Miri AF

Massive missives and more

FB Fulminations

Memories of muzzle-less mandates

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

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

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

From October 5th, 2019


*Healthy, affordable, unprocessed food;

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

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

*Clean air free from pollutants;

*Safe food containers free of endocrine disruptors;

*Safe medicines free from mutagens, sterilants and carcinogens



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cognitive Dissident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"How old are you?"

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

"What's your date of birth?"

"*Gives fake date.*"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 19th September Trafalgar Square Protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Age of Implied Consent

Posted by Miri on September 17, 2020 at 8:00 AM Comments comments (1)

My position since they closed the schools has been that, when they do reopen them, it will be for one reason and one reason only - mass vaccination. Once this has been accomplished, the schools will be shut again - this time permanently. 

(Please see my earlier post on why permanent closure of the schools is a major agenda item: https://www.miriaf.com/apps/blog/show/48836324-schools-brave-new-normal-).

The schools have barely been back two weeks, and I'm already hearing reports they're vaccinating children, and not just without parental consent, but without even informing the parents first that a vaccination drive is taking place - and I'm sorry to say that this has been going on for years and it's effectively impossible to challenge after the event, due to two completely diabolical rulings, known as 'Gillick competency; and 'implied consent'.

Gillick competency really only applies to secondary-aged children (although there is no set age where a child becomes Gillick competent, and I certainly wouldn't put it past schools to use it on older primary pupils), and it is a law which states that if a medical professional considers an underaged child "competent to understand the issues involved", they can consent to medical procedures without parental consent or even knowledge. So your 12-year-old child could come home from school having received a vaccination or series of vaccinations and you would never know, unless the child at some point decided to tell you. I have heard more than one report of a girl in her early teens suddenly developing health problems such as PCOS, with the family at a loss as to where they've come from - until eventually discovering she received the HPV vaccine at school, even when the family had expressly contacted the school beforehand to revoke consent. That doesn't matter, because legally, consent for vaccination doesn't reside with the parent, but with the child. Schools pay lip service to the idea of parental consent by sending out forms to lull the parents into a false sense of security - "we would never medically assault your child behind your back! Who do you think we are?!" - but they would and they do.  Even when the children know their parents have said no and they don't want it themselves, the pressure from the school, including their peers ("oh, so you want cancer then, do you?") can be too much. 

Schools have a very loose definition of "consent" where it comes to applying vaccination, and this interpretation is aided and abetted by the WHO's position on the matter, which states:

"the physical presence of a child or adolescent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent." Parents may be informed in advance this session is taking place "sometimes".

(See page 3, point 3: https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2QK5RyTJ8jWGsPueuLtoNFvkGZ4tzf6NpLqsxG5pGuqhtS_7G-enIzT8I )


Bottom line: Children can and will be vaccinated without parental consent or knowledge and there is no way to know for definite whether this has happened.  Mass vaccination drives are the only reason the establishment wants children back in schools, and these vaccines (whatever they are; I'm hearing reports of children coming home reporting receiving "multiple" jabs) are being used to create the "second wave".

Bill Gates warned us - grinning and sniggering all the while, ecstatic with duper's delight - that the second wave "will really get their attention". So, he is telling us: there IS going to be severe ill health this time. People we know ARE going to be dying and dead. I see no evidence the overlords are capable of creating mass ill health by releasing something into the air - but they can do it by injecting something into people. It could be something that sheds (live virus vaccines, such as the MMR, shed the infection for up to six weeks afterwards, making the recipients contagious; it's why recently-vaccinated persons are asked not to visit cancer wards). 

I know this is such a difficult decision because removing children from school can seem like an impossible option (if the parents need to work, or have opposing views), but please be aware of what schools can and do do to children, and that they will probably be closing down permanently soon anyway. The system currently, where if one child tests positive for coronavirus (on a totally inappropriate and flawed test known to regularly throw up false positives), dozens of others are sent home for weeks, is obviously completely unsustainable and it is meant to be. As I said in my post linked at the top, they are purposely making schools unsustainable in the long-term as they want them (and colleges and universities) closed down permanently and all learning moved online; the only reason - the ONLY reason - they are open right now is to get the children mass-poisoned - sorry, "vaccinated" - to create a tidal wave of ill health that will "really get our attention".

If you're able to get your children out of schools, please do seriously consider it. If you can't, make sure they know they have your permission to walk off school premises if any pressure is put on them to receive a vaccination and you will come and collect them, or arrange a taxi. 

We are in a war, and the enemy is not honourable. They will play dirty. We must be forewarned and forearmed, especially when they target the children, which they always do, because evil is always after the children.  Everything that can be done to protect them at the moment must be the priority. 

Arrested Development

Posted by Miri on September 14, 2020 at 6:55 AM Comments comments (2)

I had quite a few "heated debates"* last week (*got called stupid and evil a lot, because is there any other kind of "debate" on social media? No, so thankfully now we're here where I have a filter on certain words in comments... :D), in regards to my interpretation of the new "rule of six" being a law, not a guideline, and that breaking it could therefore put one at risk of arrest and all the undesirable consequences associated with that.

It has been confirmed today that it is a law, and that breaking it could therefore end up slapping one with a criminal record. I know there's a lot of bravado floating around the internet, both of the "yeah, I don't care if I'm arrested, bring it on!" and the "ah, but I have my magical cloak of invincibility, so it won't apply to me" varieties, and I just want to urge people to be very careful before you take this at face value and make your next move. We are in a war - the fight for our lives - and as all victorious armies know, in order to defeat the enemy, you need planning and strategy - not ill-informed bravado.


So first of all, please do your research about all these magical immunity-from-authority spells floating around Facebook (common law, Magna Carta, etc.) which people are hawking as protection from breaking the law and the consequences thereof. I have looked into all this in great detail, and I find no evidence whatsoever that this is true. It is possible you could use common law or similar to challenge an arrest thereafter, but not to avoid being arrested in the first place. If the police want to arrest you, they will, and I would be thinking very carefully before putting yourself in a situation where arrest is a serious possibility, believing you have total immunity from this situation by saying such-and-such, without having seen any direct evidence of this being put into practice and being successful. 

Many people, with no experience of being arrested or handling the police, have said something to the general effect of, "oh, so you're scared of getting arrested are you? Pfft, how pathetic, what's a little arrest given the current circumstances?"

Am I scared of being arrested? That is to say, am I scared of being detained by state operatives in state facilities at a time when the state has given itself unprecedented and frankly despotic powers? Er.... YES. And if you're not, I don't think you're thinking clearly. People have expressed rightfully grave concerns about being detained in quarantine camps - state facilities run by state operatives - but they're not worried about a police station? What meaningful difference is there?

Virtually nobody being so blithe and cavalier about the prospect of arrest has ever been arrested or knows what it entails. First of all, did you know even if you challenge the arrest afterwards as illegitimate and are successful (a complex and costly process with no guarantee you will win), the arrest remains on your record and can come up on an enhanced DBS check?

But far, far more sinister, did you know it is standard police procedure to take a DNA swab of everyone they arrest, and that they can do it by force if you don't consent?  (See link at footer.)

So, let's envisage this scenario: On the 19th September, there's a big "anti-lockdown" protest in London; when I checked on Friday, the situation appeared to be all protests with more than six people would be illegal. However, the situation now apparently is:

"Protests and political activities organised in compliance with COVID-19 secure guidance and subject to strict risk assessments can continue." (Source: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/coronavirus-rule-six-england-lockdown-18926782)

Well, what chances are there that a protest specifically designed to oppose all the "COVID-19 secure guidelines" is nevertheless going to adhere to them in order to make it legal - !? And if it did do that, it would invaidate the entire purpose of the event. 

Despite the lllegality, was there an immense turnout, as per the August 29th event, then, yes, the protest would be very difficult to police; but as the protest - initially scheduled for the 26th - has been split in two, there are now going to be dramatically less people attending, thereby making it much easier for the police to make arrests.

Certainly, they can't arrest everyone. But they have made it very clear they will be enforcing this law and criminalising people who break it, and what better opportunity to prove this to the populace and scare them into compliance than to make an example of "selfish Covidiots" protesting the new restrictions, in a "non-COVID secure" way?

The organisers will almost certainly be fined and arrested (please note Piers Corbyn, Kate Shemirani, and Mark Steele have already been arrested for arranging protests), and my strong suspicion is that members of the crowd will be, too. There was a small anti-lockdown protest in Melbourne at the weekend, and 74 members of the crowd were arrested.

Once you have been arrested and are in police custody, they can and will take your DNA and fingerprints; and I repeat, they will do this by force if you don't consent.

So now you, as a known state dissident, are a suspected criminal with your fingerprints and DNA on police record. 

Is this helpful strategy in winning the war, or is it actually playing right into the enemy's hands? The reason they take your DNA is to run it against past unsolved crimes. Would you put it past our completely corrupt and criminally insane state to frame you for something? I wouldn't. What a great way of dealing with dissenters who are getting too rowdy or visible - arrest them, take their DNA, and frame them for a crime; and of course, the masses would have NO trouble believing it: "crazy conspiracy theorist arrested at anti-lockdown protest found to be serial thief / rapist / murderer". It might sound far-fetched, but so would everything that's going on right now 12 months ago, and as I said, I put NOTHING past these psychopaths and you shouldn't either. 

So yes, I am afraid of getting arrested, and you are at risk of arrest if you very publicly flout the "rule of six" (they can't enforce it in private homes as they can't enter without a warrant - yet). In my view, mass arrests will be made at the protest on the 19th for the reasons I've just outlined above. 

Please think very carefully before you put yourself in that situation. Some "professional protestors" like Piers Corbyn are always getting arrested and know how to handle themselves with the police. You probably don't, and if you've never been arrested before, your DNA and fingerprints are currently not on police record. You may want to keep it that way. I certainly intend to. 

There are multiple ways of challenging the current circumstances which don't risk criminalising you and getting your DNA on police file. I would be very wary of anyone encouraging you to publicly flout these rules, because what benefit is there to you of getting arrested? Ok, you've "made a statement", but as I said, there are multiple ways of doing that that don't involve detainment by state officials in state facilities having your DNA taken by force.

I already decided not to go to the London event because I oppose the split, which seems at best ego-driven, and also because I don't see much of a purpose to standing around in the cold for four hours listening to speeches I can't hear properly telling me things I already know  - a day-trip that also entails a considerable investment of time and money, given I live four hours' drive away. 

But things are much more serious than personal preference now. The reality is, if you attend the event on the 19th and it hasn't passed a strict risk assessment deeming it "COVID secure", you are breaking the law, and you could get arrested. Are you genuinely prepared for that? Will it help? How will it help? Or could it make things unfathomably worse for you and for "the cause"?

As all military victors know, you must not be swayed by playing to the crowd or people-pleasing, but instead think very carefully before you make your next move. Don't be influenced by people calling you names (remember what happened to Marty McFly in Back to the Future because he got so wound up every time someone called him "chicken"; this has always been an effective ploy from malevolent forces of getting people to do things that aren't in their interests). Think about what's best for you, your family, your reputation - because you're the one who's going to have to live with the consequences of what you decide, and all the people goading you now for being scared or unprincipled if you don't risk arrest... Will be nowhere to be seen. 


The Semantics of Slavery

Posted by Miri on September 12, 2020 at 4:55 AM Comments 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....

The Emperor's New Planet

Posted by Miri on September 6, 2020 at 8:15 AM Comments comments (0)

So, where are we on planet insanity today? 

The government has confirmed what us crackpot nutjobs have been telling you for months, insofar as Christmas is being cancelled and we are on course for another, much more severe "lockdown" - despite the fact, as all MSM articles confirm if you look carefully, there has been no rise in hospitalisations or deaths. 

That's because there is no deadly virus. Nothing worse than what's usually around this time of year. However, that doesn't matter. What matters is that you BELIEVE there's a virus (it really is the Emperor's New Virus), because once you believe that, the overlords can manipulate you into doing all sorts of things that you would not do unless you held this belief.

If you've got a group of infinitely wealthy and powerful intergenerational psychopaths who want to drastically depopulate the planet to free up more resources for themselves, they're not going to come outright and tell you that's what they want to do. Psychopaths are many things, but one thing they're not is stupid. They're actually intellectually brilliant with extraordinary abilities in strategy, public relations, and planning. If they weren't so ruthlessly evil, they would be to be admired. 

So, they want to kill a lot of people, but they want to do it in a way that nobody realises it was them. So, they invent "a deadly pandemic". They hire the media to churn out maximum fear propaganda all day every day (doesn't have to be real, staged events are fine, as per the amendment in the NDAA which made it legal for the press to propagandise the public). So now the public is petrified of "a deadly pandemic", which means a) they will do whatever they're told to avoid it, and b) as they believe there's a deadly pandemic, they have the expectation that a lot of people are going to die.

So, the overlords then summon them for regular "testing" (the tests are contaminated, which even the MSM admits, and are highly likely to be an intranasal "vaccine" of some description, designed to create poor health and shorten life) and imminently, regular coronavirus vaccinations, too. Do you know what's in the vaccine? Nope. Could be anything. Even the official ingredients' list doesn't declare all components, as the Covelva scientists in Italy recently discovered.

It's very easy for psychopaths with infinite wealth and resources to buy off scientists (and those who can't be bought off, killed off) and have them create potent genocidal bioweapons, call them "vaccines", and inject them into people. We also have the good old reliable 'flu vaccine, shedding and suppressing immunity, to create even more ill health, thus completing the illusion.

A lot of people are going to die in the next few months - I'm very sorry to have to say that, but it's the reality we're all going to have to prepare for - because of the above factors, and there will be no resistance or fighting back against the evil overlords killing them, because the people will simply not realise this is what is happening. They will accredit all the excess deaths to "the pandemic". 

Genius, really. Evil, diabolical, psychopathic genius. But if I point it out, of course, I'm the crazy conspiracy theorist. Yes, I get nothing for pointing the above out to the normies except ridicule and abuse, I'm not peddling snake oil or trying to recruit for a cult, I'm just providing information. You don't have to believe me. But ask yourself what I have to gain for sharing it with you? 

Whenever you want to get to the truth of any situation, there's always one vital question to ask - cui bono? Who benefits?

Do I benefit from the current situation? I've lost my job, I can't get the eye operation I need, and I was unable to see my dad on his 70th birthday, amongst many and various other significant sacrifices. This really is not a beneficial situation for me.

Do rich psychopaths benefit? Have they become a lot richer since "the pandemic"? Have the openly stated "overpopulation" is a problem?

THINK. Think as if your life depended on it. Because it really, really does.  

The Year They Cancelled Christmas

Posted by Miri on August 15, 2020 at 11:40 AM Comments comments (0)

When town centres are cancelling Christmas celebrations in AUGUST (as per below link), you know this isn't about a virus.



I have predicted on several occasions previously that Christmas this year will be cancelled, and that this winter is going to be very difficult indeed. The first wave was an IQ test; the second will be a resilience test. Please prepare now for food shortages, power cuts, and disruptions to the water and heating supplies (in LA, they're already threatening to cut households off who host "non-permitted gatherings").


Remember also that significant power cuts will stop us being able to charge our phones, laptops, etc., leaving most of us very cut off. Make provisions for that now so it doesn't hit you too hard if/when it happens - for instance, make sure you have addresses of nearby friends written down in pen so you can go round to their houses without needing to consult your phone (if you don't have nearby friends, now is the time to make them! Plenty of local meet-ups being arranged via FB).


Keep buying extra tins and other non-perishables every time you go shopping, as well as bottled water, torches, matches, batteries, and anything else you might need in the event of power cuts and/or supply scarcity. Extra blankets are a good idea, as I foresee a bitterly cold winter, compounded by heating failures. Don't forget non-electronic entertainment items, such as books, games, drawing equipment, etc. And remember to stock up for pets, too.


As I said, what's coming will be a resilience test and "they" really will try to break us. Cancelling Christmas will be an attempt to deliver a huge, traumatic bodyblow to an already psychologically shattered culture, following months of other profound disruptions (the fallout when furlough and eviction protection ends in October is going to be unimaginable), so prepare yourself now, including psychologically and emotionally.


We are also going to see a sudden uptick in illness and death, which will be caused by a number of factors including the shedding children's 'flu vaccine, the immune-suppressing adult 'flu vaccine, contaminated test kits, months of festering muzzle wearing, general lowered immunity from months of sitting inside avoiding fresh air, sunlight, and human contact, and of course, from the coronavirus vaccine. We will all have to prepare ourselves for the fact that people we know will be affected. It won't be the same as now when almost no-one knows anyone who's actually ill.


I'm not saying this to scare you, but to prepare you, because like I said, what's coming is a resilience test. And as with all tests, if you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail. I do actually think there's light at the end of the tunnel once we get through this; but we do have to get through that tunnel first.


The main things that will get you through are practical supplies (food, blankets, books, etc.) and human support - so use the time we have left before the "second wave" (about four weeks, I'd say) to do all you can to bolster your reserves of both.


See you on the other side...


The BBC + Brave New World = Office Life 2025

Posted by Miri on August 11, 2020 at 7:55 PM Comments 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.

Boris the Bulldozer

Posted by Miri on August 5, 2020 at 5:45 AM Comments comments (2)

Given a virus is not alive, has no respiratory or digestive system, and cannot survive outside of a living host, I would be sincerely grateful if anyone who's invested in the mainstream pantomime could explain to me how bulldozing empty buildings, as per the below announcement, will control it?




Once human beings have exited a property, they take the virus with them. Even if you believe the sci-fi fantasy nonsense that a non-living virus with no ability to respirate or receive nourishment can "live" on door-handles, packaging, and bank notes (but not credit cards) for a few days, it still dies off rather rapidly once there are no living beings within an environment to sustain it.


So, good, obedient slaves - I mean citizens - can you come up with one good reason - just one - why your loving government, would have to brutally bulldoze your homes, your history, and your heritage, to "control a virus"?


Is it possible, that maybe, just maybe, those crazy whackaloon conspiracy crackpots might have been onto something when they said "you can't trust the government" and "the government is lying"?


Pretty radical stuff there, I know, because, as we all know, no government in history has ever deceived its population, and they've certainly never oppressed, assaulted, or brutally enslaved them. Nope. Definitely not. Think you've been watching a bit too much InfoWars there, mate! Obviously when the government wages war on every aspect of our civilisation up to and including our own private home it's because they want to stop us catching a cold. Duh! ��