Miri AF

Massive missives and more

FB Fulminations

view:  full / summary

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. 

The Art of (Cold) War

Posted by Miri on September 15, 2020 at 7:40 PM Comments comments (3)

As a sort-of sequel to my post yesterday, I've been analysing further the response to the "rule of six" law (law? Law!) and what impact these responses will have on moving the situation forward in our favour.

As we all know, we are in a war. There are no guns or bombs. It's an information war, or (and yes, pun very much intended, sorry about that) a cold war. The definition of a cold war is:

"a state of political hostility.... characterised by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare."

Sounds about right, doesn't it? Well, as you will discover if you investigate the history of cold wars and how they are orchestrated, enormous amounts of thought, planning, public relations and strategy goes into them. War is an art, not a brawl - at least, if you want to win it, it is.

The enemy has an intricate and deftly conceived battle-plan which it is gradually rolling out. The "resistance", meanwhile, does not, and is simply reacting to whatever the enemy does next.

So with the enemy's new "rule of six", if our only response is, "yeah, we're not going to do that, let's just meet publicly in as large as groups as possible on purpose!", we're playing right into their hands. We're talking top, highly experienced military strategists here. Do you think they haven't factored in the notion many people will have that knee-jerk response? Of course they have! They're counting on it.

They're trying to goad us into actions that play into their hands. To paraphrase John Lennon, the state wants you playing its game and in its system because then it's got you and knows how to handle you. The rule of six is purposefully preposterous. It's supposed to be. It's supposed to be maddening, insensible, exasperating, enraging - and there's absolutely no shortage of mainstream newspaper columnists saying it is (would such criticism be allowed of, say, vaccines?) to make people kick back against it.

They WANT an angry, baying mob. They WANT people belligerently breaking the rules, which is why they've made the rules as ridiculous and near-impossible to adhere to as possible. Because once they've got you angry and belligerent and in-their-faces, they know how to handle you. 

I invite you to investigate the history of successful dissidents and outlaws, both factual historical examples and representations in film and literature. Do these people simply have a knee-jerk response every time the authorities do something they don't like, get in their faces and draw attention to themselves, breaking the law "just because"? Or do they do everything they can to stay off the radar and not draw attention to themselves whilst they carefully devise a well thought out and strategic counter-response?

At the moment, we have no plan. All we're doing is saying, "we won't stick to the rules", whilst plastering our proposed now-illegal gatherings all over social media and even the MSM (the protests for the 19th in London have had a great deal of publicity already; there was a blackout in the lead-up to the 29th).

So, the enemy laughs, and says, "great, thanks for letting us know. Now that you've all announced you're going to publicly break the law, and where and when you're going to do it, we can come down, disperse, fine and arrest, and make examples of you in the press, further turning others against you and increasing the fear-factor and compliance. Thank you for such seamless cooperation!"

Honestly, we need to think a bit smarter than that. Otherwise, they're playing chess whilst we're playing snakes and ladders. Bear in mind, the enemy has successfully brought the world to its knees, ushered in the worst recession in 300 years, and mind-controlled millions - if not billions - of people. They're not stupid. They're not amateurs. Their plan is going to be a little more water-tight than to collapse in on itself because the usual suspects didn't follow the rules. They're expecting that we won't; it's all factored in. They will have performed all sorts of complex projections and predictions to work out exactly how different sections of society will respond to the current situation. It's no good saying, "yeah, but if everyone didn't follow the rules...", because that's never going to happen. It's no good dealing in theoretical possibilities, we have to deal in practical realities, which is that most people will follow the rules (whether because they believe in them or because they're afraid of the consequences if they don't), and a minority will publicly flout them. Which is exactly what they want. 

They want us breaking the rules and they want us doing it publicly, because then they can use the media that they own and that mind-controls the masses 24/7 to whip up a frenzy of total hatred against us. They want us to play our part on their stage as "selfish Covidiots flaunting the rules", in order that the masses believe the reason their lives are on hold and falling apart, the reason they can't see their granny, the reason Christmas has been cancelled, is US. Not the benevolent overlords who are plaintively pleading with us to do the right thing and think of others, but us selfish, dangerous, sociopaths - "the type who intentionally speed up in their car when they pass a primary school" (that's what the "Independent" had to say about people who break the rules). The media can twist and frame the presentation of the protests to echo this interpretation exactly. Don't be surprised if the protests turn violent and people attack the police - most likely people planted by the authorities to do just that - to ensure there is maximum loathing from the masses towards people who challenge or break the rules.

If the authorities really didn't want these protests to go ahead, they'd quite easily be able to stop them (you can't really erect a large stage and sound equipment in literally the most central and visible spot in London without quite a bit of cooperation from the authorities, after all) and they certainly wouldn't be relentlessly advertising them in the press. Again, please note there was NO mainstream coverage in the run-up to the August 29th demonstrations, whereas the 19th has already featured prominently in the Times, the Daily Mail, and the Jewish Chronicle. The press knows perfectly well if you want to squash an event, you starve it of the lifeblood it needs to thrive - publicity. Why do you think the phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is so well-known? Because it's true! Drawing attention to something, even negative attention, helps it flourish. If the press and their overlords really didn't want you at those protests, they'd be ignoring them.

Meanwhile certain factions and forces are telling you you're a coward if you don't go. "Oh, so you can't take a little heat, huh? The moment things get tough, you bow out, huh? Huh? Huh?". First of all; friends don't do that. Friends listen sympathetically to your concerns and respect your right to make your own decision, even if they don't agree with it. What kind of person goads and taunts you to try and manipulate you into doing what THEY want you to do? I'll tell you what kind of person.... Biff Tannen! Yes, that's right. I am an enormous Back To The Future fan, have seen all the instalments dozens, if not hundreds of times. For all you fellow BTTF fans/obsessives out there, what is Marty's major downfall? Why does he end up destroying his music career in 1985, losing his job in 2015, and nearly getting killed by Buford Tannen in 1885? It's because he gets goaded into doing stupid and self-destructive things every time people call him a coward.

Who's calling him a coward? Not his good friend, Doc. Not his girlfriend, Jennifer. Not his family, either, flawed as they are. The people who call him names to goad him into doing unwise things for their own benefit are the bully-boy Tannen clan and the narcissistic "Needles".  Because like I said - friends don't goad and taunt you if you don't do what they say. Enemies do. And what do these enemies say to Marty in Back To The Future in order to manipulate him?

"Don't be a chicken, the authorities can't do anything, what are you so afraid of?"

So, desperate to prove himself, Marty goes along with their risky schemes, and ends up, respectively, in a car crash, getting fired, and being shot in the chest. Maybe, just maybe, there might be a lesson in here somewhere? It's only when Marty stops being so emotionally reactive and refuses to let himself be manipulated by name-calling and taunting that he finally triumphs and puts his family line back on the track to prosperity and success. 

So, look, I know we're all angry. I know we're frustrated. I know the inclination is just to say, "well, I'm going to break the rules and do exactly what I want and I don't care about the consequences". But please stop and think. Is this approach going to defeat the immensely powerful, extremely experienced, and strategically brilliant minds behind this pantomime pandemic? Don't you think they're expecting you to do just that and have worked out exactly how to handle it when you do, to ensure it further benefits them?

If you want to defeat the enemy, then ultimately it's very simple. You have to do something they're NOT expecting. Something they're not prepared for. That takes thought, organising and planning. It takes tempering strong feelings and learning how to constantly think tactically and strategically. Where it comes to the art of war, there's a time to attack and there's a time to retreat and plan. We are currently in the latter stage. We don't have a plan, and if we just throw ourselves at the enemy in anger, beating our fists and screaming, they will easily defeat us with a casual flick of the wrist, like a slightly annoying mosquito.

Anyone who's studied anything that relies on tactics and strategy - public relations, chess, martial arts - will understand the veracity of what I'm saying. Thinking and planning is how you win, not brute force or untempered emotional displays. The enemy is always ten steps ahead. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to understand every one of those steps - and to make sure we make the eleventh. 

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

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. 


Hello and welcome!

Posted by Miri on September 14, 2020 at 5:30 AM Comments comments (0)

Just a quick hello to readers new and old... I've been posting my more significant FB posts on here for a while, but as of my announcement today, this will now be my primary platform and social media will take a back seat, so please do save the link and check back often, for regular rants and frequent fulminations (the best way to read on a phone is to enable reader view from the options at the top left of the URL bar).

You can read all content without joining the site, but if you would like to join so you can comment on posts, the link is here: https://www.miriaf.com/apps/auth/signup. Please note sign-up can be a little clunky on a phone and works better on a tablet or laptop.

Thanks for coming, for your ongoing support which is enormously appreciated, and more content to follow very soon... 

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....

Reality Check for the 'Rona Loyalists

Posted by Miri on September 9, 2020 at 8:25 AM Comments comments (0)

Here's a reality check for the 90%+ of the population who desperately seem to need one. Ten days ago, tens of thousands of people gathered in Trafalgar Square in London. Not one of these people wore a mask. Not one observed social distancing. Every single one enthusiastically shook hands with and hugged innumerable other people. They shouted and sung and chanted and laughed, cheek by jowl and for hours and hours. These people represented every segment of the population; every age, every race, every religion, and most every medical condition, too. Oh yes, your "at risk" groups were there, alright.

Ten days later, where are the news reports announcing mass disease and death amongst these attendees? Where are the emergency ambulances and overfull hospitals? I think you will find they are notable by their absence, and that nobody who was at the London protests is even slightly unwell, let alone dying or dead. Doesn't that seem a little strange when there's ostensibly "a deadly pandemic" that attacks every time more than six people congregate together?

No doubt we will be told "cases" have gone up, but even your beloved mainstream media has announced today the tests are essentially worthless and deliver false results at least 50% of the time. If you have no symptoms of any disease then, regardless of what a faulty test says, you are not ill. Multiple false positives on an unreliable test, whilst hospitalisations and deaths remain low, do not a pandemic make. 

Despite these undeniable and irrefutable facts, it remains the opinion of the vast majority of the country that those perpetuating the pandemic are those breaking "the rules". I have it on good authority that the top doctor coordinating the "Covid response" at the local (no doubt empty) hospital refers to those who don't obey the rules as "the great unwashed". Charming, eh? I wonder what he'll have to say about us when we don't get the vaccine? Probably not printable.

Anyway, when the second, much more severe lockdown is imposed (which is imminent: Please prepare now), guess who it'll be blamed on? Seriously, I think at that point our personal safety might be endangered if we go into shops muzzleless, because can you imagine the fear and hatred the media is going to whip up against us? 


I can already see the headlines now. The fact that the schools will close permanently, that all university campuses will close, that pubs and restaurants will shut down (and there will be no furlough this time, so that's the end of that industry), will all be blamed on - not the ruthless psychopaths orchestrating all this - but on us; people who challenge the lies and stand up for our rights. We're trying to maintain a culture and an economy for these muzzled morons so they can have a nice life, but all they'll see is selfish, reckless, sociopathic (thanks for that, Times) granny-murderers who deserve their most vicious condemnation.

Prepared for things to get nasty. 

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.  

Gun, Face, No Space

Posted by Miri on September 5, 2020 at 8:00 AM Comments 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?

URGENT: Don't send your children back to school

Posted by Miri on August 26, 2020 at 11:10 AM Comments comments (0)

I am very, very concerned about the re-opening of the schools and the more I see and read, the more I feel I must strongly advise anyone with school-aged children, don't send them back.

I know it's not as simple as that for parents who need to work, who don't have the support to homeschool, or whose older children are insisting themselves they will go back. But please think really carefully in the time we have left about what your options are. Could you use FB to link up with other nearby, like-minded families and support each other with homeschooling? (You'd be amazed at the connections you can use FB to make - I moved to Huddersfield last October, and when I arrived, I had no friends here at all - now, I have a big group of them that I meet with at least weekly; all thanks to FB!)

If your children are very young and you need extra hands-on support at home, have you thought about crowdfunding for a nanny or au pair? With the jobs market in tatters, I bet you'd be flooded with applications and would be doing a good deed for whoever you employ in helping keep them independent. Don't be shy to ask for financial help if you need it, and crowdfunding does work. Anyone wanting to do a campaign like this, let me know and I'll post it on my page.

If you've got older children who are demanding they must return to school, I wouldn't rule out bribing them to stay at home - ! This is only a short-term solution to keep them safe whilst the schools do their worst (I maintain my belief the schools will be closed permanently after a month or two as we enter the "second wave"). Of course bribing children is morally questionable, but at this point I would be doing anything possible to keep them at home - and frankly, bribing does work (I once knew a family where the parents told their delinquent, failing son they would give him £100 for every A he got at GCSE - they ended up nearly bankrupting themselves as he got a run of nearly completely straight As....). Obviously, this also depends on family resources, but you could promise them something for the future if you can't guarantee it now. Anything just to get them to cooperate in the short-term and keep them out of school.

I know this is an extraordinarily difficult area to navigate, but please heed the warnings of increasingly large numbers of people, including the Irish teacher's statement I posted yesterday and this short video from Sweden (in English, linked below). You could show this to older children, if you think they'd be receptive.

Schools are not a safe place for your children and the authorities are doing everything possible to make damn sure that they're not. Ultimately, once your child leaves your care at the school gates, you have no control over what happens to them next. Please think about what you're going to do very, very carefully, and as I say, don't be scared to ask for help (of whatever stripe) if you need it.



The Meaning of Life: Normie Mix

Posted by Miri on August 25, 2020 at 10:50 AM Comments 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".