|Posted by Miri on January 23, 2021 at 5:20 AM||comments (0)|
Ever since the pantomime plague began, your local friendly crazy quackaloons have been telling you the diagnostic test isn't fit for purpose and creates false positives, due to results being amplified too many times.
Now the WHO states the diagnostic test isn't fit for purpose and creates false positives, due to results being amplified too many times.
For the hard of thinking and BBC watchers (but I repeat myself ), I will explain again what the PCR test does: it detects genetic sequences of viruses, but NOT viruses themselves. The more amplification cycles a test result goes through, the more genetic sequences it detects. As we all have all sorts of genetic debris floating about inside of us, then - to quote the inventor of the PCR test - "anyone can test positive for anything with the PCR. It doesn't tell you you're sick."
(Read this salutary tale from 2007 for what happens when PCR tests are inappropriately used to diagnose infectious illness: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html)
So, if you happen to be in the midst of orchestrating a pretend plague and want to create a lot of "positive cases" to terrify the masses, you just amplify the PCR test results a lot of times. Have you noticed how the propaganda press is always going on about rises in CASES? Not deaths. Not hospitalisations. Not even the sniffles. Just "cases". A "case" is a positive PCR result, and hence, in reality, meaningless. It doesn't tell us anything about whether more people are ill or not.
Nevertheless, most people take headlines at face value and don't and can't think (critical thinking having been intentionally axed from the national curriculum years ago), so they believe an explosion in "cases" a pandemic makes. Oh, but you know someone who was really sick "with Covid"? I'm heartless for denying its severity? Look: I don't deny you knew someone very sick. They may even have died. But elderly and unwell people, and sometimes younger people, do die. It's tragic, but it's life. In normal circumstances, 1,600 people die every day in the UK alone. That number hasn't significantly increased. Just because they "tested positive" on an unfit-for-purpose test shortly before their death does not prove they died "from Covid", and it certainly doesn't prove there's a pandemic.
The PCR test has been used to create the illusion of a pandemic to manufacture your consent for a variety of draconian and authoritarian measures that you never would have accepted unless you had been scaremongered into compliance. The best way to control people is to scare them - all repressive regimes know that.
But - now we have the miraculous saviour vaccine, so the propaganda angle has got to change.
Hence - the WHO is now telling labs across the world to reduce the number of PCR cycles. This means a dramatic decrease in positive test results, which will be used as "evidence" the vaccine is working.
Meanwhile, as bad reactions to the experimental gene therapies being marketed as vaccines mount up, this will be used as evidence for why we need to keep the restrictions, as bad vaccine reactions will be blamed on "the virus mutating" and as evidence we don't have "herd immunity". We will be told new and different vaccines are needed every six months or so to fight the never-ending "new strains".
So, both restrictions and vaccines will go on and on and on. This will last until at least 2025, by which point, you will have been fully and irreversibly re-engineered, to be terrified of other people, to eschew all physical contact, to smother your airways and hide your face, and to view your fellow human beings with deep suspicion and hostility, snitching to the authorities if they break "the rules", and viewing them as nothing but filthy disease vectors and potential mass murderers. That's if you survive the next five years, of course, which, if you keep getting vaccinated, is not necessarily very likely. - especially if you're older and/or have existing health problems.
That's the future in store for you if you keep believing the execrable and mendacious lies being fed to you by your government, and their state propaganda organs "the press".
Yes, I know I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist, and why should anyone listen to me? But you know what the biggest conspiracy of all is? Believing the Government has your best interests at heart.
|Posted by Miri on December 12, 2020 at 6:45 AM||comments (0)|
I was just going to write a short 'good luck' message to everyone going to the protests today, when it occurred to me to think what absolutely superhuman miracles of medicine all protest-goers clearly are. Mingling (that's illegal, you know) with hundreds, if not thousands, of others, without masks, shaking hands and hugging, singing, laughing, and not a bottle of hand sataniser (sic - and isn't it just) in sight.
Do bear in mind, protest-goers are not exclusively made up of super-healthy twentysomethings. On the contrary. Protest-goers include:
*The over 50s, 60s, and 70s;
*Those with underlying health conditions;
*The asthmatic, diabetic, allergic.
In short, they represent a full cross-section of society, including plenty of people deemed by the government at "high risk" from the current cold. I mean, deadly plague.
And yet.... Not one of these people have died. Not one has been hospitalised. I've heard unconfirmed reports of a few sore heads (whether this is virus or vodka related is unknown), but that's about it.
If there really was a super-infectious deadly contagion sweeping the nation, then every time there was a protest, the papers would be festooned with reports of lethally foolish protest-goers now in hospital, if not the morgue, and all because of their own grotesque irresponsibility and ingratitude (we are only destroying your life and DNRing your gran BECAUSE WE LOVE YOU).
Does this ever happen? No, it doesn't. Hundreds or thousands of people congregate in close proximity every single weekend, eschewing all "the rules", and nobody gets ill. Nobody dies. Why do you think this is?
Is it because a) protestors are all superhuman modern miracles of turbocharged immunity, or b) something else?
I think I can happily speak for all my fellow kerazy conspiraquacks, when I say, yes, we would all happily do a shift at the local Covid ward, without PPE. We would be more than willing to sacrifice our right to NHS treatment if we develop "Covid-like symptoms". We most certainly are very happy indeed to be banned from receiving the vaccine.
So what is the reason for this? Are we all just insane with a death wish which, maddeningly frustratingly, is never realised, no matter how many PPE-less people we perambulate alongside or unquarantined items we allow into our homes, or could it be... possibly... something else..?
|Posted by Miri on December 10, 2020 at 7:15 PM||comments (0)|
I was talking to a friend last night about the HPV vaccine. Her daughter didn't have it - one of only a tiny smattering of pupils in her year who didn't - and at first, she wasn't at all happy about this. It wasn't just that she didn't want to be the odd one out amongst her friends, but rather, that her form tutor was repeatedly aggressively asking her, "so you want cancer, do you? You know you're going to get cancer if you don't get this vaccine, don't you?"
Cue my friend having to reassure her terrified 12-year-old daughter that, no, declining a neurotoxic injection full of detergents and sterilants was NOT going to doom her to a grisly cancer death (there remains no evidence whatsoever that the HPV vaccination has or ever will prevent a single case of cancer, though cervical cancers in the age-group that have had the vaccine have increased).
On vaccination day, my friend's daughter came home from school and declared, "Mum, you were right, I'm SO glad I didn't have that vaccine."
She then regaled her mother with the tale of how, prior to summoning the pupils into the school hall for vaccination, gym mats were rolled out across the floor. This was because the school was fully anticipating pupils to pass out.
Upon the vaccination being administered, several instantly fainted, and one began convulsing and had to be taken away in an ambulance. The school wasn't in the least perturbed, clearly used to this happening every year.
Amongst my social circle alone, I've heard reports of: girls having to lock themselves in the school toilets as staff bang on the door and shout at them trying to force them to have the vaccine; girls being cornered in rooms by multiple staff members and physically forced to have it; girls being taunted by peers and staff alike that if they don't get the vaccine, they will die of cancer. These are 12-year-olds.
In all of the above cases, the parents had clearly and unambiguously stated they did NOT consent to their daughters having the vaccine.
However, schools have full legal coverage to give the vaccine anyway, and many do so under extreme duress, because of a nasty little law called "Gillick competency", which declares that, if a medical professional deems a child "competent to understand the issues", they can consent to their own medical treatment without parental consent or even knowledge. What this means in practice is adult authority figures coercing children into receiving invasive medical procedures and then bullying them into not telling their parents. This is happening all the time, in schools up and down the country.
We need a robust challenge to the Gillick ruling to ensure children are no longer ruthlessly exploited and coerced into doing things they don't understand, and we need the law to put medical decisions for children back where they belong - with parents.
The only organisation I am aware of that is looking to challenge Gillick competency is the Freedom Alliance political party, which I've recently joined. Please have a read of their page on medical consent, including vaccine mandates and Gillick competency, and if you like what you read, do consider joining as a member.
I know many of us have our reservations about the political system, but I think at this point we need to try everything we can to stop the juggernaut that's coming. If Gillick can be used to force HPV vaccines on children, it can and will be used to force Covid ones, too.
While we have a political system and have the means to organise and challenge, let's use it.
|Posted by Miri on December 8, 2020 at 6:25 AM||comments (0)|
This is a pitch-perfect example of how you create a propaganda plague.
Headline states: "Retired primary school teacher dies after testing positive for coronavirus at Royal Stoke."
Article clarifies: "North Staffordshire senior coroner Andrew Barkley concluded that Miss Johnson's death was due to the complications of a fall. He said: "After having a nightmare, she jumped out of bed and sustained a fall that resulted in a fractured pelvis.
"When she was admitted to hospital, she was diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia and initially showed a negative Covid test, but that changed to positive on November 12.
"She was treated with antibiotics and discharged on November 19 with a care package. She became acutely unwell and informed her carers and she suddenly became unresponsive, despite CPR."
"A cause of death was provided as community acquired pneumonia and Covid-19, with a fractured pubic rami, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular dysfunction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as contributory factors."
And there you have it; that's how they do it. A very elderly woman with multiple health problems, who the coroner ruled died of a fall - as elderly women in fragile health are wont to do - is nevertheless used as part of the pantomime plague to petrify you, and it will work, because few people read past the headlines and even fewer are able to critically think about what they have read.
Note also the inclusion of her former career, primary school teacher. Is this relevant? Is it more of a tragedy when a retired primary school teacher dies, than, say, a retired bus driver or retired IT technician? Obviously, it isn't, but this is just more cynical media manipulation, knowing the public image of a primary school teacher is of someone lovely, cuddly, caring - subtext being, if this evil, ruthless disease can take such a shining beacon of compassion and care, it could take you, too! No reason to include a job she hasn't done for 25 years otherwise.
Now, most people suppress a smirk when I say this, but I did Media Studies A-level (it was hard, ok!), and it does teach you - or at least, it did back in 1874 when I did it - how to critically read the media, and the cacophonous array of propaganda and subliminal programming techniques the media uses to get you to absorb and accept messages, without you realising you've done so.
Calling the media "the news" is probably the biggest propaganda weapon of all. It's not news, it's a deftly conceived collection of psychological manipulation and behaviour modification techniques, designed to elicit the thoughts and behaviours from you the overlords deem desirable.
Make no mistake, if this 85-year-old woman had died shortly after receiving the coronavirus vaccine (as many will), her death would not even have made page 37 of this newspaper, never mind being the headline story for the entire local area. Because as I say, the media does not report "news", it doesn't objectively report events of local and national interest - rather, it is a highly strategic weapon of psychological warfare - and the enemy it is looking to defeat with all these expert, military-grade tactics and techniques - is you.
|Posted by Miri on December 5, 2020 at 4:00 AM||comments (0)|
I just saw someone on Twitter smugly ask, "so anti-vaxxers, if a vaccine was released tomorrow that stopped cancer, are you telling me you wouldn't take it?". Bless, nobody said they were the sharpest tools (repeated injections with neurotoxins will do that to ya, I guess), but they really don't get what the "anti" part of "anti-vaccine" means, do they?
Anyway, there is a vaccine already that purports to stop cancer. It's called Gardasil, and has one of the most atrocious safety profiles of any vaccine to date, which is really saying something. Needless to say, there is no evidence it has ever prevented a single case of cancer.
Pro-vaxxers, please pay attention. No disease, most certainly including cancer, was ever caused by a deficit of neurotoxins, detergents, disinfectants, carcinogens, industrial chemicals, or monkey kidney cells (oh yes, these are all common vaccine ingredients, go look it up). Disease at its root has three primary causes: toxicity from the environment; nutritional deficiencies; inflammation.
Vaccines are known to cause two out of three of these. Because of the method of delivery - injection, not ingestion - the fact that their toxic components come in "tiny amounts" does not render them harmless - far from it. Because vaccines are delivered straight to the bloodstream, bypassing all the body's natural defence and detoxification pathways, this means vaccinations represent an acute exposure to toxicity, and can and do cause all manner of serious illnesses, both chronic and acute. Most modern maladies, especially the sudden explosion of chronic illness in children (54% of American children now have at least one chronic illness) are either caused or exacerbated by vaccines.
Second, inflammation: it is a known fact - any vaccine clinic will confirm this - that vaccines cause inflammation. That is why vaccine clinics can predict their patients are at a heightened risk for depression soon after the vaccine, because the root cause of depression in many cases is not "a chemical imbalance in the brain" (this is nothing but a marketing slogan to flog antidepressants; it was never backed up by credible evidence), but bodily inflammation. Inflammation is also now known to be the driving cause of many other chronic conditions, such as heart disease (NOT caused by high cholesterol - another marketing ploy to sell statins and low-fat diet books. Actually, high cholesterol is protective and linked with longevity, whilst low cholesterol is linked with premature death, including from suicide).
Another pro-vaxxer marvelled at the fact that us crazy whackaloon types "don't trust your doctor, don't trust the NHS, don't trust the WHO, so who do you trust?"
I know this is a really alien concept to those in the chronic and possibly terminal throws of expertitis, but I trust MYSELF. I trust my God-given intelligence and discernment to read, to think, to study, to evaluate, and to draw conclusions based on credible evidence and real-world experience, not media soundbites and talking heads (including "my doctor" - not that I have one, having deregistered from the GP years ago - given doctors are some of the most breathtakingly clueless people about the workings of the human body I have ever encountered).
It seems to drive "normies" into a state of demented frenzy and rage when I say this, because WHO DO I THINK I AM?! I'm not a doctor. Not a scientist. Not an "expert".
They actually seem to find it offensive that I am of the view that the person best qualified to and most responsible for protecting my health is, er, me.
And that ultimately is why we are in this mess. Courtesy of 12+ years of the state indoctrination camps we call "schools", too many people believe it is not "their place" to think for themselves, but instead to meekly outsource all their thinking and decision-making to "experts". This reality is deeply depressing on many levels, but answer me this, normies: if you have a vaccine or other pharmaceutical intervention and are left severely damaged and disabled as a result, who is going to be left with the responsibility for dealing with that?
No. You. You are. If the aforementioned "experts" won't take 100% responsibility for any and all potential adverse effects (and they most certainly won't), why are you letting them take 100% responsibility for making decisions about your health?
I once again prevail upon all silent readers of my page to please THINK for themselves. As yet, the government hasn't slapped any bans, restrictions, or fines on this activity, so please do squeeze it in whilst you still can...
|Posted by Miri on October 8, 2020 at 2:00 PM||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...
|Posted by Miri on September 24, 2020 at 7:00 PM||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.
|Posted by Miri on September 22, 2020 at 4:50 AM||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.
|Posted by Miri on September 20, 2020 at 6:50 AM||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.
|Posted by Miri on September 15, 2020 at 7:40 PM||comments (3)|
As a sort-of sequel to my post yesterday, I've been analysing further the response to the "rule of six" law (law? Law!) and what impact these responses will have on moving the situation forward in our favour.
As we all know, we are in a war. There are no guns or bombs. It's an information war, or (and yes, pun very much intended, sorry about that) a cold war. The definition of a cold war is:
"a state of political hostility.... characterised by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare."
Sounds about right, doesn't it? Well, as you will discover if you investigate the history of cold wars and how they are orchestrated, enormous amounts of thought, planning, public relations and strategy goes into them. War is an art, not a brawl - at least, if you want to win it, it is.
The enemy has an intricate and deftly conceived battle-plan which it is gradually rolling out. The "resistance", meanwhile, does not, and is simply reacting to whatever the enemy does next.
So with the enemy's new "rule of six", if our only response is, "yeah, we're not going to do that, let's just meet publicly in as large as groups as possible on purpose!", we're playing right into their hands. We're talking top, highly experienced military strategists here. Do you think they haven't factored in the notion many people will have that knee-jerk response? Of course they have! They're counting on it.
They're trying to goad us into actions that play into their hands. To paraphrase John Lennon, the state wants you playing its game and in its system because then it's got you and knows how to handle you. The rule of six is purposefully preposterous. It's supposed to be. It's supposed to be maddening, insensible, exasperating, enraging - and there's absolutely no shortage of mainstream newspaper columnists saying it is (would such criticism be allowed of, say, vaccines?) to make people kick back against it.
They WANT an angry, baying mob. They WANT people belligerently breaking the rules, which is why they've made the rules as ridiculous and near-impossible to adhere to as possible. Because once they've got you angry and belligerent and in-their-faces, they know how to handle you.
I invite you to investigate the history of successful dissidents and outlaws, both factual historical examples and representations in film and literature. Do these people simply have a knee-jerk response every time the authorities do something they don't like, get in their faces and draw attention to themselves, breaking the law "just because"? Or do they do everything they can to stay off the radar and not draw attention to themselves whilst they carefully devise a well thought out and strategic counter-response?
At the moment, we have no plan. All we're doing is saying, "we won't stick to the rules", whilst plastering our proposed now-illegal gatherings all over social media and even the MSM (the protests for the 19th in London have had a great deal of publicity already; there was a blackout in the lead-up to the 29th).
So, the enemy laughs, and says, "great, thanks for letting us know. Now that you've all announced you're going to publicly break the law, and where and when you're going to do it, we can come down, disperse, fine and arrest, and make examples of you in the press, further turning others against you and increasing the fear-factor and compliance. Thank you for such seamless cooperation!"
Honestly, we need to think a bit smarter than that. Otherwise, they're playing chess whilst we're playing snakes and ladders. Bear in mind, the enemy has successfully brought the world to its knees, ushered in the worst recession in 300 years, and mind-controlled millions - if not billions - of people. They're not stupid. They're not amateurs. Their plan is going to be a little more water-tight than to collapse in on itself because the usual suspects didn't follow the rules. They're expecting that we won't; it's all factored in. They will have performed all sorts of complex projections and predictions to work out exactly how different sections of society will respond to the current situation. It's no good saying, "yeah, but if everyone didn't follow the rules...", because that's never going to happen. It's no good dealing in theoretical possibilities, we have to deal in practical realities, which is that most people will follow the rules (whether because they believe in them or because they're afraid of the consequences if they don't), and a minority will publicly flout them. Which is exactly what they want.
They want us breaking the rules and they want us doing it publicly, because then they can use the media that they own and that mind-controls the masses 24/7 to whip up a frenzy of total hatred against us. They want us to play our part on their stage as "selfish Covidiots flaunting the rules", in order that the masses believe the reason their lives are on hold and falling apart, the reason they can't see their granny, the reason Christmas has been cancelled, is US. Not the benevolent overlords who are plaintively pleading with us to do the right thing and think of others, but us selfish, dangerous, sociopaths - "the type who intentionally speed up in their car when they pass a primary school" (that's what the "Independent" had to say about people who break the rules). The media can twist and frame the presentation of the protests to echo this interpretation exactly. Don't be surprised if the protests turn violent and people attack the police - most likely people planted by the authorities to do just that - to ensure there is maximum loathing from the masses towards people who challenge or break the rules.
If the authorities really didn't want these protests to go ahead, they'd quite easily be able to stop them (you can't really erect a large stage and sound equipment in literally the most central and visible spot in London without quite a bit of cooperation from the authorities, after all) and they certainly wouldn't be relentlessly advertising them in the press. Again, please note there was NO mainstream coverage in the run-up to the August 29th demonstrations, whereas the 19th has already featured prominently in the Times, the Daily Mail, and the Jewish Chronicle. The press knows perfectly well if you want to squash an event, you starve it of the lifeblood it needs to thrive - publicity. Why do you think the phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is so well-known? Because it's true! Drawing attention to something, even negative attention, helps it flourish. If the press and their overlords really didn't want you at those protests, they'd be ignoring them.
Meanwhile certain factions and forces are telling you you're a coward if you don't go. "Oh, so you can't take a little heat, huh? The moment things get tough, you bow out, huh? Huh? Huh?". First of all; friends don't do that. Friends listen sympathetically to your concerns and respect your right to make your own decision, even if they don't agree with it. What kind of person goads and taunts you to try and manipulate you into doing what THEY want you to do? I'll tell you what kind of person.... Biff Tannen! Yes, that's right. I am an enormous Back To The Future fan, have seen all the instalments dozens, if not hundreds of times. For all you fellow BTTF fans/obsessives out there, what is Marty's major downfall? Why does he end up destroying his music career in 1985, losing his job in 2015, and nearly getting killed by Buford Tannen in 1885? It's because he gets goaded into doing stupid and self-destructive things every time people call him a coward.
Who's calling him a coward? Not his good friend, Doc. Not his girlfriend, Jennifer. Not his family, either, flawed as they are. The people who call him names to goad him into doing unwise things for their own benefit are the bully-boy Tannen clan and the narcissistic "Needles". Because like I said - friends don't goad and taunt you if you don't do what they say. Enemies do. And what do these enemies say to Marty in Back To The Future in order to manipulate him?
"Don't be a chicken, the authorities can't do anything, what are you so afraid of?"
So, desperate to prove himself, Marty goes along with their risky schemes, and ends up, respectively, in a car crash, getting fired, and being shot in the chest. Maybe, just maybe, there might be a lesson in here somewhere? It's only when Marty stops being so emotionally reactive and refuses to let himself be manipulated by name-calling and taunting that he finally triumphs and puts his family line back on the track to prosperity and success.
So, look, I know we're all angry. I know we're frustrated. I know the inclination is just to say, "well, I'm going to break the rules and do exactly what I want and I don't care about the consequences". But please stop and think. Is this approach going to defeat the immensely powerful, extremely experienced, and strategically brilliant minds behind this pantomime pandemic? Don't you think they're expecting you to do just that and have worked out exactly how to handle it when you do, to ensure it further benefits them?
If you want to defeat the enemy, then ultimately it's very simple. You have to do something they're NOT expecting. Something they're not prepared for. That takes thought, organising and planning. It takes tempering strong feelings and learning how to constantly think tactically and strategically. Where it comes to the art of war, there's a time to attack and there's a time to retreat and plan. We are currently in the latter stage. We don't have a plan, and if we just throw ourselves at the enemy in anger, beating our fists and screaming, they will easily defeat us with a casual flick of the wrist, like a slightly annoying mosquito.
Anyone who's studied anything that relies on tactics and strategy - public relations, chess, martial arts - will understand the veracity of what I'm saying. Thinking and planning is how you win, not brute force or untempered emotional displays. The enemy is always ten steps ahead. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to understand every one of those steps - and to make sure we make the eleventh.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War