|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
|Posted by Miri on September 12, 2020 at 4:55 AM||comments (0)|
One thing about this Covid pantomime that gravely concerns me, and as yet has been little-addressed, is the grotesque powers the situation gives to employers to exploit people and the inevitable surge in modern slavery this will create.
What is slavery? According to the dictionary definition, it is: "a condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation."
The two go hand in hand, because proper remuneration is a form of appreciation; it's a symbol that we value someone's work and effort.
However, guess what's happening now? People are being laid off from their properly-remunerated jobs.... And then being asked to come back and do them as volunteers. Yes, it's true. It's happening (it's just happened to a family member), and what's more, it was happening before to a far greater extent than society would like to acknowledge. If you take someone who hasn't got an income and say you'd like to benefit from their work and skill, but you're not going to give them anything in return (maybe a "thank you"), then you're inducting them into slavery. Just because they grudgingly agree because they haven't got any other options doesn't make it not slavery. And hey, now they even have an actual, literal slave muzzle to go with it!
I once worked as a slave. Slavery comes under many shiny new modern guises, such as "internships" and "work experience", but if it fits the definition above - "a condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration" - then it's still slavery and semantics don't matter. My slavery was called an "internship", where I was asked to spend 45 hours a week in a copywriting agency, replete with a three-hour daily commute, churning out up to ten pieces a day that were being published for paying clients, whilst being given nothing more than £2 a day for "expenses".
I did this for three months without income (I'd worked in a call-centres previously and was doing the internship to try and get out of them), meaning I couldn't afford to eat properly, lost quite a bit of weight, and got ill. I took a single day off, and my manager emailed to tell me, "here's nine pieces of work for you to do from home".
At the end of this "internship", my manager said to me, "it's been great having you here, your work's fantastic. You can stay on longer if you like. But we still can't afford to pay you anything." (When I demurred this thoughtful invitation, a new, unpaid "intern" was instantly taken on instead.)
How do you feel about that? Well, let me tell you that that's been completely normalised - virtually every "creative" (writer, designer, musician) I know has had a similar experience (and many spend their entire careers battling against expectations they should work for nothing), and increasingly, people in other sectors have, too. A few years ago, a friend of mine was struggling to find work after completing a college course. He sent off over 1,000 applications - yes, 1,000 - for every job he could think of, including cleaning toilets, and was offered nothing, except "work experience" at the local supermarket - that is to say, stacking shelves for free.
This was well before "the pandemic", because even then, people were often invited to do stints as slaves, the expectation being they don't need to be paid for the work they do, because some other entity - the government, their families - will subsidise them. This will get exponentially, unimaginably worse now, and it is an indefensible and unsustainable model - morality aside (depriving someone of the independence and autonomy they deserve and are working hard for), these other entities supposed to support everyone will eventually run out of money. How long can a parent on an average income subsidise working-age children because their employers aren't paying them? How many people can the government afford to support before the kitty runs dry (all the awful "conditions" they'll start imposing on welfare-recipients aside), because people aren't working and generating taxes?
Work is empowering and dignity-promoting not simply because of the nature of the work - it's great if people enjoy their work, but of course, it can't always be the case - but because of the independence and self-determination it enables by paying people a wage. That must come first before all other things, because how will you be able to support yourself and your family, how will you be able to invest in the kind of life you want, without any money? There's no magic money tree. If you don't get your money from your work, where is it supposed to come from?
However, the situation we are in now means that employers have the power to revoke the traditional autonomy and self-determination of being financially independent through work, because even the most menial and basic jobs are being completely swamped with applications. There is nowhere close to being a full-time paid job available for everyone in this country who needs one, which means employers can set any conditions they want, including imposing slavery. "If you want a chance at this job, you have to do the first three months as a "volunteer" / "intern" / whatever other sanitised term for slavery is in-vogue right now." Employers could easily set that condition, and people would do it, because what choice have they got? As I said, this has already been the expectation in multiple industries for years, and now it could well become the norm everywhere. Employers could simply run on a never-ending supply of free labour, which, let me restate, is already happening. My friend who sent out the 1,000 job applications, he eventually had to go on the dole (which he desperately didn't want to do) and he told me how the job centre arranged a "group interview" for pulling pints at the local hotel. A few people would go down every week for "trial shifts". And guess what? This had been going on for months and no-one ever got the job! Why would they? The place was running perfectly fine on the endless supply of free labour.
That this was already happening pre-pandemic, and what it implies for the future employment climate within a decimated economy experiencing the worst recession for 300 years, is a looming catastrophic disaster on a scale we can't really begin to imagine, which seems to be going by surprisingly unnoticed in both the mainstream and "conspiracy" communities.
This needs urgently addressing, because all the activism in the world is not going to get us anywhere if we can't keep a roof over our heads and put food on the table. It is very plausible and possible that the government might deal with all the people now out of work and needing assistance by making full-time work a condition of receiving benefits, e.g. you work full-time in Sainsbury's or McDonald's in exchange for your benefits (a similar scheme already exists, rather ironically named "Workfare"). Imagine how popular this scheme would be with all the big corporations who would save a fortune in wages, and how utterly demoralised and disempowered it would make everyone who had to do it (and you would have to, if that was the condition the government imposed to give you money - that's why you don't ever, ever want to be dependent on the government for money).
The traditional ways of making a living are over (the government has ensured they are; it's a central part of the agenda), so we need to start thinking about creative and unconventional ways to secure an income independently, and we definitely need to dispense with the stigma so prevalent in the "truth movement" and all "good cause" movements that making money for the work one does is bad. I get the thinking behind it, sort of, that making money promotes a potential conflict of interest, but in reality, we all need money to live, so however well-intentioned this mentality might be, the reality is, it promotes and endorses slavery. Remember what the definition is - "a condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration". If you're working hard, you're not getting paid for it, and you need to be (a small number of people may be privately wealthy and thus in the enviable position of being able to afford to contribute for nothing; most of us aren't) - this is slavery, and we need to stop normalising, endorsing and even praising it. There's nothing admirable about not being able to meet your own basic needs because your hard work isn't being properly remunerated, however "good" the cause you're contributing to is. Have you noticed the charity sector also runs on a lot of unpaid labour? Why? Would people stop donating to charities if they thought the staff were being paid a fair wage? Of course not, so it's just exploiting people's goodwill - "this is for a GOOD CAUSE, what kind of evil monster expects to make money from THAT?". I guess the type who has weird, perverse needs to put food on the table and pay the rent, I dunno.
Further than the hard practical realities of needing cash, on a psychological level, and considering we set our value and tell people how to treat us, what message do we send out to people when we set our value at zero? I've done significant stretches of unpaid labour and I've seen the dynamic it creates; master and slave. Whatever the initial intent, the person profiting from your labour because you're not putting a value on it devalues you, and it's very difficult to ever turn that model around after its been established (which is why my manager at the "internship" expected, after the "internship" had elapsed, I would continue to work for nothing).
Just to be clear, I'm not knocking genuine voluntary work whereby people really don't need the money and are happy to work for free (perhaps they're retired or their spouse has a good income), or REAL internships where a business is taking the time out from generating profitable labour to teach a "newbie" the ropes (even then though, the apprentice should get something, as has always been the model in traditional apprenticeships). But these terms - "volunteer", "intern" - are not regulated, so they can be and are exploited by unscrupulous employers to get professional labour for nothing. In my "internship", I wasn't being trained by people taking time out from their paid work to teach me - my work was already publishable-standard and was being published for paying clients from day one. Yes, I got a few helpful tips and my writing improved, as it would do given I was spending all my time doing it, rather than merely as a "hobby". But I wasn't an "intern", I was an unpaid copywriter generating profits for the agency's directors. Just as my friend pulling pints in the hotel wasn't getting "work experience", he was an unpaid barman enriching the coffers of the hotel management.
So, urgent action is needed to address this situation before it gets exponentially worse and becomes the norm for everyone, which it will. It's time to get creative, boycott slavery, know our value - and find new ways we can sustain ourselves, support each other, and remain independent. I have some ideas and I will be sharing them here shortly....
|Posted by Miri on September 9, 2020 at 8:25 AM||comments (0)|
Here's a reality check for the 90%+ of the population who desperately seem to need one. Ten days ago, tens of thousands of people gathered in Trafalgar Square in London. Not one of these people wore a mask. Not one observed social distancing. Every single one enthusiastically shook hands with and hugged innumerable other people. They shouted and sung and chanted and laughed, cheek by jowl and for hours and hours. These people represented every segment of the population; every age, every race, every religion, and most every medical condition, too. Oh yes, your "at risk" groups were there, alright.
Ten days later, where are the news reports announcing mass disease and death amongst these attendees? Where are the emergency ambulances and overfull hospitals? I think you will find they are notable by their absence, and that nobody who was at the London protests is even slightly unwell, let alone dying or dead. Doesn't that seem a little strange when there's ostensibly "a deadly pandemic" that attacks every time more than six people congregate together?
No doubt we will be told "cases" have gone up, but even your beloved mainstream media has announced today the tests are essentially worthless and deliver false results at least 50% of the time. If you have no symptoms of any disease then, regardless of what a faulty test says, you are not ill. Multiple false positives on an unreliable test, whilst hospitalisations and deaths remain low, do not a pandemic make.
Despite these undeniable and irrefutable facts, it remains the opinion of the vast majority of the country that those perpetuating the pandemic are those breaking "the rules". I have it on good authority that the top doctor coordinating the "Covid response" at the local (no doubt empty) hospital refers to those who don't obey the rules as "the great unwashed". Charming, eh? I wonder what he'll have to say about us when we don't get the vaccine? Probably not printable.
Anyway, when the second, much more severe lockdown is imposed (which is imminent: Please prepare now), guess who it'll be blamed on? Seriously, I think at that point our personal safety might be endangered if we go into shops muzzleless, because can you imagine the fear and hatred the media is going to whip up against us?
SELFISH COVIDIOTS THROW COUNTRY BACK INTO LOCKDOWN
I can already see the headlines now. The fact that the schools will close permanently, that all university campuses will close, that pubs and restaurants will shut down (and there will be no furlough this time, so that's the end of that industry), will all be blamed on - not the ruthless psychopaths orchestrating all this - but on us; people who challenge the lies and stand up for our rights. We're trying to maintain a culture and an economy for these muzzled morons so they can have a nice life, but all they'll see is selfish, reckless, sociopathic (thanks for that, Times) granny-murderers who deserve their most vicious condemnation.
Prepared for things to get nasty.
|Posted by Miri on September 5, 2020 at 8:00 AM||comments (0)|
I went to a pub yesterday - or rather, I tried to - and had barely set foot in the door when a girl in a visor pointed a gun at my head and said brightly:
"Can I take your temperature please."
No question mark, because it wasn't a question. I spun on my heel and got out of there as quickly as I possibly could. The most disturbing part about this was that the pub was full and bustling. People obviously didn't mind.
"What's the problem, it's just taking your temperature, it doesn't harm you, just calm down and get on with it, Karen."
That will have been the mentality of every punter in there. It's "just taking your temperature", just like it's "just a mask", and it's "just two metres" and yes, we all know where that line of thinking ends (hint: it doesn't. It never ends. It becomes used to justify anything and everything).
It's so thoroughly depressing that people would submit to having a gun pointed at their heads (the psychological connotations of that are obvious and the health effects of the infrared ray are unknown) and volunteer private, personal health information to total strangers in order to have a drink in a pub. Today, they take your temperature, but what will it be tomorrow? Your weight? Your blood pressure? Your vaccination status?
And, of course, it will be the latter and that's what this, the gun-pointing, is all building up to. Normalising the idea of having a scan and a health-check at the door before you go in anywhere. If pubs have already casually and successfully sold the idea to people that it's perfectly fine, sane, and normal to be temperature-checked before you go in, it's no leap at all to being vaccination-checked. And this is something I am profoundly concerned about, because how do we tackle it? I don't think the government will "force" the vaccination; I don't think they'll be going door-to-door and I don't think they'll go against parental wishes and do it covertly at school (not after so many parents have made such a racket and it's even made the press; it would be too much of a headache for them).
What I do think is that they will effectively lock those of us who don't comply out of society. The mask-wearing is a beta-test, intended to make those who don't wear one feel intimidated and unwelcome in society to the extent they start to acclimatise to not fully participating in it, and it's worked very well, but at least there is some legal and medical protection for not wearing a mask. Medical exemptions for masks are generally (not always, but generally) recognised and the law states you need provide no proof or letter from a doctor.
However, the same is not so for vaccination. Getting a medical exemption for vaccination is harder than pulling hen's teeth (even if you had a child so profoundly injured by a vaccine they died, and it was proven in court the vaccine killed them, this still wouldn't be enough reason for their siblings to be granted a medical exemption). Therefore, refusing the vaccine will be seen as a "lifestyle choice" with no medical justification, meaning shops, pubs, and other private businesses will be able to simply shut you out, the same way they can currently refuse service to people who don't want to have their temperature checked.
How do we tackle this? It's patently obvious that most people are prepared to submit to literally anything "to go back to normal" (which we never are, but little carrots of normality will be dangled under our noses in return for compliance) so I think a lot of people, even those somewhat vaccine-sceptic, will, when push comes to shove, think, "oh well, it might make me a bit ill for a few days like the flu vaccine, but it's worth it to go back to normal". And, even more sinister, I think many employers might try to mandate it - I think they would be on dicey ground if they actually tried to fire someone for not being vaccinated, but they could make working life very difficult, and insist you must work in isolation (and, perhaps, a gold star, to denote your filthy unvaccinated status). Or just insist you work from home permanently.
So this is my concern: I think we can avoid the vaccine, I think we can avoid the test. But how do we avoid effectively living the rest of our lives under house-arrest, if private businesses determine we can't enter without providing proof of vaccination status? Which they can do. We have no God-given "right" to enter any particular shop or business. Their businesses, their rules (hence rules about trainers and caps and other such things in clubs, and now temperature-checking in pubs).
That's my worry. They're going to use the vaccination to lock us out of the world.
What can we do?
|Posted by Miri on August 25, 2020 at 10:50 AM||comments (0)|
I have come to the discomfiting but undeniable conclusion that our culture is so broken and the people so well farmed, most people believe the meaning of life is to obey the government.
It's irrefutable. That is clearly most people's highest calling in life, evidenced by their behaviour around "the pandemic". The government told them to give up their job, so they did. The government told them to stay in their homes, so they did. The government told them to stop seeing friends, family, socialising, travelling - so they did.
The government is currently ordering them to wear muzzles and neck cones as per sick pets, and they eagerly oblige (good dog!), The government will suffocate and cage their children upon their return to school, and they will murmur not a word of dissent. The government will forcefully penetrate their children with objects and poisons and they meekly stand by. The government has already stated it will remove and detain children away from their families if it feels compelled to do so, and there is not even a ripple of discontent amongst the masses.
When you are in a situation where there is NOTHING your government can do to you that you won't challenge or fight against, then you cannot deny it - nothing matters to you more than obeying the government, and therefore, that is the meaning of your life.
It doesn't matter how into music you are or that you love classic cars or have an encyclopaedic knowledge of whatever you happen to be interested in. Your qualifications, experience, and wealth are irrelevant. The meaning of your life is defined by what you will fight for, so if you've let the government take everything from you including your very right to breathe freely and have said and done nothing, it is an undeniable and verifiable fact: the meaning of your life is obeying the government.
And what an awful, despairing, cowardly waste of your life that is. Wake up! You are not government property, so stop behaving like it. Or do you dream of your grandchildren wistfully reminiscing one day, "oh, he was such a good man, always did exactly what the TV and politicians told him to." Please advise when in history unquestioningly obeying politicians and TV screens has been a good idea?
There is nothing virtuous or heroic about cowardice - if you're doing what the tele-screen says out of fear, then you're the definition of a coward. What would you do if you were braver? Isn't it worth finding out, before your short time on this mortal coil is up? Because I can give you a heads-up now that if the pearly gates appear in front of you and you're asked to volunteer what the purpose of your time on Earth was, the right answer is not "doing exactly what the government told me to".
|Posted by Miri on August 15, 2020 at 11:45 AM||comments (0)|
I really don't want to scaremonger anyone, but I'm following the rapidly escalating developments in other countries, and I think it's very likely the "quarantines" already instituted in New Zealand are coming here.
In case you were unaware, NZ is now quarantining anyone who tests positive for coronavirus - regardless of whether they have any symptoms of illness - in state-controlled "facilities".
Who knows what's happening to people in these places, but bear in mind, in the UK, the Coronavirus Act allows the state and its agents to forcibly "treat" people against their will. Forced testing? Medicating? Ventilating? All could be happening in these quarantine facilities, and no-one would know, because medical staff are all gagged from speaking out about what's really going on.
I can imagine a situation in the UK where both positive-tested people and anyone they've come into contact with (family members, work colleagues, school friends) are ordered into quarantine. I could see this happening concurrently with ongoing power cuts, making it difficult or impossible for people to alert others via phone calls or social media that this is happening. Many people may not make it alive out of quarantine, and we will be told they died of the virus.
I sincerely hope these concerns are far-fetched conspiratorial nonsense, but frankly, everything about this current situation would have sounded that way six months ago, so we must consider even the most extreme possibilities.
In order to avoid any risk of state officials ordering you off to quarantine camps, it is of the utmost importance that you are never tested for this virus and that you do not ever submit details for track and trace. I would also advise caution with taking your phone out and using your bank card anywhere (pay cash only), because I certainly wouldn't put it past them to track us that way, too.
I would also advise extreme caution with children returning to school, because not only are they at risk of being tested there (remember that because of the Gillick competency ruling, parental consent or even knowledge is NOT required), but there is no fail-safe way of protecting them from track and trace given that all the schools have a daily list of who is in attendance. Whole communities could be marched off to quarantine if just one child tests positive.
I know many families are not in a position to home-school, so in these situations, please make sure your child is as armed as possible with the facts (see my vaccine site aimed at teenagers: www.striveuk.webs.com). If they're old enough, tell them to walk out if anyone tries to administer any test or vaccine to them. Have them sign a statement prior to school starting stating that they do not consent to testing or vaccination, and make sure this statement is sent via recorded post to at least three members of staff, and that they acknowledge receipt.
I think the state will stop short of actually, physically dragging anyone off against their will, because of a complex number of factors, not least some strange clause in their "moral code" that seems to require our "consent" for all the ruthless brutality they subject us to. But what they will do is use the mantle of their supposed authority to put huge, huge pressure on us to comply, including through lying and issuing threats. They will tell you that you "have to", that it's "mandatory", etc. and use trickery and linguistic sleights of legalese to manufacture your consent.
It will be a lot easier to avoid all this if they don't have cause to come to your house. The overlords are not omnipotent and don't have endless resources. They're not going to be knocking on every door in the country; they're going to be going for the "low-hanging fruit", people who have tested positive or participated in track and trace or are otherwise implicated in being a "virus risk". So it's really important to make sure you're not giving them any reason to pay you a visit.
I know a lot of us are looking into the Magna Carta and other ways to challenge the corrupt and illegitimate statutes and acts that are enabling this situation, and we should keep doing that. But there is no magic bullet, no "get out of jail free" card - including Q, Trump, The Plan etc. There may be some kind of value or validity in all of these things, but we've got to be aware of the WHOLE picture and how many different angles they're coming at us from. Quarantines, vaccines, food shortages, power cuts, unemployment, etc. etc. - there's no one way of addressing everything we may have to face, so just keep learning and keep being aware, because to be forewarned is to be forearmed.