|Posted by Miri on October 13, 2020 at 5:45 AM||comments (0)|
n the UK, as in most of Europe, we don't have the death penalty, which means the very worst punishment our society recognises is life in prison. That is the harshest retribution our culture and judicial system can conceive of.
But why is life imprisonment considered such a uniquely severe penalty? After all, prisoners are kept warm, fed, and entertained. They're not physically tortured or starved. They have access to books and games and TV.
Yet it's still considered the worst punishment many societies have to offer. Why?
It's because it deprives people of the single most important facet of life - liberty. That is the only answer there can be, because otherwise, what's so bad about life in prison? All your basic needs are met, you don't have to worry about rent or bills, and you have access to entertainment and education. But prison is still recognised as a profound punishment and effective deterrent, because it removes liberty and prohibits independence and self-determination - which all societies innately know are the most important parts of life, and therefore removing them, the worst punishment.
So: compare that to our "new normal", where we've lost our jobs and must depend on the state to subsidise us, we can't see family and friends, and we are severely restricted in our movements, restrictions which are enforced by the state.
"What are you complaining about?" Demand the muzzled masses. "Aren't you being kept warm? Aren't you well fed? Aren't your rent and bills being covered? Don't you have Netflix and Facebook and YouTube? Can't you do your studies online?"
Well - you could say the exact same thing to someone doing a life sentence for murder. If "lockdown" isn't so bad, then neither is life in prison, because there is no material difference between the two.
That is why these measures are so abhorrent and so unjustifiable, so completely and utterly obscene. We have delivered society's worst punishment - the forcible removal of liberty by the state - to millions of completely innocent people, who have been treated with more indignity and contempt than sadistic mass murderers, who uniformly get the right to a trial, a defence, and due process before their liberty is permanently stripped from them.
If I accuse someone of a crime and want them to be sent to prison, then there are processes and protocols that must be rigorously adhered to, such as the production of evidence and then a trial, where the accused has the right to a defence, and to appeal.
Yet, if I want to accuse someone of potentially being "Covid positive" (which, although you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, is not actually a crime) and have them put under house arrest, again and again and again, I need produce no evidence. There is no due process, and they have no right to any objection, defence or appeal. I can strip all liberty from anyone I like, any time I like, and be fully backed up by the state, all on the basis of nothing. I can (we all can) condemn someone, anyone at all, to society's worst fate - the forcible removal of liberty by the state (£10,000 penalty if you breach "self-isolation" rules) - for absolutely nothing, and there's not a single thing they can do about it. That means, the current reality is, convicted mass murderers serving life sentences in prison have more human rights than you or me; because they went through due process before being stripped of their liberty and forcibly detained by the state. We have not.
Let's just repeat that: we are all being subjected to society's worst punishment, without even the rights we extend to society's most depraved criminals. It is utterly inconceivable that that could be true in a 21st century liberal democracy. But it is.
|Posted by Miri on September 25, 2020 at 10:15 AM||comments (1)|
Yesterday, Mark and I made our regular trip down to our old stomping grounds in rural Lancashire, to visit a good friend's farm shop to pick up fresh eggs, farm-churned butter (literally putting the garlic and parsley one on EVERYTHING), organic veg, and some rather delectable home-made honey soap. Whilst it's obviously a little bit further than the local Tesco's. we go there for most fresh staples anyway, to do our little bit to boycott the corporate economy, and support local business and organic farming (and, of course, to talk conspiracy theories - I now make a concerted effort to only purchase goods and services from verified crackpot nutjob whackaloons, so if you're one too and would like the details of this farm shop to do your shopping, please let me know ).
As we wouldn't be back until late, we decided to stop at a local pub on the way back to get something to eat. I knew this was the first day the new "rules" had come into force, but I couldn't see a quiet, out-of-the-way country pub, renowned for its relaxed and laid-back atmosphere, being too draconian about them.
And oh how wrong I was.
First of all, we had to queue at the door (unheard of for a quiet country pub that caters mainly to families and retirees), and watched the group in front of us dutifully don their muzzles as they assidiously checked with each other whether every member of the party had downloaded the NHS track and trace app. In front of us, there were two sanitiser machines, one affixed to the door and one just inside the entrance, and Mark nudged me and muttered we'd better pretend to use them because the staff were patrolling the entrance glaring at everyone to make sure they did.
Once we entered the pub, we were "greeted" (doesn't seem the right word, really) by a waitress wearing a large surgical muzzle, who said robotically:
"Can you put your masks on while we seat you please."
I could not believe what I was hearing. It was a small pub where even the furthest away table would have taken less than 20 seconds to reach.
"We can't wear them," I said, appalled by myself for having to say these words - to have to explain to a waitress that we "can't" suffocate ourselves in ritual, degrading, Satanic submission before we have a quick bite to eat, sorry.
"No, that's fine," She said quickly, obviously having been prepped that, for now at least, it's not something that can be forced. She escorted us to a table that was quite literally right next to the door, and took about three steps to reach, and she really did want us to have muzzled ourselves for that trip. By the time I sat down I felt a knot in my stomach of nausea and despair, and then I looked around me. The pub was bustling and full, and at first glance it could be mistaken for a normal night out - but every time anyone got up to go to the toilet (you're not allowed to go to the bar), they robotically put their muzzles on. I felt like I was in a horror film.
More muzzled staff came up to us to take our drinks and food orders, and when one young waitress was clearing the table behind us, she dropped her tray and glasses went flying everywhere.
"Sorry, I'm so sorry," She said, flustered. "It's just I can't see where I'm going properly," at which she indicated the large muzzle which came right up to her eyes.
The whole scenario was completely and utterly insane and awful.
"I think this is the last supper," I said quietly to Mark, as we both knew this was it, the screws have been tightened too far for us to continue to participate in "the new normal". We compromised at first, we negotiated - fake details for track and trace, pretend hand-sanitising, but there is no more dodging and swerving we can do: we cannot participate in this. The law states one is exempt from wearing a mask if it causes one "severe distress" - well, if it does, what effect is it going to have on one being confronted with legions of other people staring dead-eyed and expressionless from beneath theirs?
We finished up quickly and got back in the car to drive the 40-minute journey back home. We decided we would stop at the corner shop that I wrote about yesterday, as we were low on cat food and bottled water, and to say hello to our "tormenting" friend. As we approached the shop, I suddenly had an awful thought.
"Oh my God," I said to Mark. "What if he's wearing the muzzle?"
The reason the pub staff were now all muzzled is because the rules have been tightened to now make it "mandatory" for all hospitality and retail staff to wear them; previously, the rule just applied to customers. Given our corner shop friend had never sported a muzzle at any stage, beamed at us warmly every time we came in muzzle-free, and giggled when we told off a woman who took exception to seeing our muzzleless faces, it's obvious he isn't scared of a virus and has no desire to suffocate himself throughout his 16-hour working day. He'd made it clear just how much it meant to him being able to see people smile and laugh, and so surely to God he wouldn't now be forced into suffocating, shrouded submission himself?
We went into the shop and he was very pleased to see us together.
"Aha," He said happily. "Now this is better!"
Mark didn't have the right money to pay, so asked me for some change. Our friend tutted disapprovingly.
"I did not tell you to bring her with you," He admonished Mark. "So you could ask her for money!"
Although he seemed as mischievously upbeat as ever, I came out of the shop with the knot of nausea and despair back in my stomach.
He was wearing the muzzle.
|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 23, 2020 at 4:30 PM||comments (0)|
So, the Johnson Junta has tightened the screws yet again and here we are now, effectively, in a de-facto police state. It goes without saying (well, maybe not, as I have said it a few thousand times...) that all manner of invective and outrage deserves to be hurled at this truly hideous situation. It is despotic, dystopian, Orwellian, tyrannical, Satanic, evil. The level of decimation this situation has inflicted on individuals, relationships, families, livelihoods, and the very fabric of human life itself is inestimable and obscene.
However - we are where we are. And, much as I sincerely appreciate the value in raging against it, and in doing everything we can to try and halt it, we also need to recognise it is rolling ahead full speed, and so a major priority right now has to be self-preservation and tactical action. Solutions-based strategy focused on positive results for us, the people who see through this grotesque mirage but nevertheless have to live in a world where many people believe in it and where the law will enforce it.
First of all, please understand what the law is. The Coronavirus Act, an "emergency" piece of legislation rammed through parliament without scrutiny and giving the authorities extraordinary and unprecedented powers, is the law. By which I mean, it will be enforced by law enforcement officers, as they demonstrated at the protest in London on Saturday. To reiterate, 32 arrests were made, there was considerable police brutality, and there are unconfirmed reports that at least one person was killed. So as I said: they will enforce it. As I've stated previously, the protest was illegal because it hadn't passed a "Covid-secure" risk assessment, and the police confirmed that fact on live RT footage, explaining to members of the crowd that is why they were there, and that, if the attendees didn't leave when advised of this illegality, then dispersal and arrests would follow; as they did.
Many people have made spurious claims along the lines of "the Coronavirus Act isn't real law, they can't enforce it if we don't consent", but this is simply not true. Yes, they can. They can and they have and they will continue to do so. If the Coronavirus Act could be sidestepped by us merely saying "we don't consent", why would it even matter that it exists? Why did so many of us so vigorously oppose this Act upon its institution? Why are we so ferociously fighting against its renewal now? If it was an optional, opt-in sort of arrangement, we wouldn't bother - we'd just opt out and get on with our lives. We can't do that - a fact of which I'm sure anyone reading this is all too well aware.
So please be very clear on the nature of the reality we currently find ourselves in: the powers given to the authorities under the Coronavirus Act do NOT require your consent to be enforced. I watched as protestors at the London rally chanted at the police that they "didn't consent" and "stood under common law". Five minutes later, the police charged at them and violent arrests followed. The police don't care about what you think your rights are; they only care about enforcing what they have been told is the law. They care about following orders and not getting into trouble with their superiors. That's it. Please look at all oppressive regimes around the world, and see how their dissidents fare when they get into the faces of the police, and whether stating "we don't consent" has ever served a single one of these people. Speak to a Palestinian and see how well they are faring informing the Israelis they don't consent to ethnic cleansing and genocide. It's almost as if many dissidents in this country are under a sort of spell, like they're playing a game, and believe if they say such-and-such magic words, all the oppression and tyranny around them will evaporate and they'll be allowed to peacefully go on their merry way. Please listen to me - it's not true. There is no magic spell, no special pass. You are living in a despotic police state and the police do not care about you or what you imagine your rights are. They will do as they have been told.
If they arrest you for breaking what they have been told is the law, and you feel this is illegitimate, could you challenge them thereafter? Very possibly, people do; but this is a lengthy and expensive process with no guarantee you will win - is that how you want to invest your time and money? Maybe it is, but you really need to give this some serious thought and not rush into anything with maximal bravado and minimal critical thinking, getting yourself into a situation you're not well equipped to handle and that may not be in your interests. I have yet to hear from any of the 32 people who were arrested on Saturday that they feel this was overall a positive, enriching experience. Indeed, the one first-hand account of arrest I have read confirmed the experience was violent, traumatic, and awful. Being arrested is not fun. It's not something to get into lightly, and it has far-reaching consequences (the police will take your DNA by force for a start; what else might they start doing by force?).
We have to really acknowledge the fact that the government is coming down on us very hard. They're deploying the military to the streets. This isn't a game and they're not going to play nice or fair. So if you want to win, you've got to play smart.
The current knee-jerk response from "the resistance" (and don't think I don't understand and sympathise with it, because I certainly do) is to simply publicly and visibly disobey every new rule as much as possible. The government says I can only have 6 people round my house? Right, arrange a loud house party for 50 people immediately! The government says protesting is illegal if it's not Covid-secure? In that case, I shall arrange the biggest protest imaginable flouting all the Covid rules! And trust me, I get it. These rules are utterly abhorrent and morally illegitimate at every level... But they are nevertheless the law, they will be enforced as the law, and therefore, there may very well be consequences for you if you publicly and visibly break them; consequences which you may not wish to entertain.
Please do not misinterpret what I am saying. I am not saying you should comply with these laws. I am saying if you are not going to comply with them, do it in an intelligent way that serves you, not in a way that plays right into the hands of the enemy. You publicly flout the laws and flaunt your illegal activity all over the place, and what happens to you? You could very well get arrested - meaning you are now being detained by state officials in state facilities. Does that concept not concern you? It should. If you are a dissident who doesn't trust the state, why on earth would you put yourself in a position where you're spending time alone, incarcerated by state law enforcement officials, where they may do God knows what to you? Don't forget the brutal and extraordinary powers granted to them under the Coronavirus Act.
Successful state dissidents do not make a habit of spending time alone with the police or any other state officials. You're keen to avoid hospitals, you definitely don't want to visit quarantine camps... But you're happy to be incarcerated by the police? Please think. There are much smarter, saner ways to resist than that.
Concealing your law-breaking activities from the authorities is not endorsing the law. It's recognising your responsibility to your own self-preservation, and that, however ludicrous a law might be and however much you might oppose it, breaking it publicly and openly may have deeply undesirable consequences for you. Breaking it non-publicly and non-visibly is far more likely to get you what you want, in a way that won't have self-defeating consequences.
Let's use an example of a law we have virtually all broken - buying alcohol under the age of 18. I broke this law frequently and enthusiastically from the age of about fifteen, and yet, faced no consequences for it, because I did not advertise the fact I was breaking it.
"How old are you?"
"Nineteen." (18 is way too obvious, budding teenage drinkers...)
"What's your date of birth?"
"*Gives fake date.*"
[Of course, back in those days, they were quite relaxed and didn't demand state-approved photo ID to prove you were over 30 with a mortgage and a pension plan, or whatever the ridiculous law is now.]
Having successfully broken this law, I would take my illegal purchase and go and drink it in someone's private home, rather than, say, standing outside a police station jumping up and down and shouting that "I do not consent" to not legally being able to purchase alcohol.
Now, did the fact I concealed my law-breaking activity mean I endorsed the law or was somehow promoting compliance with it? Obviously not. I opposed the law then and I still do now (it's ludicrous that someone can get married, have a child, and join the army - all things 16-year-olds can legally do - but can't purchase a bottle of beer from the corner shop). But I still didn't openly flaunt to the authorities the fact I was breaking it, because that would not have served my purposes - which were to purchase the alcohol and not have the authorities get in my way. After all, I didn't feel I needed their "consent" to buy the alcohol, so I bypassed their laws through concealment and therefore got what I wanted.
Another law a large proportion of people have broken is the purchasing and possession of illegal drugs. One assumes if you choose to purchase illegal drugs, then you oppose the law stating they're illegal and that, obviously, you're not complying with it. But you carry out your non-compliance covertly - you don't plaster your activity all over social media, letting the world know exactly where, when, and from whom you will be buying your drugs.
I think you get the point. If your aim is to break a law because you oppose it, then breaking it loudly, visibly, and publicly may not be in your interests. This may have consequences that aren't helpful to you and could in fact be extremely undesirable.
We can examine many examples throughout history where dissidents opposed the law and successfully broke it... But they did so by concealing their illegal activity, not by flaunting it. How did drinkers get through prohibition? How did Robin Hood avoid being butchered by the Sheriff? How did Sylvester Stallone get his rat burger in Demolition Man? If you want to challenge the authorities and their despotism, the best and most effective way to do it is by concealing yourself from them, not flaunting yourself in their faces. Because if you do that, they will respond. They will bite back. We saw it on Saturday, and that was just the beginning. Just a taster. There are now, I repeat, armed militia on the streets. This isn't a game and they will show their teeth if you antagonise them. They WANT you to antagonise them, that's why they've made the rules so absolutely, utterly ridiculous - to incite you into losing your temper and breaking them publicly - because then they've got you. Obviously what they want is to be able to make mass arrests and detainments, they wouldn't be issuing all these draconian threats and putting armed guards on the streets if they didn't. They wouldn't have quarantine camps and Nightingale Hospitals, which for all we know are there to incarcerate the unruly and inject them by force (which they can do under the Coronavirus Act, by the way).
They're not going to kick your door down and drag you out, because that is a lot of effort (and, for now, still illegal) when they could much more easily go for the "low-hanging fruit". That is to say, people who get in their faces and make a scene. People who break the law publicly and in highly central and visible locations with a large police presence. People who advertise their plans to law-break - when, where, and with whom - all over social media.
So please just give all this some serious thought. What are your actual goals? What do you want to achieve? How have successful dissidents now and all throughout history continued to live their lives as they wish without being incarcerated by a tyrannical state?
To win a war, you have to be very clear on not just what you want, but what the enemy wants. What does the enemy want? To be given an excuse to incarcerate and force-inject troublemakers and antagonists, perhaps?
Think very, very carefully about what you do next and whether it is serving you and your self-preservation - or whether it's playing right into the enemy's hands. Be clear on this fact - they want you dead. They're going to play dirty - all's fair in love and war - and so you need to always be ten steps ahead. Not walking straight into their traps - and letting them know you will be in advance on a viral Facebook post.
Be strategic, think tactically, act prudently. That's how you survive what's coming - and that's, ultimately, how we win.
|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 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 13, 2020 at 6:00 AM||comments (1)|
I just saw someone having an argument with a normie, and the normie said, "I know masks and social distancing are inconvenient, but so what? If it saves lives, it's worth it!"
Well, let's follow that school of thought through to its logical conclusion (indulging the normie for a moment and pretending there is any evidence whatsoever that muzzles and Satanic distancing do save lives).
There is a 100% certainty that banning everyone from driving would save lives.
There is a 100% certainty that banning alcohol consumption would save lives.
There is 100% certainty that banning all contact and extreme sports would save lives.
So where exactly would you like to draw the line? Do you believe that the primary purpose of life is extending it as long as possible, at ALL costs?
It isn't. One of the secrets to a successful and fulfilled life is mastering the art of CALCULATED RISK. If you always play it safe, if you never take a chance, if you always prioritise security and safety over adventure and gamble, guess where you're going to get in life?
Oh, you might remain alive, alright, insofar as your heart beats and your lungs respire (albeit they're struggling a bit in your muzzle), but what exactly is the point of that? You do realise you're going to die sometime, right? Is your aim just to keep your animated carcass going in front of Netflix as long as you can, then sliding gratefully into your grave at 98, sighing, "ah well, I might never have enjoyed my life or achieved anything of note... But at least I never got coronavirus!!!"
Life is risk. Everything, including the most banal of activities, have an element of risk - do you know how many people die every year slipping in the bath or choking on a sandwich? You can't mitigate against that; you can't refuse to live your life because there's always a theoretical possibility something you do might kill you. If you attempt to, you're trying to deny the debt of death by avoiding the loan of life, and it's impossible, and what's more, immoral. You have been given the miraculous gift of life, and you can't return it for a credit note to spend in another store.
I mean, let's say I actually believed there was a Deadly Killer Plague flying around in the air waiting to pounce on me if I walked the wrong way down a supermarket aisle or moved a chair in a pub. Do you think I'd be cowering in my home obsessively sanitising the cat ('cos the telly said they can give you the 'rona!), giving up on everything and everyone that gives my life joy and meaning? Of course not! I would go out; I would take my chances, knowing that illness is more to do with the state of your bodily terrain than eeeeeeevil plagues that allegedly float around in the air, and if I get sick, it's far more likely to be do to with unhealthy choices I've made, than the fact some random stranger in the veg aisle isn't wearing a grubby bandanna around their nose.
You normies might think that's wild and reckless, but let me ask you - do you drink alcohol? Do you drive? Do you smoke? Do you eat junk food? Are you overweight? T2 diabetic? High blood pressure? All these things - choices you made or that resulted from choices you made - are RISKY, and in reality, far more of a threat to your health than a cold virus which has never actually been isolated or proven to cause the ever-increasing array of symptoms (hiccoughs and hair loss now!) that are accredited to it.
Check out the stats about what's crippling the NHS - viruses? Or diabetes and other lifestyle-related diseases?
I'm all for education to help people make better choices. But I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything, nor for eliminating risk, because that's both impossible and undesirable.
Every person has to be free to make a cost-benefit analysis for everything they do, because ultimately, that's what life is. It's calculated risk. It is completely impossible to eliminate risk altogether, and why would you want to - frankly, if that's what you want, you may as well kill yourself now, as that is the only way to ensure there is no longer any risk to your person.
Can I guarantee if you take your muzzle off and give your Aunty Pat a hug you won't die? No. But I can guarantee that if you don't start doing these things and all the other things that give your life joy and meaning, you're as good as dead already.
Risk it - live.
|Posted by Miri on August 11, 2020 at 7:55 PM||comments (0)|
I strongly recommend taking five or ten minutes to carefully read through this whole article (linked below). It is set out almost like a children's book, with "fun" little cartoons and speech bubbles, depicting how life will be five years from now.
This isn't an "alternative" website. This can't be dismissed as the paranoid ramblings of crazy conspiracy theorists (as per my usual posts... ). Here we have the alleged bastion of British journalism, the BBC, telling us in no uncertain terms; life is never going back to normal. This is your world now.
The article sets out how "Laila", a 30-ish office-worker, now works from home four days a week and only goes into the office once. There are staggered start times, to ensure she doesn't arrive at the same time as anyone else; widened corridors to maintain social distancing; and a strict limit of two people in the office lifts - which are now all voice-activated to replace "grubby buttons". Laila must not touch anything on her journey to her desk and sanitise as soon as she arrives (which she now does so often she "doesn't even think about it"). Desks are surrounded by shields of anti-microbial plastic to "protect" her from the other filthy disease vectors. I mean, her colleagues.
Offices used to be in buildings with multiple other businesses, but that is far too dangerous now in case of another outbreak, so traditional office blocks have been dismantled, and everyone works in atomised, isolated cubes, where they never come into contact with any other operation. After their once-weekly visit to the office, everyone leaves at strictly staggered times, again to ensure no contact with others, and then they return home to their sterile SMART pods, where they might catch up with family or friends over Zoom, before recommencing their working week at home, alone.
There are many hideous implications to this barbaric and anti-human nightmare, but one thing is for absolutely sure and certain: this kind of "lifestyle" will dramatically reduce life expectancy and very few people will make it past pension age.
Which, funnily enough, suits the agenda extremely well.
We now know why governments have poured quite so much money into researching loneliness and isolation in recent years. They were searching for a formula that would most effectively terminate life prematurely, producing for them the "ideal" human - one who will work as a tax slave until midlife, and then drop dead well before they become eligible to claim anything back from the government in terms of pension and other state services. Courtesy of the intensive, well-funded research that's taken place over the last few years, it is now known loneliness and isolation are stronger predictors of premature death than heavy drinking, obesity, and smoking. Making humans live (if we can call it that) as described in this article will guarantee dramatically reduced life expectancy across the population - and the overlords know it.
|Posted by Miri on July 31, 2020 at 4:50 AM||comments (0)|
So, barely one week after the egregious piece of Orwellian agitprop came through my door (a circular from Kirklees council, laying down the non-law on coronavirus, see here for my response: https://miriaf.webs.com/kirkleescouncilcovid19), the real reason becomes clear.
As of midnight last night, Kirklees, along with several neighbouring authorities, is back on "lockdown". We have - with all of 90 minutes' notice - been banned from meeting indoors with members of any other household, which includes visiting any family we don't live with and also precludes any social rendezvous in any indoor venue, including cafes, pubs, and restaurants.
I wondered when I got the letter from Kirklees why everyone in the country wasn't getting a similar correspondence, and speculated that it was because these missives were only going out within authorities lined up for new "lockdowns", to prepare the residents, and to give the despotic "authorities" ammunition to say, "well, we warned you, we gave you your chance to obey, but you were very naughty little slaves and didn't and so now you get your punishment".
It is no coincidence (because there are none with these highly strategic psychopaths) that this falls on the eve of Eid, in the boroughs that have the highest Muslim populations in the country. The overlords have two aims with this - one, to stoke further racial and religious tensions, by getting non-Muslims to blame Muslims for putting us back in "lockdown". The propaganda press has been impressing upon us for weeks how areas with large Asian populations have more coronavirus outbreaks than anywhere else, because Asians are more likely to live in large households and less likely to obey "the rules".
So already on social media, the Twitchfork mob are out in force, fulminating over the fact that "these areas in lockdown all have one thing in common but it's not PC to say what it is", thus creating more social division, more "us and them", and more simmering tensions within a country already on the brink of exploding.
It's also about demonising large families and multi-generational living, arrangements very uncommon in white British communities, and very common amongst Muslims - because the overlords hate the family and the community and want everyone living alone, isolated and atomised, and with no loyalties to anyone or anything other than the state. So, of course, they launch "lockdown" at Eid, a time when Muslims are most likely to congregate in large family groups. Note the press has been very keen to underline that coronavirus is now more likely to spread within large households than anywhere else.
With these complete and utter irredeemably evil criminals who purport to rule over us, there are always two reasons for anything they do. One, the reason given to the public to make it palatable ("it's to protect you from a cold virus, because we love you. Now, GET YOUR MUZZLE BACK ON, FACE THE WALL!"), and two, the real reason.
If you live in Kirklees or any other "locked down" authority, please do consider contacting your criminal council and letting them know exactly what you think (you're welcome to PM me for help with putting a letter together), because we cannot let these perfidious crooks get away with this. They are public servants - they're the servants, not us - and they must be held accountable to us.