [60]. Eventually, Farage’s stock options, which could have netted him millions if DGB’s share price had soared, were cancelled as the venture failed to thrive [61]. By 2023, DGB Group remained afloat but its ownership and control were convoluted. John and Irina presumably still held a large stake, but the grand plan to use DGB as a bridge between green finance and right-wing politics had stalled.

Nevertheless, the episode is telling. It shows the Mappins operating in high-level financial and political circles across borders. It also hints at potentially questionable business practices. Claims have been made that the Mappins did not actually inject proportional funds into DGB despite their large shareholdings, possibly obtaining shares via undisclosed arrangements. The Guardian noted that Mappin had “turned his hand to financing conservative political causes” and that DGB’s structure involved a foundation holding 30 per cent of the stock, perhaps giving Mappin effective control behind the scenes [56][55].

The intersection of opaque finance, political influence and narrative warfare in the DGB case exemplifies the Mappins’ modus operandi. They are not content simply to espouse views. They attempt to acquire institutional platforms – a media network, a political chapter or a listed company – through which to project their influence. The DGB saga also underscores how Russian-aligned narratives lurk in the background. Farage’s surprise engagement with a carbon-credits firm, followed by his vehement turn against Net Zero climate policies, fed into a broader right-wing argument that climate change is a globalist or even Chinese hoax. The Mappins, by plugging Farage into DGB, effectively gave him a stage on which to pivot his messaging. Farage’s climate scepticism conveniently aligns with Kremlin strategic interests, given that Russia’s economy is heavily fossil-fuel based. While there is no evidence DGB itself had Russian funding, the ideological synergies are notable [4].

A transnational nexus and its unanswered questions

By 2025, John and Irina Mappin had assembled a remarkable nexus of connections spanning London society, Washington insiders, European populists and even Moscow’s orbit. They were equally comfortable name-dropping a Cornish vicar they had taken tea with as they were a US president. John likes to remind people that he met Donald Trump at an inaugural ball in Washington in 2017, claiming he was the third Briton after the Prime Minister and Nigel Farage to do so [62][63], and that he bestowed on Trump an “honorary Camelot Castle knighthood” during the 2016 campaign [30].

Beneath the social-media posts and glamorous events lies the strategic picture. The Mappins have systematically embedded themselves in the heart of a transatlantic far-right ecosystem that trades in disinformation and reactionary propaganda. They leverage Camelot Castle as a physical hub when useful, hosting figures such as David Icke for interviews on site or flying flags to signal allegiance, and at other times operate through online influence or behind-closed-doors introductions.

Washington’s CSP node

A key US node in this network is the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington DC think tank that has provided ideological ballast to the Mappins’ American allies. CSP, led by Reagan-era defence official Frank Gaffney, is known for its anti-Muslim and anti-globalist stances. Crucially, its leadership has included several figures with US intelligence backgrounds. Fred Fleitz, CSP’s president and chief executive, is a 25-year CIA veteran who served as chief of staff to National Security Adviser John Bolton in 2018 [5]. Clare M. Lopez, CSP’s vice president for research, is herself a former CIA operations officer with two decades of service [6]. J. Michael Waller, a senior analyst at CSP, has been described as a former CIA operative and information-warfare specialist [7].

These former intelligence officers lend CSP’s agenda an air of insider credibility while promoting hard-line policies. All three have used CSP publications and advocacy work to influence Republican policy circles. Gaffney and his team were once on the fringes, but by 2016 Ted Cruz had officially appointed Gaffney, Lopez and Fleitz to his presidential campaign’s national security advisory team [8]. This was a remarkable crossover of think-tank propagandists into mainstream politics. Through white papers, opinion pieces and media appearances, CSP’s analysts consistently push themes of “sovereignty” over “globalism” and cast Islamist influence as an existential threat. These are the same themes that animate the Mappins’ social-media posts and Camelot Castle TV episodes.

In effect, CSP functions as the Washington brain trust for the transnational network to which the Mappins are connected, translating fringe conspiracy theories – for example, the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the US government or that the United Nations’ climate agenda is a subversive plot – into policy-sounding proposals [9][10]. The cross-pollination is evident. CSP alumni such as Fleitz and Lopez advise politicians and write strategic memoranda, which in turn shape the talking points that activists such as Charlie Kirk or John Mappin amplified at the grassroots level. The influence travels both ways. Base populists cheer on leaders who adopted CSP’s “America First” rhetoric, further encouraging those leaders to institutionalise such positions. CSP provides the intellectual script for many of the narratives that the Mappin-Farage-Kirk web then performed on the world stage.

The network now intersects with mainstream power: former UK Cabinet members, members of the House of Lords and at least the friendly ear of royal courtiers. At the same time, it retains one foot in the fringe underground of QAnon and anti-vaxxer subcultures. The Mappins have even been drawn into the cloak-and-dagger world of hacking and online puzzles. They have been accused by witnesses of harassing and attempting to recruit former members of Cicada 3301, with Irina apparently styling herself as a high-level QAnon figure, “M” [15]. These accounts cannot yet be independently verified but are consistent with the Mappins’ penchant for blending conspiracist myth-making with real-world recruitment.

The culmination of this nexus’s visibility arguably came with the assassination of Charlie Kirk on 10 September 2025 in Orem, Utah. Kirk’s shocking murder, shot while speaking on stage, sent shockwaves through the global network of right-wing activists.

For the Mappins it was the loss of a close friend and ally, and a test of their prominence. John Mappin became a vocal mourner and interpreter of Kirk’s legacy in the days and weeks after. On social media he announced with deep anguish: “Our dearest friend Charlie Kirk departed this life this evening. We cannot express in words the deep deep sadness that my wife and I feel” (posted on X/Twitter on the night of the killing). He then used his platform to amplify geopolitical narratives around the incident, relaying for example a statement from Vladimir Putin. “JUST IN: President Putin gives condolences to Charlie Kirk’s family, says that his killing was an atrocious crime and that Charlie died for …” Mappin posted on X on 12 September 2025 [64].

Putin in fact publicly denounced Kirk’s murder as “a disgusting atrocity… a sign of a deep rift in American society”, framing Kirk as a martyr and implying Western moral decay, an extraordinary comment on the death of a relatively obscure American activist [11]. Mappin made sure the world heard it. In a Telegraph interview later that month John shared that Kirk had anticipated the dangers but “wasn’t fearful… he wasn’t afraid of dying at all”, and recounted the supposed interest Queen Elizabeth had shown in Kirk’s Christian youth movement [52][53]. He also took the opportunity to engage with various other figures in the aftermath, from British politician-turned-broadcaster George Galloway to Marla Maples (Donald Trump’s ex-wife, then on the board of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vax organisation CHD), using Kirk’s death as a springboard to reinforce alliances and shared messages across disparate right-wing factions.

Strikingly, many of the Kremlin-friendly propaganda themes the Mappins have promoted are now being echoed in established political forums. John and Irina have consistently railed against “globalist” elites and championed absolute state sovereignty. They decry Western intervention in conflicts such as Ukraine, and ridicule climate-change mitigation efforts as a pretext for government overreach [2][4]. These positions track closely with official Kremlin talking points and, as the next section explores, overlap with elements of the new US strategic doctrine.

The Mappins occupy an unusual position in which they can transmit sentiments between otherwise adversarial camps: bringing Putin’s condolences and worldview into Western conservative discourse, and conversely injecting QAnon-style conspiracism and isolationist rhetoric into channels that Russian observers and propagandists monitor and encourage. They thrive in the shadows between fact and fiction, in a realm where a self-styled Cornish “knight” and his mysterious lady can rally “digital soldiers” for an epic battle no one else can quite see.

In summary, the narrative of John and Irina Mappin is one of blending worlds: high society and internet cults, New Age mysticism and hard-edged geopolitics, business and belief. Their story raises many unanswered questions. Where did the money truly come from for their ventures, and where does it flow now. Camelot Castle’s accounts remain a mystery. What is the real background of Irina, and might it involve state intelligence, or is she simply a fabulist. How many of their anecdotes, from royal briefings to Hollywood parties, are exaggeration rather than fact. And, importantly, what influence are they wielding over impressionable audiences through their media channels and political collaborations. Each new alliance they form, be it Nigel Farage, Eva Vlaardingerbroek or a figure we have not yet heard of, brings European, American and Russian strands ever closer in the web of extreme right-wing disinformation.

The Camelot they have built is not one of legend, but it is a castle nonetheless. It invites anyone who enters to question what is real and who is pulling the strings behind the throne.

International connections: Im Tirtzu, Charlie Kirk and the CSP network

Im Tirtzu’s influence and partnerships extend beyond Israel’s borders. The movement has forged ties with American conservative figures and organisations that share its pro- Israel, anti-delegitimisation agenda. Two notable connections are with Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, and the Center for Security Policy. Together they highlight a transnational network of right-wing pro-Israel advocacy.

Charlie Kirk and Im Tirtzu (Turning Point connection)

Charlie Kirk actively collaborated with Im Tirtzu. In March 2019, Im Tirtzu hosted Kirk for his first speaking event in Israel, a special evening in Jerusalem that drew a standing-room-only crowd [76]. The organisation noted that it had been “a pleasure to host Charlie in his first-ever speaking event in Israel and to offer Israelis the opportunity to hear about the important work he and his organisation are doing for the United States and for Israel” [76].

The event formed part of Kirk’s fact-finding trip to Israel, organised and sponsored by Im Tirtzu’s student movement [77]. Key aspects of this collaboration include:

Advocacy on campus. Turning Point USA and Im Tirtzu share a mission of combating left-wing influence on college campuses. In interviews after his visit Kirk argued that “college campuses are one of the biggest threats to the entire world” because of radical leftist ideologies, and claimed that extremists “hate Israel and America” alike [77]. This mirrors Im Tirtzu’s own campaigns against perceived anti-Israel bias in academia. Both groups rally young activists to push back against what they view as hostile ideology in educational institutions.

Pro-Israel “eye-opening” tours. Im Tirtzu arranged for Kirk to visit flashpoint locations such as Hebron, the Golan Heights and the Gaza border to counteract media narratives. Kirk said the tour had “opened his eyes”. He described being surprised to find normal Arab city life in Hebron, contrary to media-fed expectations of destitute refugee camps, and learning about Israeli humanitarian treatment of Syrian war casualties in the Golan [77]. These experiences strengthened his already staunch pro-Israel stance. Kirk identified as “very pro-Israel… an evangelical Christian, a conservative, a Trump supporter” and said the trip helped him “grow the movement for freedom, in the most important country in the world outside of the United States” [77].

Mutual praise and public support. The partnership was mutually admiring. Im Tirtzu lauded Kirk’s work in the United States, while Kirk in turn praised Im Tirtzu. During a youth Jewish leadership conference after his visit he described Im Tirtzu as a “terrific” organisation and recounted touring Israel with Im Tirtzu chief executive Matan Peleg as a highlight of his trip [77]. Such endorsements indicate a shared ideological network. Kirk’s American conservative base was introduced to Im Tirtzu’s brand of activism, while Im Tirtzu gained international legitimacy and allies in the fight against “anti-Israel” movements.

Center for Security Policy (CSP) and Im Tirtzu

The Center for Security Policy, a Washington DC think tank founded by Frank Gaffney, has also intersected with Im Tirtzu’s network. CSP is known for its hawkish pro-Israel stance and campaigns against Islamist extremism; critics label it part of an “Islamophobia” network [1]. In the context of Im Tirtzu, “CSP” refers to this organisation, which has collaborated with or been cited in relation to Im Tirtzu’s activities.

Ideological alignment and public relations. CSP and Im Tirtzu share a core agenda of defending Israel’s legitimacy and security. Caroline Glick, an Israeli commentator who served as deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post and as a senior fellow for Middle East affairs at CSP, has been a vocal supporter of Im Tirtzu’s initiatives [78]. Through CSP’s platforms Glick amplified Im Tirtzu’s campaigns against foreign-funded NGOs. In a 2011 column, published by CSP, she highlighted an Im Tirtzu report that claimed “foreign Arabs are funding Israeli Jewish and Arab NGOs with the aim of criminalising Israel”, effectively vindicating Israeli officials’ concerns about internal “political warfare” [79]. By hosting such content CSP boosted Im Tirtzu’s message to American audiences, portraying the organisation as bravely “exposing the puppet masters” behind anti-Israel activism [79]. This amounts to an informal collaboration in information warfare: CSP provides intellectual and media backing for Im Tirtzu’s domestic battles.

Shared campaigns against delegitimisation. Both organisations have lobbied against what they view as attempts to delegitimise Israel. Im Tirtzu spearheaded a push for a Knesset inquiry into foreign funding of NGOs, arguing that groups supported by European governments and the New Israel Fund were undermining the IDF and Israel’s image [79]. CSP’s stance has been analogous in the United States, frequently warning of anti-Israel bias and defending Israel in policy debates. CSP’s “Project on Global Anti-Semitism and the US–Israel Relationship” explicitly focuses on combating anti-Israel narratives [79]. This synergy means that Im Tirtzu and CSP often fight on the same side of global propaganda battles, even if not always in formal coordination. When Im Tirtzu launched its controversial campaign branding left-wing activists as foreign “moles” in 2015, it fitted neatly into CSP’s broader narrative that hostile forces – Islamist groups, hostile NGOs and others – were infiltrating and weakening Western democracies [79].

Personnel and knowledge exchange. There is a flow of ideas and people between CSP’s circle and Im Tirtzu’s. Caroline Glick’s dual role as Israeli pundit and CSP fellow is one bridge. CSP board members and allies often visit Israel for security conferences or tours, interacting with local organisations. Frank Gaffney has led delegations to Israel for strategic briefings [1]. While specific joint programmes with Im Tirtzu are not always publicly documented, the think-tank world and advocacy networks overlap. Im Tirtzu founder Ronen Shoval and CSP experts have appeared in the same pro-Israel forums [78]. Both organisations also cite each other’s research. CSP reports reference Im Tirtzu’s findings on NGOs, while Im Tirtzu’s English-language materials echo themes common in CSP publications, such as the threat of “lawfare” or international boycotts orchestrated by Israel’s enemies [79].

Overlapping networks and funding connections

These linkages are part of a broader transnational network of conservative and pro-Israel organisations that reinforce each other’s work. Im Tirtzu, Turning Point and CSP are connected through shared values as well as common supporters. Key aspects of this joined network include:

Shared donors and philanthropic channels. Im Tirtzu has received funding from American conservative and pro-Israel sources, some of which also back CSP. Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum (MEF), a US think tank, has funnelled grants to both Im Tirtzu and CSP. MEF’s Education Fund lists Im Tirtzu (Israel) and Center for Security Policy (USA) among its supported recipients, indicating a deliberate effort to bolster anti-Islamist and pro-Israel activists abroad [80]. MEF provided CSP with sizeable grants in the early 2010s, over 300,000 US dollars in 2012–2014 [80], while also earmarking funds for Im Tirtzu’s projects. Donors such as the Snider Foundation and the Abstraction Fund (Nina Rosenwald), known for financing hard-line pro-Israel and “counter-jihad” causes, have contributed to CSP and are reported to have routed smaller donations to Im Tirtzu via charitable intermediaries [80]. This overlap in funding shows that the US conservative philanthropic ecosystem regards Im Tirtzu and CSP as complementary efforts in defending Israel’s image and security.

Political and personal relationships. Im Tirtzu’s work has drawn praise from prominent US figures on the political right. Beyond Charlie Kirk, Im Tirtzu has cultivated ties with evangelical Christian and Republican lawmakers. Im Tirtzu’s early funding in 2009 included support from evangelical pastor John Hagee’s Christian organisation [26]. The Jerusalem Post has noted that some large donations to Im Tirtzu have originated from US political networks close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [26], blurring the line between Israel’s domestic politics and American advocacy. On the CSP side, the think tank has long-standing relations with pro-Israel lobbyists and Republican politicians; for instance, CSP received support from figures associated with AIPAC in campaigns against the Iran nuclear deal [80]. These relationships demonstrate a joint political mission. Whether in Jerusalem or Washington, Im Tirtzu and its American allies lobby for policies that counter boycotts, emphasise security threats from Islamists and Iran, and promote nationalist narratives.

Conferences and delegations Both Im Tirtzu and CSP participate in international conferences and summits that bring together like-minded activists. Im Tirtzu’s conferences in Israel have featured video messages from figures such as Netanyahu and coalition politicians [26]. CSP and related organisations, such as JINSA and the Gatestone Institute, regularly send delegations to Israel for security tours. It is in such forums that Im Tirtzu staff, CSP fellows and figures such as Charlie Kirk mixed and exchanged strategies. Kirk’s attendance at the US embassy opening in Jerusalem in May 2018 and his subsequent tour with Im Tirtzu in 2019 helped cement a pro-Israel coalition across borders [77]. The presence of Christian activists, US military figures and Israeli NGOs together on these trips highlights a coordinated network. Im Tirtzu often acts as host on the ground, giving foreign visitors a curated view of conflict areas, a counter to tours run by left-wing NGOs, which aligns neatly with CSP’s and Kirk’s messaging needs.

In summary, Im Tirtzu, Turning Point and the Center for Security Policy are interlinked through a common cause, defending Israel from critics and promoting a nationalist, pro-military narrative, and through mutual relationships. Im Tirtzu leverages American allies to gain legitimacy and resources, while US conservatives gain on-the-ground partners in Israel who validate their worldview. This joining of the networks has created a transatlantic alliance of right-wing organisations that reinforce each other’s campaigns.

As a result, Im Tirtzu’s campus campaigns and reports against “anti-Israel” actors are echoed and endorsed by American think tanks such as CSP, giving those campaigns international reach [79]. American activists such as Charlie Kirk, in turn, amplified Im Tirtzu’s message to young US audiences and policymakers, portraying Israel’s fight against internal dissent as part of a wider struggle against global leftism and terrorism [77][79]. This collaboration shows how modern Israeli advocacy operates not only locally but as a globally networked effort. Despite coming from different countries, Kirk’s grassroots conservative movement, Gaffney’s security-policy institute and Im Tirtzu’s Israeli activists effectively joined forces, sharing strategies, supporters and a vision of a robustly nationalist, pro-Israel front on the world stage [26][80].

Influence assessment: US strategy and the transnational right-wing network

The year 2025 did not only mark an inflection point for the Mappin-centric network. It also saw the United States articulate a new National Security Strategy under President Trump that bears a conspicuous resemblance to the ideological mantra of this transnational right-wing web. A comparative assessment reveals significant overlaps in themes and rhetoric.

Anti-globalism and the “Primacy of Nations”

The 2025 National Security Strategy declares that the world’s fundamental political unit “is and will remain the nation-state” and that all nations should put their own interests first [12]. This “Primacy of Nations” principle, which states that “the world works best when nations prioritise their interests” [12], is effectively a diplomatic articulation of the “America First” and sovereigntist philosophy that Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and allies such as Farage or Mappin have championed for years.

Trump’s strategy explicitly denounces “sovereignty-sapping” transnational organisations and promises to reform or bypass them in favour of empowered nation-states [13]. This mirrors the network’s disdain for institutions such as the European Union or United Nations, which they portray as elitist projects that undermine national sovereignty. It is no stretch to suggest that CSP veterans had a hand in this language. Fred Fleitz went from running Gaffney’s think tank to helping craft policy in Trump’s National Security Council, illustrating a pipeline of ideas from the fringe to the White House [5]. The strategy’s sovereigntist bent aligns neatly with talking points long circulated by CSP white papers and echoed at Camelot Castle gatherings.

Non-interventionism and Putin-sympathetic realignment

Trump’s strategy stresses a “predisposition to non-interventionism” abroad and a focus on core interests rather than humanitarian or ideological ventures [14]. In practice this has meant advocating an “expeditious cessation of hostilities” in Ukraine in order to “re-establish strategic stability with Russia” [15], effectively prioritising a peace deal over Kyiv’s full territorial defence. This stance is strikingly sympathetic to the Kremlin’s desire to freeze the conflict on favourable terms. It is also precisely the outcome that John Mappin and his circle have lobbied for in the court of public opinion, where they present Western aid to Ukraine as foolish and provocatively suggest respecting Putin’s sphere of influence [2]. What was once dismissed as pro-Russian talking points on the fringe is now enshrined, in more careful wording, as US policy.

The strategy also introduces a “Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine”, which bluntly warns off foreign powers from the US hemisphere and reasserts American pre-eminence in its regional sphere [16]. This de facto endorsement of great-power sphere-of-influence politics resonates with the worldview of the transnational right-wing network, a worldview that respects strongmen carving out domains, such as Russia in Eastern Europe, and rejects liberal internationalist ideas of borderless intervention. Russian strategists have long invoked their own version of the Monroe Doctrine for places such as Ukraine. Trump’s doctrine implicitly validates that approach, to the likely quiet approval of the Mappins and Farage.

State sovereignty versus global governance

The strategy’s rhetoric about international organisations reads like a mash-up of a Brexit rally speech and a CSP briefing. It rails against “intrusive” global institutions and promises to put American sovereignty above all multilateral considerations [17]. Nigel Farage built his career on exactly this argument, calling on Britain to “take back control” from the European Union. John Mappin’s social-media output is replete with warnings that “globalists” – whether in Brussels, Davos or the World Health Organization – seek to erode national independence. Now the US government’s strategic doctrine itself validates those fears by pledging to thwart any incursions on sovereignty that global bodies might attempt.

The ideological feedback loop is clear. Activists dramatise the loss of sovereignty. Their allies gain positions of influence. Policy then shifts to address the dramatised threat. Figures such as Clare Lopez and J. Michael Waller, who frame issues as battles for civilisational survival in CSP essays, and popular firebrands such as Charlie Kirk, who used to denounce “globalist elites” in campus tours, helped to prepare the ground for a more isolationist, sovereignty-first American grand strategy.

“Peace deals” and Trump as peacemaker

President Trump’s new strategy makes the audacious claim that he has “cemented his legacy as the President of Peace”, citing the historic Abraham Accords from his first term and boasting that in just eight months of his second term he brokered unprecedented peace in eight international conflicts [18]. The document lists ceasefires or accords between pairs of long-time adversaries, from Kosovo and Serbia to India and Pakistan, all allegedly achieved through Trump’s personal deal-making [19].

This triumphalist narrative verges on hagiography and overlaps with the way the Mappin network venerates Trump’s role on the world stage. John Mappin, for example, has relentlessly portrayed Trump as a peacemaker sabotaged by globalist warmongers. Turning Point’s media allies often contrasted Trump’s “no new wars” record with the perceived hawkishness of prior administrations. Now, in official print, the US government itself praises “realignment through peace”, seeking peace deals at the president’s direction “even in regions peripheral to our interests”, as a core strategic approach [20]. This could have been lifted straight from a Q-anon forum post crediting Trump with secret masterstrokes to stabilise the world.

The document even credits Trump with ending the war in Gaza in 2025 with all hostages returned [21]. This feeds the almost messianic image of Trump promoted by some of his fervent online supporters, many of whom, such as Mappin, traffic in conspiracies that present Trump as divinely ordained to bring peace.

Climate and anti-“globalist” economics

The transnational right-wing network often dismisses climate change as a “globalist scam” or, at minimum, opposes aggressive climate policies such as Net Zero, framing them as elitist schemes to undermine national industries. Here too, the strategy aligns. In a section on energy it pointedly “rejects the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies” as harmful to America and beneficial only to adversaries [22]. This language is far more candid than that found in typical government reports. It echoes arguments heard from Farage, now a crusader against Net Zero, from Breitbart and GB News pundits and, indeed, from John Mappin’s own Camelot TV programmes.

That the US strategy would go so far as to put scare quotes around “climate change” and deride decarbonisation efforts is a startling victory for the network’s narrative. It suggests that influencers such as the Mappins, who helped to mainstream climate scepticism under the cover of “green business” via DGB, and think tanks such as CSP, which hosted talks attacking the Paris Accord, successfully shifted the Overton window. A stance that was recently fringe, openly opposing Net Zero goals set by one’s own government, is now national policy for the world’s leading power. The network’s fingerprints are evident in the emphasis on “energy dominance” and the dismissal of climate multilateralism [23][24].

Speculative influence

How did this convergence come about. A full accounting is beyond the scope of this report, but the circumstantial evidence points to multiple channels of influence.

First, personnel. Individuals associated with this network found their way into Trump’s advisory orbit. Fred Fleitz is emblematic. Moving from Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy to Trump’s National Security Council staff, he likely carried the CSP worldview with him. CSP’s own publications cheered his appointment as a sign that their ideas had entered the White House. Other CSP-linked figures reportedly involved in Trump’s circles include Sebastian Gorka, once a regular at CSP-sponsored panels at CPAC, and Gaffney himself, whom Trump’s transition team consulted when staffing the Pentagon [17].

Charlie Kirk, though young, had the ear of the Trump family and spoke at the Republican National Convention. His influence on youth framing of issues, such as portraying NATO allies as free-riders or promoting an “America First” lens on foreign aid, dovetailed with the positions that later appeared in the strategy. It is conceivable that when the administration drafted its document, officials were consciously catering to a base that had by then absorbed years of messaging from Turning Point, Breitbart and similar outlets. That base wanted to see global entanglements minimised and cultural battles prioritised.

John Mappin, although not an official adviser, contributed indirectly. He amplified pro-Kremlin and anti-establishment narratives into the information stream that Republican policymakers monitor. Mappin’s enthusiastic dissemination of Putin’s statements, including those on Kirk’s death, and his collaborations with media figures would have reinforced the notion that a significant segment of Trump’s base favoured rapprochement with Russia and saw the real enemy as the “globalist woke” enemy within. The strategy’s tone, combative towards Western European leaders and international bureaucrats yet curiously indulgent towards “strong” states when they align with US interests, reflects that viewpoint.

In conclusion, the 2025 National Security Strategy can be read as both a product and a vindication of the transnational right-wing network’s narratives. Its pages praise “President Trump’s peace deals” and enshrine concepts such as the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine and the Primacy of Nations, which validate the world-views of Mappin, Kirk, Gaffney and their fellow travellers [16][12]. The Overton window has shifted. Ideas that germinated in think-tank back rooms, fringe YouTube channels and plush Cornish hotel salons have blossomed into the guiding doctrine of the United States of America.

For the network this is both a triumph and a new challenge. Their once radical agenda is now in power. The successes or failures of USA policy will be tied to their ideas. For Europe and especially Ukraine it raises a profound question: where does influence truly flow in the twenty-first century. The case of John and Irina Mappin, connecting a Cornish castle to the White House Situation Room via an international web of right-wing activism, suggests that influence flows in ways previously unimagined, ignoring borders and blurring the line between fringe and establishment. The 2025 strategy is a window into this network: a reflection of its goals, its grievances and its stamp on history.

Sources – Mappin profile

Sources: [1] Mappin & Webb family background (WordPress blog) [2] The Spectator (Taki’s column on Mappins) [3] John Mappin minor acting credits (IMDb) [4] William Cash profile in Spear’s [5] John Mappin interview (YouTube, 2010) [6] Googlejohnmappin blog (Mappin history) [7] John Mappin interview, Camelot Castle TV [8] Cash profile (on Mappin’s lifestyle change) [9] KazakhTV feature on Irina [10] Investment fund prospectus (Irina bio) [11] Irina Mappin’s Kazakh Origins (archival research) [12] Cash, Spear’s (Irina as “Romanian”) [13] Cash, Spear’s (Irina family converted to Scientology) [14] Daily Mail (Anna Chapman comparison) [15] Online dossier (“M” as Irina theory) [16] Googlejohnmappin blog (purchase of Camelot Castle) [17] Jules Evans, “Camelot of Conspirituality” (Medium) [18] Jules Evans (Camelot gimmicks) [19] TripAdvisor reviews compilation [20] TripAdvisor review (example) [30] Guardian (Q flag at Camelot Castle) [33] Fred Fleitz bio (ICAS) [35] Powerbase (Clare Lopez CIA career) [39] The Guardian, 25 Mar 2016 (Cruz campaign advisors) [41] Politico EU (Farage dinner) [42] Politico EU (Farage dinner details) [43] IndiaTimes (Queen & Kirk interest) [45] Telegraph (Farage DGB windfall) [47] Turning Point UK, Wikipedia [52] Geo News (Queen on Kirk) [53] Geo News (Queen on Kirk) [64] John Mappin on X (Kirk death announcement) [65] Fox News (Putin on Kirk death) [66] Fox News (Putin on Kirk death) [72] National Security Strategy of the U.S., Nov 2025 [73] National Security Strategy, 2025 (Ukraine conflict) [74] National Security Strategy, 2025 (Peace deals praise) [75] National Security Strategy, 2025 (Climate/NetZero stance). (Additional references [22], [23], [24], etc., as cited above in text.)

Additional Sources

Fred Fleitz bio

Clare M. Lopez ,  Powerbase

AWC Lecture: J. Michael Waller, The Political Weaponization of the CIA and FBI | Hillsdale in D.C.

Ted Cruz campaign’s anti-Muslim propagandists called ‘terrifying’ | Ted Cruz | The Guardian

2025, National, Security, Strategy.pdf

References – Transnational Right-wing Network and NSS

[CSP Staff and Authors] Center for Security Policy, “Staff” and “Author” pages.

[CSP Im Tirtzu Article] G. Townsend, “Israel fights the demagogues”, Center for Security Policy (Aug 2010).

[CSP History] Wikipedia, “Center for Security Policy” (staff roles, Trump admin ties).

[Turning Point UK] Wikipedia, “Turning Point UK” (launch details, hosts, supporters).

[Farage & Mappin] QAnon-Adjacent UK–US Connections (investigative report).

[Guardian News (TPUK/DGB)] Jasper Jolly, “Nigel Farage’s green employer is part-owned by QAnon believer”, Guardian (29 Mar 2021).

[Guardian News (Q flag)] Mark Townsend, “Fan of Trump and Farage raises far-right ‘Q’ flag…” Guardian (11 Jan 2020).

[Tribune Magazine] Solomon Hughes, “The Dark Heart of Green Toryism” (Oct 2022).

[Kazakh Sources] Irina Mappin’s Kazakh origins – archival references (user-uploaded doc).

[Mappin Dossiers] mappin – briefing.docx (user-uploaded, executive summary & timeline).

[Queen/Kirk Reports] N. Bagchi, “Did Queen Elizabeth II support Charlie Kirk?” IndiaTimes (Sep 2025) (for Mappin interview quotes).

[Mosques vs Gospels] Translation Matt Iran.docx (user doc), Network of Alt-Media Activists (2020–), etc. (Additional user-uploaded reports reviewed for context and not directly cited).

All factual claims above are sourced. Unverified assertions (e.g. espionage or illegal activity)