Miri AF

Massive missives and more

FB Fulminations

view:  full / summary

Non-Crime and Punishment

Posted by Miri on October 13, 2020 at 5:45 AM Comments comments (0)

n the UK, as in most of Europe, we don't have the death penalty, which means the very worst punishment our society recognises is life in prison. That is the harshest retribution our culture and judicial system can conceive of.


But why is life imprisonment considered such a uniquely severe penalty? After all, prisoners are kept warm, fed, and entertained. They're not physically tortured or starved. They have access to books and games and TV.


Yet it's still considered the worst punishment many societies have to offer. Why?


It's because it deprives people of the single most important facet of life - liberty. That is the only answer there can be, because otherwise, what's so bad about life in prison? All your basic needs are met, you don't have to worry about rent or bills, and you have access to entertainment and education. But prison is still recognised as a profound punishment and effective deterrent, because it removes liberty and prohibits independence and self-determination - which all societies innately know are the most important parts of life, and therefore removing them, the worst punishment.


So: compare that to our "new normal", where we've lost our jobs and must depend on the state to subsidise us, we can't see family and friends, and we are severely restricted in our movements, restrictions which are enforced by the state.


"What are you complaining about?" Demand the muzzled masses. "Aren't you being kept warm? Aren't you well fed? Aren't your rent and bills being covered? Don't you have Netflix and Facebook and YouTube? Can't you do your studies online?"


Well - you could say the exact same thing to someone doing a life sentence for murder. If "lockdown" isn't so bad, then neither is life in prison, because there is no material difference between the two.


That is why these measures are so abhorrent and so unjustifiable, so completely and utterly obscene. We have delivered society's worst punishment - the forcible removal of liberty by the state - to millions of completely innocent people, who have been treated with more indignity and contempt than sadistic mass murderers, who uniformly get the right to a trial, a defence, and due process before their liberty is permanently stripped from them.


If I accuse someone of a crime and want them to be sent to prison, then there are processes and protocols that must be rigorously adhered to, such as the production of evidence and then a trial, where the accused has the right to a defence, and to appeal.


Yet, if I want to accuse someone of potentially being "Covid positive" (which, although you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, is not actually a crime) and have them put under house arrest, again and again and again, I need produce no evidence. There is no due process, and they have no right to any objection, defence or appeal. I can strip all liberty from anyone I like, any time I like, and be fully backed up by the state, all on the basis of nothing. I can (we all can) condemn someone, anyone at all, to society's worst fate - the forcible removal of liberty by the state (£10,000 penalty if you breach "self-isolation" rules) - for absolutely nothing, and there's not a single thing they can do about it. That means, the current reality is, convicted mass murderers serving life sentences in prison have more human rights than you or me; because they went through due process before being stripped of their liberty and forcibly detained by the state. We have not.


Let's just repeat that: we are all being subjected to society's worst punishment, without even the rights we extend to society's most depraved criminals. It is utterly inconceivable that that could be true in a 21st century liberal democracy. But it is.

Politicising the Pantomime

Posted by Miri on October 10, 2020 at 5:45 AM Comments comments (0)

It's most interesting to note it is all the more "right-wing" newspapers and figures opposing lockdown (Daily Mail, Telegraph, Spiked, and their various journalists and contributors), whilst the holy "liberal" (har de har) shibboleths of the Guardian, BBC and Independent keep up their banshee-like shrieking for ever tighter restrictions.


When the death count does really start to sharply rise, as it will very soon, courtesy of 'flu vaccines, contaminated test kits, months of sedentary solitary confinement, and filthy face nappies, this will then be used as another stick to beat the "evil right-wingers" with (bearing in mind the definition of "right winger" is now - quite dizzyingly perversely, given we ostensibly have a Conservative government - anyone who disagrees with the state on anything).


Once the deaths start spiking and the hospital beds start filling up - as happens every "flu (vaccine) season" - the "right wing" (e.g. any and everyone who has ever opposed lockdown restrictions) will be painted as selfish, reckless, science-denying granny-killers, whilst the noble, holy, Guardianistas, who obediently sacrificed their entire lives upon state command and begged for ever more to be taken away from them, will be canonised as altruistic saints whose advanced intellects and superior moral compasses allowed them to have the foresight and to make the sacrifices that the "right wingers" were just too evil, selfish, and thick to do.


Have you noticed how all the anti-lockdown protests are ALWAYS characterised by the press as "right wing", when there is no evidence those attending share any particular political allegiance? Has the press made any attempt to interview protestors in significant numbers and establish the most common political leanings? Of course not, so why this relentless mischaracterisation? It's because the whole thing is being carefully stage-managed to set up anyone who opposes Holy State and Dear Leader as "right wing", a slur we have all been taught to conflate with the worst character traits and historical figures imaginable.


So, the more the "right wing" mainstream press and talking heads oppose lockdown, and the more the "liberal" ones support it, the more I worry about what the endgame is with this, and whether it is about - very cleverly and persuasively, certainly - stage-managing us into a trap. The oldest trick in the post-war book - Reductio ad Hitlerum.


In short: anyone who opposes the state-us quo is a Nazi.


(Never mind the fact Nazi is an abbreviation of National SOCIALIST - why let the truth get in the way of a good story? The state certainly never has.)

 

All the world's a stage, episode 582495

Posted by Miri on October 8, 2020 at 2:00 PM Comments comments (1)




This is the front cover of today's Daily Mail. There is certainly quite a formidable turn of the tide lately, and I can't help thinking this is all deliberate and part of the "show". You know who was one of the first to share this image online, call Covid "a conspiracy", and insist we must get back to normal? Spencer "son of Piers" Morgan. That being, the Piers Morgan who has been shrieking hysterically since day one for lockdown-on-steroids. That being, the Piers Morgan who, quite by coincidence of course, was also pictured shrieking hysterically in the opening credits of "end of the world" disaster movie, World War Z.


I will clarify what I'm suggesting: that, where it comes to the public sphere, all the world's a stage, and the men and women, merely actors. Piers Morgan stars on television. He's been in the movies. He's an actor, and acting dynasties often spring up within families.


If Piers and his son genuinely had such a profound disagreement on such a central issue, would they really choose to broadcast it publicly via Twitter (they've actually had a little public "spat" about it)? Maybe they would. But alternatively, maybe this is all actually just part of the drama, part of the deftly scripted show. Good cop, bad cop. Oh no he isn't, oh yes he is.


Spencer Morgan is now calling out Covid as a conspiracy, and labelling the restrictions drastically disproportionate; one of the UK's most-circulated newspapers is effectively agreeing, with a big front-page splash questioning all aspects of the "official line", and, meanwhile, multiple people I've spoken to who, in the initial stages, were terrified of the virus and believed every word of the government's propaganda, are now rolling their eyes and shaking their heads and saying it's all nonsense and the government is lying and we need to get back to normal.


Is this situation going to simply be allowed to continue, and the government made to look even bigger incompetent clowns than they already do? Don't forget, this epic global production is being expertly stage-managed, and this stage too has been planned. It wouldn't be front-page news in the Daily Mail otherwise - if the government wanted us still in maximal panic mode, they would just have commissioned another headline about a terrifying rise in "cases" or some souped-up "tragedy" about a 103-year-old great-grandfather with terminal cancer and advanced heart disease who "died after testing positive for coronavirus".


But that isn't happening; major media outlets and relatives of major media figures are coming out and overtly stating the virus is, more or less, a hoax, and the restrictions completely inappropriate and counterproductive.


On the surface this looks encouraging. Too encouraging. So, I'm afraid that I think that this is a trap. I think that we are being encouraged to question and doubt the government, to set the stage for what they have planned next. We know that they are very aggressively pushing the 'flu vaccine this year, with God knows what in it - as the Corvelva Italian scientists found, "official" vaccine ingredients' lists bear little resemblance to what is actually in them; we know they are ambushing children at schools with "surprise" vaccination drives, again injecting them with God knows what (see this story where a 7-year-old boy "suddenly became ill and died" whilst at school - whilst this may of course be unrelated to vaccination, the fact remains healthy 7-year-olds don't just "suddenly die", and the date given, October 1st, is when many schools did their 'flu vaccines - https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/tributes-paid-happy-healthy-beautiful-19053990).


I think that in the very near future, we are going to see a sudden tsunami of very sick people. I do think the death rate will genuinely spike (it does every "flu (vaccine) season" anyway). I think that - quite unlike the "first wave", which was entirely illusory - the "second wave" will be real. Not that people will be dying from a cold virus, obviously, but that people will start becoming very sick and dying, this will be attributed to COVID-19 (since everything is now, even suicide) and then just imagine the power of the government and the media to deliver the biggest, most devastating "we told you so" of all time.


People are being encouraged to doubt and question the government, so when real illness and death does actually start happening, the government can say, "see, we told you this would happen, we told you how serious this was, and we were only trying to help you with our restrictions. If only you'd listened to us and trusted us and followed the rules, none of this ever would have happened."


Result of this? Huge increase in fear-based compliance to whatever the government says, and concomitant huge increase in hatred and distrust of "conspiracy theorists" and anyone who questions the mainstream view.


As ever, I sincerely hope my predictions are wrong. But as soon as I saw Spencer Morgan being touted as the "new conspiracy kid on the block", alarm bells started shrieking, nearly as loudly as his father does...

Memories of muzzle-less mandates

Posted by Miri on October 5, 2020 at 5:30 AM Comments comments (1)

Facebook showed me a rather pertinent and prophetic "memory" this morning, which I reproduce below.


A further poignant twist is that I vividly remember writing it, sitting in The Graduate pub in York, an establishment I had happily sauntered into veritably flaunting my nose and mouth, where I had been greeted by the smiling faces of PPE-free staff (ah, those halcyon days when pubs looked like pubs and not medical detainment facilities!), and no-one wanted my personal details to pass onto the state in case they wanted to incarcerate me. Can you believe the human race made it as far as 2020 routinely deploying such reckless and cavalier disregard for our safety?!


From October 5th, 2019


THINGS THE HEALTH SECRETARY DOESN'T WANT TO MANDATE:


*Healthy, affordable, unprocessed food;

*A clean food chain free of glyphosate and other carcinogens, poisons, and anti-nutrients;

*Uncontaminated water free from aluminium, chlorine, fluoride, and other hazardous materials;

*Clean air free from pollutants;

*Safe food containers free of endocrine disruptors;

*Safe medicines free from mutagens, sterilants and carcinogens


THINGS THE HEALTH SECRETARY DOES WANT TO MANDATE:


*Vaccinations


Conclusion: Mandating vaccines is not about optimising the nation's health. The health epidemics currently ravaging the country - obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and autism - are not caused by a lack of vaccination.


Whilst cancer is now projected to affect one in two people, and millions suffer the crippling consequences of autism, diabetes, dementia, and other chronic conditions, the current measles 'epidemic' is affecting 0.0004% of the population. Of those 0.0004%, approximately 0.01% will experience serious complications as a result.


Given these facts, I'd be most interested indeed to see the figures that show vaccinating millions on the public purse is cheaper than treating measles, mumps, rubella etc. Of course, it isn't, because a) vaccination doesn't reliably prevent outbreaks; even 100% vaccinated populations can experience them, and b) in the overwhelming majority of cases, measles and other childhood diseases are trivial and benign, and require no treatment whatsoever from the NHS.


So, Health Secretary, why this obsessive focus on mild and brief infections, which only in exceptional cases require hospital treatment? Measles and mumps are not bringing the NHS to its knees; diabetes and autism are. Chicken pox is not causing catastrophic crises throughout social care; dementia is. 50% of people aren't getting rubella; they're getting cancer.


There are myriad proven ways to prevent and treat the chronic conditions listed above (note that the HPV vaccine isn't one of them, as it has never been shown to prevent a single case of cancer), but rather than use the state propaganda organs - sorry, 'free press' - to promote these, instead, those charged with preserving and promoting national health want to mandate injections of known neurotoxins, carcinogens, and sterilants, which have never been shown to improve a nation's health or longevity (quite the contrary, in fact).


Powerful figures behind mass vaccination drives openly state their commitment to significantly depopulating the world. People who prioritise depopulating the planet have no incentive to protect or preserve life, so clearly that's not really what vaccines are for.


Obviously, pointing out this flagrant discrepancy in global policy makes me a conspiracy theorist. To avoid that label, it's important you see what authority figures tell you to see, rather than using your brain and your eyes, and seeing what is actually there.


''The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.'' - George Orwell, 1984


Risky business

Posted by Miri on September 29, 2020 at 10:25 AM Comments comments (1)

I've become fond of starting my posts with memable quotes, so I feel compelled to declare that not only is all the world a stage, but it is also all a rich man's trick...


People within "the truth movement" understand how reality is manipulated to extraordinary effect through false flags, crisis actors, psy-ops, propaganda, and generally an unrelenting campaign of mind-bending treachery and lies from the mass media and world's governments.


But what's harder to accept is that seeing through one level of illusion doesn't render us invincible against all others. There is no reason to believe the same strategies deployed in the mainstream aren't also being used to full and devastating effect within "the truth movement", because, well, why wouldn't they be? 


As all successful tyrannical forces in history have known, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it themselves, and to those ends, ALL significant anti-establishment movements are heavily infiltrated by the establishment. All of them. Obviously, that means the truth movement too, and pointing that fact out isn't "divisive" or "negative", it's vitally important, because eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and that means being extremely vigilant about the truth movement and its "leaders", too. Because some of them, inevitably, are controlled intelligence assets sent in by the establishment to weaken and neutralise the enemy (us). They're not "on our side" and "fighting for the same thing" - they're liars and actors, master illusionists (not all masks are made of cloth), trying to trick and deceive, because as I said, that always happens in all anti-establishment movements. This was detailed to particularly brilliant effect in David McGowan's "Laurel Canyon", an expose of how intelligence agencies so successfully infiltrated and ultimately destroyed the 1960s anti-war movement in America (and, having clearly given away too many "tricks of the trade", McGowan died suddenly soon after writing it).


 

To these ends, I had a chat with Westminster borough council yesterday. I asked them for a copy of the risk assessment that was submitted and accepted for the protest in Trafalgar Square on Saturday 26th September. They informed me I would have to put my request in writing to the Metropolitan Police, which I have done. I have made a formal Freedom of Information request, and I have been instructed I will hear from them within 20 working days.


Why have I made this request? Because nothing about this adds up.


Most people, including me until recently, didn't really know what a risk assessment was, nor the conditions for receiving one and having it remain valid. So I shall attempt to explain. In the simplest terms, a risk assessment is a document that describes what the potential risks of an activity are and what controls will be put in place to mitigate those risks. So if you were organising, for instance, a party at a Students' Union, a risk might be "people getting drunk and falling over", with the potential consequence of that being "injury", so the controls in place to mitigate that risk could be, "trained first-aiders on site" and/or "a token system to limit number of drinks". The controls are not expected to eliminate risks completely, as that is impossible, but to sufficiently minimise them, and the controls put in place to do that have to be realistic and persuasive for the risk assessment to be accepted. So for the student party, if the control was, "ban alcohol from the event", that would likely not be accepted, as it isn't realistic the students would adhere to it. If the controls are unrealistic and the risk assessment is therefore not accepted, the event cannot go ahead legally. 


A crucial piece of information to know about contemporary risk assessments is that, due to a change in the law in early September, risk assessments pertaining to protests are required to be "Covid-secure". That is to say, the risk assessment for a protest must acknowledge Covid infection as a risk (if it doesn't, it won't be passed), and detail what controls are going to be put in place to minimise that risk. If this is not done, the risk assessment will not be accepted, and the event will not be able to go ahead legally. 


Therefore, if indeed the risk assessment for Saturday 26th September was passed (and I am told that it was), the organisers of the protest accepted in writing that Covid infection was a risk and agreed they would adhere to "Covid secure" measures to minimise this risk. These would typically involve social distancing and masks where social distancing is not possible. Someone within the council and/or police decided their controls were compelling and realistic enough to pass the risk assessment. 


Let me be clear on what I am saying: the organisers of this protest agreed, in a legally binding document, to apply "Covid secure" measures at the protest, and furthermore, someone in the council/police decided that, despite the fact the point of the event was to protest "Covid secure measures", and despite the fact a near-identical event had been broken up by the police a week before having made no efforts to adhere to these measures, it was nevertheless entirely likely and plausible this time the measures would be adhered to. 


Let me say it again: if the organisers hadn't agreed to adhere to Covid-secure measures and explained in persuasive detail exactly how they and the attendees would do so, the risk assessment wouldn't have been passed and so the event would not have been able to go ahead; it would have been blocked from even setting up. 


"Okay," You might say. "So they lied to get the risk assessment passed. So what? They didn't have a choice."


That may be true, but why weren't potential attendees all openly advised of this? That these were the conditions of the risk assessment being passed, and in order for it to remain valid, these measures had to be adhered to? Nobody was told this, either before or during the event, and they absolutely should have been, because a risk assessment isn't a passive document. It's not just passed, then that's it, you're home free. A risk assessment is an active document which can become voided at any time if the event doesn't comply with the terms of its risk assessment. 


So as soon as the event began and there were no attempts to observe "Covid secure" measures or to advise the crowd to, the risk assessment became voided and the event illegal - and THAT is why it was able to be broken up by the police. It certainly was not broken up because "they're afraid of the truth getting out". If that was so, they would have broken it up in the first ten minutes (or simply not passed the risk assessment in the first place). 


Can you see some problems with all this? Why did event organisers agree in writing to apply Covid secure measures, but not tell anyone attending this is what they had done? The conditions of the risk assessment should have been transparently communicated to all attendees, otherwise they end up unwittingly breaking the law and risking highly unpleasant confrontations with the police - which, surprise surprise, is exactly what ended up happening, just as it did on the 19th.


Furthermore, why did the council/police pass the risk assessment? What person or persons decided that an event specifically protesting Covid restrictions was nevertheless highly likely to adhere to them, bearing in mind that no previous anti-lockdown protest had ever even attempted to? Apparently, Piers Corbyn submitted the risk assessment. He is a high-profile "Covid denier" who has been arrested repeatedly for breaching Covid restrictions. Who in their right mind would therefore believe he was likely to adhere to said restrictions and advise 20,000 others to do so as well? And frankly, even if the crowd HAD wanted to observe social distancing, that would have been impossible for such a large crowd in a confined space like Trafalgar Square.


So, none of this makes any sense. While I'm not accusing anyone of anything (yet), I am asking crucial questions which would not appear to have any readily-available answers. If anyone can provide evidence-based answers to the following simple questions, I would greatly appreciate it:


1. Who was involved in completing the risk assessment?

2. What risks were identified?

3. What controls were described?

4. Who submitted it?

5. Who did they submit it to?

6. Who passed it?

7. Were the conditions of the risk assessment clearly communicated to attendees?

8. Were they reminded of these conditions throughout the event?

9. If they weren't, why weren't they?

10. Why did the police wait three hours, until 3 (:03!) before going in, when it was obvious in the first ten minutes "Covid secure" measures weren't being applied?


These are all crucial questions that we deserve answers to, and anyone who attacks me for daring to ask questions about an event that culminated in horrific and brutal violence (and yet more arrests, which I was promised on multiple occasions by multiple people "couldn't happen" because the Covid rules "aren't the law") needs to have a little think about who's side they're really on. If the organisers have nothing to hide, they will have no problem answering my questions, and they also won't have any problem with being questioned or scrutinised, because that is what you must welcome and expect if you put yourself out there so provocatively and prominently. 


These protests were splashed all over the front pages of all the major newspapers, and scores of people have been left deeply traumatised as a result of what they experienced, with at least 19 more known state dissidents now having their DNA on police file (the police will take this when you are arrested, consensually or otherwise). Such an event deserves scrutiny. We deserve answers. So, I'm not going to sit here meekly and say nothing about all the ENORMOUS unanswered questions hanging over this event because that's "divisive". I might as well not question the government if that's the mentality you'd like to promote, since that's "divisive" as well. Not wearing a mask is "divisive". Being anti-vax is "divisive". In short, standing for anything, ever, is divisive, and that includes having opinions that friends and allies don't agree with. If they're real friends, they'll respect your right to have a different view. If they attack and condemn you for raising legitimate queries and concerns, they're not. 


Nobody is above being questioned and held to account, because - one more meme for those at the back - the truth does not fear investigation. 

The last supper and the final insult

Posted by Miri on September 25, 2020 at 10:15 AM Comments comments (1)

Yesterday, Mark and I made our regular trip down to our old stomping grounds in rural Lancashire, to visit a good friend's farm shop to pick up fresh eggs, farm-churned butter (literally putting the garlic and parsley one on EVERYTHING), organic veg, and some rather delectable home-made honey soap. Whilst it's obviously a little bit further than the local Tesco's. we go there for most fresh staples anyway, to do our little bit to boycott the corporate economy, and support local business and organic farming (and, of course, to talk conspiracy theories - I now make a concerted effort to only purchase goods and services from verified crackpot nutjob whackaloons, so if you're one too and would like the details of this farm shop to do your shopping, please let me know :) ). 


As we wouldn't be back until late, we decided to stop at a local pub on the way back to get something to eat. I knew this was the first day the new "rules" had come into force, but I couldn't see a quiet, out-of-the-way country pub, renowned for its relaxed and laid-back atmosphere, being too draconian about them.


And oh how wrong I was.


First of all, we had to queue at the door (unheard of for a quiet country pub that caters mainly to families and retirees), and watched the group in front of us dutifully don their muzzles as they assidiously checked with each other whether every member of the party had downloaded the NHS track and trace app. In front of us, there were two sanitiser machines, one affixed to the door and one just inside the entrance, and Mark nudged me and muttered we'd better pretend to use them because the staff were patrolling the entrance glaring at everyone to make sure they did.


Once we entered the pub, we were "greeted" (doesn't seem the right word, really) by a waitress wearing a large surgical muzzle, who said robotically:


"Can you put your masks on while we seat you please." 


I could not believe what I was hearing. It was a small pub where even the furthest away table would have taken less than 20 seconds to reach.


"We can't wear them," I said, appalled by myself for having to say these words - to have to explain to a waitress that we "can't" suffocate ourselves in ritual, degrading, Satanic submission before we have a quick bite to eat, sorry. 


"No, that's fine,"  She said quickly, obviously having been prepped that, for now at least, it's not something that can be forced. She escorted us to a table that was quite literally right next to the door, and took about three steps to reach, and she really did want us to have muzzled ourselves for that trip. By the time I sat down I felt a knot in my stomach of nausea and despair, and then I looked around me. The pub was bustling and full, and at first glance it could be mistaken for a normal night out - but every time anyone got up to go to the toilet (you're not allowed to go to the bar), they robotically put their muzzles on. I felt like I was in a horror film.


More muzzled staff came up to us to take our drinks and food orders, and when one young waitress was clearing the table behind us, she dropped her tray and glasses went flying everywhere.


"Sorry, I'm so sorry," She said, flustered. "It's just I can't see where I'm going properly," at which she indicated the large muzzle which came right up to her eyes. 


The whole scenario was completely and utterly insane and awful.


"I think this is the last supper," I said quietly to Mark, as we both knew this was it, the screws have been tightened too far for us to continue to participate in "the new normal". We compromised at first, we negotiated - fake details for track and trace, pretend hand-sanitising, but there is no more dodging and swerving we can do: we cannot participate in this. The law states one is exempt from wearing a mask if it causes one "severe distress" - well, if it does, what effect is it going to have on one being confronted with legions of other people staring dead-eyed and expressionless from beneath theirs?


We finished up quickly and got back in the car to drive the 40-minute journey back home. We decided we would stop at the corner shop that I wrote about yesterday, as we were low on cat food and bottled water, and to say hello to our "tormenting" friend. As we approached the shop, I suddenly had an awful thought.


"Oh my God," I said to Mark. "What if he's wearing the muzzle?"


The reason the pub staff were now all muzzled is because the rules have been tightened to now make it "mandatory" for all hospitality and retail staff to wear them; previously, the rule just applied to customers. Given our corner shop friend had never sported a muzzle at any stage, beamed at us warmly every time we came in muzzle-free, and giggled when we told off a woman who took exception to seeing our muzzleless faces, it's obvious he isn't scared of a virus and has no desire to suffocate himself throughout his 16-hour working day. He'd made it clear just how much it meant to him being able to see people smile and laugh, and so surely to God he wouldn't now be forced into suffocating, shrouded submission himself?


We went into the shop and he was very pleased to see us together.


"Aha," He said happily. "Now this is better!"


Mark didn't have the right money to pay, so asked me for some change. Our friend tutted disapprovingly.


"I did not tell you to bring her with you," He admonished Mark. "So you could ask her for money!"


Although he seemed as mischievously upbeat as ever, I came out of the shop with the knot of nausea and despair back in my stomach.


He was wearing the muzzle.

Corona Clouds and Silver Smiles

Posted by Miri on September 24, 2020 at 7:00 PM Comments comments (2)

There's a corner shop about five minutes from my house that I frequent.... er, frequently.... and in our confined, curtailed, curfewed, completely collapsed and cold-conflicted covid-cancelled culture (hey!), it's one of the highlights of my social calendar - this is mainly because the staff are so friendly (not a muzzle in sight!), and Mark and I have struck up a bit of a rapport with the owner, a trim and bearded Asian gentleman aged about 60. He has quite a mischievous sense of humour, and whenever we go in with leaflet parcels, he enjoys weighing one, and announcing "that'll be £148, please", or, if it's a large order and he has to write our postcode on the side, "I will be keeping the change for my services". He does it quite deadpan, so the first couple of times we fell for it, and then he gives a beaming smile and says, "haha, I am only tormenting you!"


With all the leaflet orders, we've been spending quite a bit of time in there getting "tormented" (and inadvertently tormenting others, such as the woman we let go in front of us because she only had a small order, only for her to turn around and snarl, "it's against the law not to wear a mask, you know!" We reprimanded her appropriately - "actually it's not, you're the one breaking the law by discriminating against us and you're liable for a £9,000 fine" - at which our tormenting friend grinned widely), and the other day, he paid me a nice, but in other ways sadly revealing, compliment.


"You are always smiling," He said. "I like that."


It made me think about how many of his customers' smiles he must now be missing, and for someone who works flat-out like he does (the shop is open 6am to 10pm and he is virtually always there), engaging with customers must represent the bulk of his social interaction - but now he can no longer see their faces or their smiles.


Mark went in yesterday without me, and our friend was very displeased.


"This is no good," He told Mark sternly. "Coming in alone. Where is she? You look good together. I like to see my happy customers."


Obviously on one level he's just "tormenting", but on another he's revealing a sad truth - it matters a great deal to people to be able to see others' faces, see their expressions and see them smile, and it has a profound effect when we cannot, especially for someone who's whole life is centred around face-to-face interaction. I don't have much to do with the maskies because I spend the vast majority of my time at home, but someone who works in a shop and has to see dozens, if not hundreds, of them a day, it must have a really powerful effect - and clearly, not a good one.


Being able to see someone's face means you can see the full colourful array of all human emotions - happiness, sadness, excitement, surprise, concern, suspicion, delight, the full shebang. But when they're masked up, you see one emotion and one only - fear. The worst of all human emotions, the one with the lowest vibration, the one that has no positive angle at all and only paralyses and corrodes and destroys. And so it must be truly awful for a happy, upbeat, mischievously teasing shopkeeper like him, who's spent his whole life serving the community and being repaid by the smiling faces of happy customers, to now just be confronted with fear, fear, fear.  


The people orchestrating all this are insidiously evil in a way that is impossible for any normal human being to fully comprehend (which, indeed, is why so many of them cannot), and they have studied human psychology intrinsically. They are fully conversant in the profound, integrating impact of "the little things" - a kind word from a shopkeeper, a smile from a stranger, and how these can be lifelines, the things that keep us going and brighten our days, even in the darkest of times. They've taken them away so that all we can see is eternal and impenetrable darkness.


We must be the light, which means eschewing the muzzle and smiling at strangers. It means disregarding the phony fear factory created by our criminally insane overlords and instead cracking jokes with shopkeepers. Even if this behaviour DID "spread a deadly virus" (and trust me, it really, really doesn't), I would still do it, because the purpose of being present on Earth at this particular juncture in history is not to "stay safe". it is to stay human.



Cognitive Dissident

Posted by Miri on September 23, 2020 at 4:30 PM Comments comments (0)

So, the Johnson Junta has tightened the screws yet again and here we are now, effectively, in a de-facto police state. It goes without saying (well, maybe not, as I have said it a few thousand times...) that all manner of invective and outrage deserves to be hurled at this truly hideous situation. It is despotic, dystopian, Orwellian, tyrannical, Satanic, evil. The level of decimation this situation has inflicted on individuals, relationships, families, livelihoods, and the very fabric of human life itself is inestimable and obscene.


However - we are where we are. And, much as I sincerely appreciate the value in raging against it, and in doing everything we can to try and halt it, we also need to recognise it is rolling ahead full speed, and so a major priority right now has to be self-preservation and tactical action. Solutions-based strategy focused on positive results for us, the people who see through this grotesque mirage but nevertheless have to live in a world where many people believe in it and where the law will enforce it. 


First of all, please understand what the law is. The Coronavirus Act, an "emergency" piece of legislation rammed through parliament without scrutiny and giving the authorities extraordinary and unprecedented powers, is the law. By which I mean, it will be enforced by law enforcement officers, as they demonstrated at the protest in London on Saturday. To reiterate, 32 arrests were made, there was considerable police brutality, and there are unconfirmed reports that at least one person was killed. So as I said: they will enforce it. As I've stated previously, the protest was illegal because it hadn't passed a "Covid-secure" risk assessment, and the police confirmed that fact on live RT footage, explaining to members of the crowd that is why they were there, and that, if the attendees didn't leave when advised of this illegality, then dispersal and arrests would follow; as they did. 


Many people have made spurious claims along the lines of "the Coronavirus Act isn't real law, they can't enforce it if we don't consent", but this is simply not true. Yes, they can. They can and they have and they will continue to do so. If the Coronavirus Act could be sidestepped by us merely saying "we don't consent", why would it even matter that it exists? Why did so many of us so vigorously oppose this Act upon its institution? Why are we so ferociously fighting against its renewal now? If it was an optional, opt-in sort of arrangement, we wouldn't bother - we'd just opt out and get on with our lives. We can't do that - a fact of which I'm sure anyone reading this is all too well aware.


So please be very clear on the nature of the reality we currently find ourselves in: the powers given to the authorities under the Coronavirus Act do NOT require your consent to be enforced. I watched as protestors at the London rally chanted at the police that they "didn't consent" and "stood under common law". Five minutes later, the police charged at them and violent arrests followed. The police don't care about what you think your rights are; they only care about enforcing what they have been told is the law. They care about following orders and not getting into trouble with their superiors. That's it. Please look at all oppressive regimes around the world, and see how their dissidents fare when they get into the faces of the police, and whether stating "we don't consent" has ever served a single one of these people. Speak to a Palestinian and see how well they are faring informing the Israelis they don't consent to ethnic cleansing and genocide. It's almost as if many dissidents in this country are under a sort of spell, like they're playing a game, and believe if they say such-and-such magic words, all the oppression and tyranny around them will evaporate and they'll be allowed to peacefully go on their merry way. Please listen to me - it's not true. There is no magic spell, no special pass. You are living in a despotic police state and the police do not care about you or what you imagine your rights are.  They will do as they have been told.


If they arrest you for breaking what they have been told is the law, and you feel this is illegitimate, could you challenge them thereafter? Very possibly, people do; but this is a lengthy and expensive process with no guarantee you will win - is that how you want to invest your time and money? Maybe it is, but you really need to give this some serious thought and not rush into anything with maximal bravado and minimal critical thinking, getting yourself into a situation you're not well equipped to handle and that may not be in your interests. I have yet to hear from any of the 32 people who were arrested on Saturday that they feel this was overall a positive, enriching experience. Indeed, the one first-hand account of arrest I have read confirmed the experience was violent, traumatic, and awful. Being arrested is not fun. It's not something to get into lightly, and it has far-reaching consequences (the police will take your DNA by force for a start; what else might they start doing by force?).


We have to really acknowledge the fact that the government is coming down on us very hard. They're deploying the military to the streets. This isn't a game and they're not going to play nice or fair. So if you want to win, you've got to play smart. 


The current knee-jerk response from "the resistance" (and don't think I don't understand and sympathise with it, because I certainly do) is to simply publicly and visibly disobey every new rule as much as possible. The government says I can only have 6 people round my house? Right, arrange a loud house party for 50 people immediately! The government says protesting is illegal if it's not Covid-secure? In that case, I shall arrange the biggest protest imaginable flouting all the Covid rules! And trust me, I get it. These rules are utterly abhorrent and morally illegitimate at every level... But they are nevertheless the law, they will be enforced as the law, and therefore, there may very well be consequences for you if you publicly and visibly break them; consequences which you may not wish to entertain. 


Please do not misinterpret what I am saying. I am not saying you should comply with these laws. I am saying if you are not going to comply with them, do it in an intelligent way that serves you, not in a way that plays right into the hands of the enemy. You publicly flout the laws and flaunt your illegal activity all over the place, and what happens to you? You could very well get arrested - meaning you are now being detained by state officials in state facilities. Does that concept not concern you? It should. If you are a dissident who doesn't trust the state, why on earth would you put yourself in a position where you're spending time alone, incarcerated by state law enforcement officials, where they may do God knows what to you? Don't forget the brutal and extraordinary powers granted to them under the Coronavirus Act.


Successful state dissidents do not make a habit of spending time alone with the police or any other state officials. You're keen to avoid hospitals, you definitely don't want to visit quarantine camps... But you're happy to be incarcerated by the police? Please think. There are much smarter, saner ways to resist than that.


Concealing your law-breaking activities from the authorities is not endorsing the law. It's recognising your responsibility to your own self-preservation, and that, however ludicrous a law might be and however much you might oppose it, breaking it publicly and openly may have deeply undesirable consequences for you. Breaking it non-publicly and non-visibly is far more likely to get you what you want, in a way that won't have self-defeating consequences.


Let's use an example of a law we have virtually all broken - buying alcohol under the age of 18. I broke this law frequently and enthusiastically from the age of about fifteen, and yet, faced no consequences for it, because I did not advertise the fact I was breaking it.


"How old are you?"


"Nineteen." (18 is way too obvious, budding teenage drinkers...)


"What's your date of birth?"


"*Gives fake date.*"


[Of course, back in those days, they were quite relaxed and didn't demand state-approved photo ID to prove you were over 30 with a mortgage and a pension plan, or whatever the ridiculous law is now.]


Having successfully broken this law, I would take my illegal purchase and go and drink it in someone's private home, rather than, say, standing outside a police station jumping up and down and shouting that "I do not consent" to not legally being able to purchase alcohol.


Now, did the fact I concealed my law-breaking activity mean I endorsed the law or was somehow promoting compliance with it? Obviously not. I opposed the law then and I still do now (it's ludicrous that someone can get married, have a child, and join the army - all things 16-year-olds can legally do - but can't purchase a bottle of beer from the corner shop). But I still didn't openly flaunt to the authorities the fact I was breaking it, because that would not have served my purposes - which were to purchase the alcohol and not have the authorities get in my way. After all, I didn't feel I needed their "consent" to buy the alcohol, so I bypassed their laws through concealment and therefore got what I wanted.


Another law a large proportion of people have broken is the purchasing and possession of illegal drugs. One assumes if you choose to purchase illegal drugs, then you oppose the law stating they're illegal and that, obviously, you're not complying with it. But you carry out your non-compliance covertly - you don't plaster your activity all over social media, letting the world know exactly where, when, and from whom you will be buying your drugs.


I think you get the point. If your aim is to break a law because you oppose it, then breaking it loudly, visibly, and publicly may not be in your interests. This may have consequences that aren't helpful to you and could in fact be extremely undesirable. 


We can examine many examples throughout history where dissidents opposed the law and successfully broke it... But they did so by concealing their illegal activity, not by flaunting it. How did drinkers get through prohibition? How did Robin Hood avoid being butchered by the Sheriff? How did Sylvester Stallone get his rat burger in Demolition Man? If you want to challenge the authorities and their despotism, the best and most effective way to do it is by concealing yourself from them, not flaunting yourself in their faces. Because if you do that, they will respond. They will bite back. We saw it on Saturday, and that was just the beginning. Just a taster. There are now, I repeat, armed militia on the streets. This isn't a game and they will show their teeth if you antagonise them.  They WANT you to antagonise them, that's why they've made the rules so absolutely, utterly ridiculous - to incite you into losing your temper and breaking them publicly - because then they've got you. Obviously what they want is to be able to make mass arrests and detainments, they wouldn't be issuing all these draconian threats and putting armed guards on the streets if they didn't. They wouldn't have quarantine camps and Nightingale Hospitals, which for all we know are there to incarcerate the unruly and inject them by force (which they can do under the Coronavirus Act, by the way). 


They're not going to kick your door down and drag you out, because that is a lot of effort (and, for now, still illegal) when they could much more easily go for the "low-hanging fruit". That is to say, people who get in their faces and make a scene. People who break the law publicly and in highly central and visible locations with a large police presence. People who advertise their plans to law-break - when, where, and with whom - all over social media. 


So please just give all this some serious thought. What are your actual goals? What do you want to achieve? How have successful dissidents now and all throughout history continued to live their lives as they wish without being incarcerated by a tyrannical state? 


To win a war, you have to be very clear on not just what you want, but what the enemy wants. What does the enemy want? To be given an excuse to incarcerate and force-inject troublemakers and antagonists, perhaps? 


Think very, very carefully about what you do next and whether it is serving you and your self-preservation - or whether it's playing right into the enemy's hands. Be clear on this fact - they want you dead. They're going to play dirty - all's fair in love and war - and so you need to always be ten steps ahead. Not walking straight into their traps - and letting them know you will be in advance on a viral Facebook post. 


Be strategic, think tactically, act prudently. That's how you survive what's coming - and that's, ultimately, how we win. 

The Pen is Mightier Than The Sword

Posted by Miri on September 22, 2020 at 4:50 AM Comments comments (0)

And whilst we're in meme-worthy inspiring-quote mode.... If you ever doubt the power of your voice, just look at what they do to try and silence you, and... If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you're not allowed to criticise.


I wrote a few "controversial" pieces (highly uncharacteristic, I know, so apologies to everyone who visits my blog for my tepid, mild-mannered, and fence-sitting content) about last Saturday's protest in London, both before and after the event, which have attracted quite the level of opprobrium, including a stunning world first; a threat of being sued for defamation by someone who's name I have never publicly mentioned anywhere.


This individual has threatened me with legal action, stated publicly that I will "live to regret" expressing an opinion she disapproves of, and whipped up a frenzy of hatred against me for daring to state that I oppose illegal, violent protests, and that, in my view, people who arrange such protests deserve scrutiny and questioning. 


As many have stated, that this was the reaction would seem to underline the veracity of everything I said. People who have nothing to hide don't try and threaten their critics into silence; they don't launch malicious public attacks using every trick in the "Rules for Radicals" handbook regarding how to silence and discredit those who challenge them (basically: refuse to engage with the essence of an opponent's argument, but instead viciously attack them personally, knowing they will get so distracted trying to defend themselves the essence of what they are saying will be lost).


So, I think we need to clarify something here. If you decide to make yourself a public figure, if you launch highly controversial projects, if you engage in extremely provocative public demonstrations that culminate in violence and, allegedly, death, then, brace yourself for this but.... YOU WILL GET CRITICISED. I know it's a shock to any thin-skinned narcissist who might only have got involved in the "truth movement" for status and attention, but it's the truth and it's an essential truth. You should be criticised and you should expect to be. If you can't handle criticism, you need to get out of the public eye. I get criticised all the time. I have been called every name in the book more times than I care to remember, and much of my abuse comes from people WITHIN the movement, not outside it, because inevitably in any large movement, not everyone will agree on everything, people fall out, tempers fray, etc. It is the human condition. 


I often redirect such criticism away from my own page - my page is my platform to express my views, not a brawling room for my critics - but the idea I would ever make a public legal threat to try and terrorise people out of their God-given right to free speech and to criticism and questioning, is quite simply unimaginable. (And to just once more underline the true dizzying ludicrousness of the situation, the person threatening me with lawsuits and God knows what else, has never once been publicly named by me anywhere.)


What is so particularly insidious about this is that while I happen to be extremely conversant with defamation law and know my rights very well, most people don't. As a result of this individual's threats, I have had several people privately contact me to express concern I might be sued, and this is so awful and distressing, because the corollary of that is they believe they too could be sued if they ever express legitimate and important criticisms or concerns - and therefore, they won't do so. I'd say it's pretty clear from reading my stuff that I don't scare easily and threatening me is very unlikely to do anything but make me very displeased and cause me to vociferously express my displeasure (Scorpio moon, dontcha know - all makes sense now, eh?) - but for more cautious and sensitive people, it's going to scare them into silence, and THAT is why this individual did it. As a threat not just to me, but to everyone else - don't you dare cross me. Don't you dare question or criticise or think for yourself. Just see what I'll do to you if you do.


Well, please let me make it absolutely, abundantly clear - you CANNOT be sued for expressing an opinion, criticising someone, or questioning their motives. You have every right, on every single moral and legal level, to question, criticise, and yes, even (that dirty word...) "judge" them. There is NO legal recourse they can take. 


I will tell you exactly what will happen if they are foolish enough to try to consult a lawyer because you expressed an opinion that wasn't theirs; first of all, I know law is quite complex and some concepts are quite tricky to grasp, but.... you do actually have to BE NAMED to even get through the first two minutes of a defamation consultation. Just imagine the situation, "Hi, Mr. £200-an-hour lawyer, I need to sue someone for defamation." "Oh, I'm sorry to hear that, what have they said about you?" "Well, admittedly, nothing about me PERSONALLY, but they expressed a view I hadn't pre-approved about something I was peripherally involved in." 


Yeah, so that's not going to work. But even if you do name someone personally and criticise them - so? Have you ever visited social media? People are ruthlessly personally attacked all the time. Where are all the lawyers suing them all? If you're a major public figure, and a newspaper runs a hit piece on you, and you've got a lot of money and resources, you might possibly be able to get somewhere, if you choose to invest the enormous amount of time, energy and money that will be necessary, but the idea you could sue a private person for expressing an opinion on a blog or Facebook is just so utterly ludicrous and contemptible, and like I said, not because it will silence me (as you can see, it's actually been quite inspirational), but because of the inevitable effect it will have on all those others reading it who are unfamiliar with the realities of the law and frightened that legal action really could follow if they speak up.


 

So, please, please, please - do not let these people terrorise you into silence. There is nothing legal they can do and they know it. They are simply attempting to control the narrative and silence dissent through fear and threats - just like the "elite" do. Although, actually, the "elite" have never done it to me thus far. No member of the establishment has ever made any legal threat against me for criticising them, including when I accused Kirklees Council of domestic terrorism, and they haven't because they know such a threat would be baseless. I am allowed to have strong views and to express them. This isn't North Korea (yet). 


(And indeed, the irony hasn't escaped me that I am being criticised for pointing out the actual law - that Saturday's protest was illegal (that's why the police were there and why they were able to disperse and arrest), whilst being threatened with a fake law - that I could be sued for taking this view.)


What a circus. And that's just what Saturday was; a performance, a pantomime, all set up and planned in advance to conclude the way it did, which is why I was able to warn about exactly what would happen before the event. 


And if I see evidence another such event is planned, I will warn about it again. I'm not here to suck up to self-appointed "celebrity truthers" or to take crowd-pleasing positions because to dare to criticise anyone is "divisive". Yes, it is, and I want to be divided from poisonous and destructive people, thanks very much. Just because we might share a few opinions really doesn't mean anything - my standards for who I unite with are just a little bit higher than that. I'm sure most of the world agrees, for instance, that murder is wrong. So what? Does that mean I'm never allowed to criticise anyone who believes, like I do, that murder is wrong, because that would be "divisive" and all us anti-murderers need to unite and never question or challenge each other or we will never stamp out murder?


The fact is that all significant anti-establishment movements are infiltrated with controlled opposition, and controlled opposition is not always conscious or "bought" (many people are manipulated simply by appealing to their ego). Controlled opposition is designed to weaken and discredit the movement, so of course it's important to be vigilant about it and to question people, especially people who organise events that end in violence and (allegedly) death. 


Genuine people don't fear questioning because they have nothing to hide. So, given we started this post with a few meme-worthy quotes, so we'll finish with one, too - one of my favourites, actually, and one more pertinent at this particular chapter in history than perhaps ever before:


The truth does not fear investigation. 

The 19th September Trafalgar Square Protest

Posted by Miri on September 20, 2020 at 6:50 AM Comments comments (1)

Nobody hopes they're wrong more than a "conspiracy theorist", especially when what they're "theorising" about is something that will profoundly harm both the cause and individual people, but unfortunately, my predictions about the protest in London on the 19th were not wrong (see here:https://www.miriaf.com/apps/blog/show/49077744-arrested-development and here: https://www.miriaf.com/apps/blog/show/49083130-the-art-of-cold-war).


I didn't want to be too dramatic with my wording then because I didn't want to be seen to be telling people what to do, but I will be blunt now - that protest was nothing but an orchestrated and infiltrated set-up. It was a trap. 


The protest was illegal and the organisers knew that it was. Did you? So many people attended under the severe misapprehension they were breaking no law and that peaceful protesting was "allowed", because they were not told anything different by the people promoting the event. In fact, due to changes under the law because of the Covid situation, protests are now illegal unless they pass strict risk assessments. The London protest had not and would not have done, because to pass, the risk assessment has to follow "Covid secure" guidelines.


Granted, you may have chosen to attend anyway, knowing it was illegal - but you didn't know. Nobody told you. I tried to alert people before the event, and cited the law, but who am I? The organisers didn't tell you, and let me be absolutely abundantly clear - they knew. They also knew they would be fine because, as per Kate Shemirani's Twitter, "ex-SAS disguised me and smuggled me in and out". Well, how perfectly convenient. Meanwhile, she's lured thousands of innocent people with no such protection to a wholly illegal event and left them at the mercy of violent riot police who, rumour has it, may have killed one of the protestors.


I saw live footage of the police engaging with the crowd before it turned violent, and they told them the absolute truth: that the event was illegal due to not passing a risk assessment, but they understood the attendees weren't aware of that, so they were here to tell them and give them a chance to leave of their own accord. If they didn't, then they would act to enforce the law, first by dispersing the crowd and then fines and arrests. 32 arrests have been reported so far, and again, I tried to warn people arrest was a real risk if they went, and that arrest is not a trivial matter (they will take your DNA by force for a start). My heart really sunk when I saw protestors shouting at the police that they "stand under common law" and so the real law doesn't apply to them. Did the police give one single, solitary f... ? Of course not. These supposedly magical invincibility cloaks of common law and Magna Carta mean nothing when an armed police thug has his baton in your face whilst his "colleagues" are tackling you the the ground. 


The event was a set-up. It was also, as I warned it would be, heavily infiltrated by provocateurs - lots of aggressive, muscular young men getting in the police's faces - no such people were in evidence at the 29th (which had zero MSM publicity in the preceding days and weeks, whilst this event was splashed all over the papers, including in the Daily Mail the night before). The whole point of the event yesterday was to get you into an illegal situation which would therefore be heavily policed, and would then explode into violence, so "the resistance" can be totally demonised in the press (the coverage yesterday and today is legitimately hideous), the masses turned further against us, and the state can really show its teeth - as it did both via the police brutality on the day and with the extremely draconian lockdown measures that will follow next week, which will be in significant part blamed on the protest.


If you went, you were played, and it's not your fault, it's the fault of the organisers, who behaved with grotesque irresponsibility by luring you into an illegal situation and not telling you that's what they were doing. Let me repeat, THEY KNEW it was illegal. That's why they were "smuggled in and out", safely protected by the authorities, leaving you to deal with the terrifying and brutal consequences. 


Also, ask yourself this: If the police knew it was illegal, which they absolutely did and knew well in advance, why didn't they just apprehend the organisers at 11am and stop them setting up? They could have ended the event before it started, thus avoiding all the horror that followed, which was directed at innocent people who largely didn't know they were breaking the law, rather than at the organisers who did.  Why didn't the police simply mount the stage and escort the speakers off, thus ending the event instantly, rather than leaving the speakers alone and charging at the crowds? 


That wasn't done because it wasn't in the authorities' interests. As I said last week, if they really didn't want you at that protest, it would have been extremely easy for them to stop it - and they wouldn't have been giving it huge press coverage, up to and including a big piece in the Daily Mail the night before. They wanted you there.


If you choose to go to further such events, please be very aware - without passing Covid-secure risk assessments, they are illegal and the police will enforce the law, probably even more aggressively than they did yesterday. The organisers apparently won't tell you that, so I will. You are breaking the law and if you feel capable of handling that - knowing the police will be violent if they feel the need to be - then that's entirely your call, but you need to know absolutely where you stand and what you're getting yourself into. 


I personally would never dream of taking that risk or encouraging anyone else to, all for the sake of standing around listening to some barely-audible speeches telling me things I already know (or, in the case of the 19th, whipping up real hatred amongst the crowds for the police, calling them dogs, criminals, and paedophile-enablers. Because that's REALLY going to help ensure a heavily-policed illegal protest remains peaceful, isn't it?). Ask yourself honestly whether such an event is really a threat to the government, and if it is, how it is? What possible threat is the government under because some ordinary, peaceful people are standing in a public square waving placards, when hundreds of intensively trained and heavily armed riot police are surrounding them? The only people that event was a threat to was the people who attended it. 


I'm going to say it again: protests are now illegal unless they pass strict "Covid secure" risk assessments. If they go ahead anyway, then the police have legal justification for dispersing and arresting, because the law is being broken. How does breaking this law serve either you or "the cause"? Yes, the law is appalling, but it's still the law, and if you break it, there could be severe consequences (have you ever been arrested? If not, I suggest talking to someone who has - it is not exactly a barrel of laughs, and can have long-term and highly undesirable implications). To be clear, all the people goading and taunting you for not attending these (illegal) protests are not going to be there to help you deal with these consequences. Where was Kate Shemirani whilst the protestors were being tackled to the ground, assaulted, and potentially, killed? Safely swept off by her "ex-SAS protection". She has condemned the police's actions - but the police told the crowds on the day the truth. She did not, and she will take no responsibility for the consequences of her deception. 


Please stop being played by these people. I can't claim to know with any irrevocable authority what their motivations are, but I do know there is no justification for luring people into an illegal trap which has resulted in not just arrest and all the undesirable implications thereof, but severe emotional trauma, violent assault, and, potentially, death. People who lure you into these situations without giving you the full facts are not to be trusted and are not your friends.


So think very carefully before you make your next move - and about who you trust. I am going to say it again: do not trust people who trick you into breaking the law. Even if they do it "accidentally". Let's just imagine there was no direct malevolence, but the organisers simply hadn't bothered to find out whether the event was legal or illegal (which took me all of three minutes to find out on Google); that just shows they are recklessly cavalier with no regard for your safety, and so again, should not be trusted. Ultimately, whether someone's motivations are stupidity, selfishness, or something darker, the end result is the same. 


The 19th September was a very dark day for the truth movement, and it was designed to be. Please let's not have a repeat. 


Rss_feed