Miri AF

Massive missives and more

FB Fulminations

view:  full / summary

"Piers Morgan denies he's Home Alone pigeon lady"

Posted by Miri on December 9, 2020 at 5:20 AM Comments comments (0)

I find the mainstream media, linked above, to be an endless source of fascination, because it DOES reveal the truth, if you know how to read it properly (this was explored to brilliant effect by investigative journalist, David McGowan, who exposed some extraordinary "conspiracy theories" simply by citing mainstream sources and knowing how to interpret them - his work is a must-read if you haven't discovered it yet).


I'm not saying the truth is that Piers Morgan is pigeon lady (an insult to pigeon ladies everywhere), but if you read the whole article, it's casually, blink-and-you'll-miss-it thrown in at the end that: "Piers then took the opportunity to remind viewers he’s starred in a total of 10 films, including Flight (2012) and Entourage (2015)."


Not incidentally, Piers also starred in deadly-plague movie, World War Z, as a shrieking talking head predicting mass death and devastation.


The point I'm making, and that the mainstream media is clearly telling you, is that Piers is a (quite accomplished) actor. He's playing a part. Many have marvelled at how he can be so extraordinarily thick, heartless, pompous, etc., so completely and utterly impervious to the real facts about this fake pandemic, and it's quite easily answered - it's because he's acting. He's reading from a script. He's playing a character called Piers Morgan, just like he did in World War Z and all the other films he's starred in.


As it happens, Piers Morgan used to be a Facebook friend of mine (I know, I know, it was a long time ago, I was young and naive etc.) and I had a brief correspondence with him. He isn't stupid. He is, however, a very good actor.


When you go to watch World War Z at the cinema, you know it isn't real, and that Piers is playing a part, because you're overtly told before you buy the ticket.


When you watch GMB on television, you're tricked into thinking it's real, but in reality, it's just another glossy studio production staged by actors, and you're being covertly told that all the time (check just how many talking heads and politicians have profiles on IMDB).


It is very, very pertinent indeed that the "first man to get the vaccine" was William Shakespeare. All the world really is a stage, and they're telling you so all the time.


A Plague of Propaganda

Posted by Miri on December 8, 2020 at 6:25 AM Comments comments (0)

This is a pitch-perfect example of how you create a propaganda plague.


https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/retired-primary-school-teacher-dies-4775650


Headline states: "Retired primary school teacher dies after testing positive for coronavirus at Royal Stoke."


Article clarifies: "North Staffordshire senior coroner Andrew Barkley concluded that Miss Johnson's death was due to the complications of a fall. He said: "After having a nightmare, she jumped out of bed and sustained a fall that resulted in a fractured pelvis.


"When she was admitted to hospital, she was diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia and initially showed a negative Covid test, but that changed to positive on November 12.


"She was treated with antibiotics and discharged on November 19 with a care package. She became acutely unwell and informed her carers and she suddenly became unresponsive, despite CPR."


"A cause of death was provided as community acquired pneumonia and Covid-19, with a fractured pubic rami, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular dysfunction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as contributory factors."

-------


And there you have it; that's how they do it. A very elderly woman with multiple health problems, who the coroner ruled died of a fall - as elderly women in fragile health are wont to do - is nevertheless used as part of the pantomime plague to petrify you, and it will work, because few people read past the headlines and even fewer are able to critically think about what they have read.


Note also the inclusion of her former career, primary school teacher. Is this relevant? Is it more of a tragedy when a retired primary school teacher dies, than, say, a retired bus driver or retired IT technician? Obviously, it isn't, but this is just more cynical media manipulation, knowing the public image of a primary school teacher is of someone lovely, cuddly, caring - subtext being, if this evil, ruthless disease can take such a shining beacon of compassion and care, it could take you, too! No reason to include a job she hasn't done for 25 years otherwise.


Now, most people suppress a smirk when I say this, but I did Media Studies A-level (it was hard, ok!), and it does teach you - or at least, it did back in 1874 when I did it - how to critically read the media, and the cacophonous array of propaganda and subliminal programming techniques the media uses to get you to absorb and accept messages, without you realising you've done so.


Calling the media "the news" is probably the biggest propaganda weapon of all. It's not news, it's a deftly conceived collection of psychological manipulation and behaviour modification techniques, designed to elicit the thoughts and behaviours from you the overlords deem desirable.


Make no mistake, if this 85-year-old woman had died shortly after receiving the coronavirus vaccine (as many will), her death would not even have made page 37 of this newspaper, never mind being the headline story for the entire local area. Because as I say, the media does not report "news", it doesn't objectively report events of local and national interest - rather, it is a highly strategic weapon of psychological warfare - and the enemy it is looking to defeat with all these expert, military-grade tactics and techniques - is you.

The Veracity of Vaccination, Part II

Posted by Miri on December 6, 2020 at 3:55 AM Comments comments (0)

I wrote a post a couple of days ago, about us crazy, science-denyin', lizard-lovin', conspiraquackster anti-vaxxers, which gained an unexpectedly large response.


I asked how many times people who are effectively unvaccinated (e.g. have received no vaccines in the last ten years, since most or all vaccines are effective for no more than ten years) have died in that period, or otherwise contracted serious health problems as a result of their unvaccinated status. The responses were quite illuminating and instructive, and you can see them here: https://www.facebook.com/miri.anne8/posts/10157453423336034


So, in the interests of fairness and balance (since this is my Facebook page and not the BBC), I now throw the floor open to the fully vaccinated to tell us all about the wonderful, vibrant health they are enjoying courtesy of their comprehensive and regular vaccinations, and how they definitely DON'T have auto-immune diseases, serious allergies, asthma, eczema, diabetes, depression, OCD, dyslexia, Coeliac disease, POTS, POCS, Crohn's, UCD, IBD, IBS, infertility, cancer, Alzheimer's, or any of the other modern maladies that have "inexplicably" exploded right in line with the ever-increasing vaccination schedule.


And on the subject of said vaccination schedule, if you want to qualify as "fully vaccinated" by today's standards, that means:


*Five doses of the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine

*Five doses of the IPV (inactivated polio virus) vaccine

*Three doses of the Hib (haemophilus influenzae type b) vaccine

*Three doses of the Hep B (hepatitis B) vaccine

*Three doses of the Men B (meningitis B) vaccine

*Two doses of the Rotavirus vaccine

*Two doses of the PCV (pneumococcal) vaccine

*Two doses of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine

*Two doses of the HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccine

*One dose of MenACWY (meningitis) vaccine

*Annual flu vaccine


Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/899423/PHE_Complete_Immunisation_Schedule_Jun2020_05.pdf


That is what is currently being pumped into the nation's children by the age of fourteen, with the vast majority of it being administered by the age of three. So, adult pro-vaxxers, if you're not up to date on all the above, including regular boosters at least every ten years, not only are you not "fully vaccinated", you might even be "unvaccinated", since the overwhelming majority of adults are not up to date on their booster shots (without which, any "immunity" effect from vaccines wears off).


Anyway, though, for those of you who are genuinely fully vaccinated, or at least regularly vaccinated, please do regale us all below with tales of the wonderful health and vitality you are enjoying as a result. I am genuinely curious to know, because my experience is that pretty much invariably and without exception, those who receive regular vaccinations are in much poorer health than those who eschew them, but hey, I'm sure my tin-foil hat's just on a bit too tight (although this can't actually starve the brain of oxygen, unlike your mask...).

Separating the "I" from Expertitis

Posted by Miri on December 5, 2020 at 4:00 AM Comments comments (0)

I just saw someone on Twitter smugly ask, "so anti-vaxxers, if a vaccine was released tomorrow that stopped cancer, are you telling me you wouldn't take it?". Bless, nobody said they were the sharpest tools (repeated injections with neurotoxins will do that to ya, I guess), but they really don't get what the "anti" part of "anti-vaccine" means, do they?


Anyway, there is a vaccine already that purports to stop cancer. It's called Gardasil, and has one of the most atrocious safety profiles of any vaccine to date, which is really saying something. Needless to say, there is no evidence it has ever prevented a single case of cancer.


Pro-vaxxers, please pay attention. No disease, most certainly including cancer, was ever caused by a deficit of neurotoxins, detergents, disinfectants, carcinogens, industrial chemicals, or monkey kidney cells (oh yes, these are all common vaccine ingredients, go look it up). Disease at its root has three primary causes: toxicity from the environment; nutritional deficiencies; inflammation.


Vaccines are known to cause two out of three of these. Because of the method of delivery - injection, not ingestion - the fact that their toxic components come in "tiny amounts" does not render them harmless - far from it. Because vaccines are delivered straight to the bloodstream, bypassing all the body's natural defence and detoxification pathways, this means vaccinations represent an acute exposure to toxicity, and can and do cause all manner of serious illnesses, both chronic and acute. Most modern maladies, especially the sudden explosion of chronic illness in children (54% of American children now have at least one chronic illness) are either caused or exacerbated by vaccines.


Second, inflammation: it is a known fact - any vaccine clinic will confirm this - that vaccines cause inflammation. That is why vaccine clinics can predict their patients are at a heightened risk for depression soon after the vaccine, because the root cause of depression in many cases is not "a chemical imbalance in the brain" (this is nothing but a marketing slogan to flog antidepressants; it was never backed up by credible evidence), but bodily inflammation. Inflammation is also now known to be the driving cause of many other chronic conditions, such as heart disease (NOT caused by high cholesterol - another marketing ploy to sell statins and low-fat diet books. Actually, high cholesterol is protective and linked with longevity, whilst low cholesterol is linked with premature death, including from suicide).


Another pro-vaxxer marvelled at the fact that us crazy whackaloon types "don't trust your doctor, don't trust the NHS, don't trust the WHO, so who do you trust?"


I know this is a really alien concept to those in the chronic and possibly terminal throws of expertitis, but I trust MYSELF. I trust my God-given intelligence and discernment to read, to think, to study, to evaluate, and to draw conclusions based on credible evidence and real-world experience, not media soundbites and talking heads (including "my doctor" - not that I have one, having deregistered from the GP years ago - given doctors are some of the most breathtakingly clueless people about the workings of the human body I have ever encountered).


It seems to drive "normies" into a state of demented frenzy and rage when I say this, because WHO DO I THINK I AM?! I'm not a doctor. Not a scientist. Not an "expert".


They actually seem to find it offensive that I am of the view that the person best qualified to and most responsible for protecting my health is, er, me.


And that ultimately is why we are in this mess. Courtesy of 12+ years of the state indoctrination camps we call "schools", too many people believe it is not "their place" to think for themselves, but instead to meekly outsource all their thinking and decision-making to "experts". This reality is deeply depressing on many levels, but answer me this, normies: if you have a vaccine or other pharmaceutical intervention and are left severely damaged and disabled as a result, who is going to be left with the responsibility for dealing with that?


Your doctor?

The NHS?

The WHO?


No. You. You are. If the aforementioned "experts" won't take 100% responsibility for any and all potential adverse effects (and they most certainly won't), why are you letting them take 100% responsibility for making decisions about your health?


I once again prevail upon all silent readers of my page to please THINK for themselves. As yet, the government hasn't slapped any bans, restrictions, or fines on this activity, so please do squeeze it in whilst you still can...

Non-Crime and Punishment

Posted by Miri on October 13, 2020 at 5:45 AM Comments comments (0)

n the UK, as in most of Europe, we don't have the death penalty, which means the very worst punishment our society recognises is life in prison. That is the harshest retribution our culture and judicial system can conceive of.


But why is life imprisonment considered such a uniquely severe penalty? After all, prisoners are kept warm, fed, and entertained. They're not physically tortured or starved. They have access to books and games and TV.


Yet it's still considered the worst punishment many societies have to offer. Why?


It's because it deprives people of the single most important facet of life - liberty. That is the only answer there can be, because otherwise, what's so bad about life in prison? All your basic needs are met, you don't have to worry about rent or bills, and you have access to entertainment and education. But prison is still recognised as a profound punishment and effective deterrent, because it removes liberty and prohibits independence and self-determination - which all societies innately know are the most important parts of life, and therefore removing them, the worst punishment.


So: compare that to our "new normal", where we've lost our jobs and must depend on the state to subsidise us, we can't see family and friends, and we are severely restricted in our movements, restrictions which are enforced by the state.


"What are you complaining about?" Demand the muzzled masses. "Aren't you being kept warm? Aren't you well fed? Aren't your rent and bills being covered? Don't you have Netflix and Facebook and YouTube? Can't you do your studies online?"


Well - you could say the exact same thing to someone doing a life sentence for murder. If "lockdown" isn't so bad, then neither is life in prison, because there is no material difference between the two.


That is why these measures are so abhorrent and so unjustifiable, so completely and utterly obscene. We have delivered society's worst punishment - the forcible removal of liberty by the state - to millions of completely innocent people, who have been treated with more indignity and contempt than sadistic mass murderers, who uniformly get the right to a trial, a defence, and due process before their liberty is permanently stripped from them.


If I accuse someone of a crime and want them to be sent to prison, then there are processes and protocols that must be rigorously adhered to, such as the production of evidence and then a trial, where the accused has the right to a defence, and to appeal.


Yet, if I want to accuse someone of potentially being "Covid positive" (which, although you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, is not actually a crime) and have them put under house arrest, again and again and again, I need produce no evidence. There is no due process, and they have no right to any objection, defence or appeal. I can strip all liberty from anyone I like, any time I like, and be fully backed up by the state, all on the basis of nothing. I can (we all can) condemn someone, anyone at all, to society's worst fate - the forcible removal of liberty by the state (£10,000 penalty if you breach "self-isolation" rules) - for absolutely nothing, and there's not a single thing they can do about it. That means, the current reality is, convicted mass murderers serving life sentences in prison have more human rights than you or me; because they went through due process before being stripped of their liberty and forcibly detained by the state. We have not.


Let's just repeat that: we are all being subjected to society's worst punishment, without even the rights we extend to society's most depraved criminals. It is utterly inconceivable that that could be true in a 21st century liberal democracy. But it is.

Politicising the Pantomime

Posted by Miri on October 10, 2020 at 5:45 AM Comments comments (0)

It's most interesting to note it is all the more "right-wing" newspapers and figures opposing lockdown (Daily Mail, Telegraph, Spiked, and their various journalists and contributors), whilst the holy "liberal" (har de har) shibboleths of the Guardian, BBC and Independent keep up their banshee-like shrieking for ever tighter restrictions.


When the death count does really start to sharply rise, as it will very soon, courtesy of 'flu vaccines, contaminated test kits, months of sedentary solitary confinement, and filthy face nappies, this will then be used as another stick to beat the "evil right-wingers" with (bearing in mind the definition of "right winger" is now - quite dizzyingly perversely, given we ostensibly have a Conservative government - anyone who disagrees with the state on anything).


Once the deaths start spiking and the hospital beds start filling up - as happens every "flu (vaccine) season" - the "right wing" (e.g. any and everyone who has ever opposed lockdown restrictions) will be painted as selfish, reckless, science-denying granny-killers, whilst the noble, holy, Guardianistas, who obediently sacrificed their entire lives upon state command and begged for ever more to be taken away from them, will be canonised as altruistic saints whose advanced intellects and superior moral compasses allowed them to have the foresight and to make the sacrifices that the "right wingers" were just too evil, selfish, and thick to do.


Have you noticed how all the anti-lockdown protests are ALWAYS characterised by the press as "right wing", when there is no evidence those attending share any particular political allegiance? Has the press made any attempt to interview protestors in significant numbers and establish the most common political leanings? Of course not, so why this relentless mischaracterisation? It's because the whole thing is being carefully stage-managed to set up anyone who opposes Holy State and Dear Leader as "right wing", a slur we have all been taught to conflate with the worst character traits and historical figures imaginable.


So, the more the "right wing" mainstream press and talking heads oppose lockdown, and the more the "liberal" ones support it, the more I worry about what the endgame is with this, and whether it is about - very cleverly and persuasively, certainly - stage-managing us into a trap. The oldest trick in the post-war book - Reductio ad Hitlerum.


In short: anyone who opposes the state-us quo is a Nazi.


(Never mind the fact Nazi is an abbreviation of National SOCIALIST - why let the truth get in the way of a good story? The state certainly never has.)

 

All the world's a stage, episode 582495

Posted by Miri on October 8, 2020 at 2:00 PM Comments comments (1)




This is the front cover of today's Daily Mail. There is certainly quite a formidable turn of the tide lately, and I can't help thinking this is all deliberate and part of the "show". You know who was one of the first to share this image online, call Covid "a conspiracy", and insist we must get back to normal? Spencer "son of Piers" Morgan. That being, the Piers Morgan who has been shrieking hysterically since day one for lockdown-on-steroids. That being, the Piers Morgan who, quite by coincidence of course, was also pictured shrieking hysterically in the opening credits of "end of the world" disaster movie, World War Z.


I will clarify what I'm suggesting: that, where it comes to the public sphere, all the world's a stage, and the men and women, merely actors. Piers Morgan stars on television. He's been in the movies. He's an actor, and acting dynasties often spring up within families.


If Piers and his son genuinely had such a profound disagreement on such a central issue, would they really choose to broadcast it publicly via Twitter (they've actually had a little public "spat" about it)? Maybe they would. But alternatively, maybe this is all actually just part of the drama, part of the deftly scripted show. Good cop, bad cop. Oh no he isn't, oh yes he is.


Spencer Morgan is now calling out Covid as a conspiracy, and labelling the restrictions drastically disproportionate; one of the UK's most-circulated newspapers is effectively agreeing, with a big front-page splash questioning all aspects of the "official line", and, meanwhile, multiple people I've spoken to who, in the initial stages, were terrified of the virus and believed every word of the government's propaganda, are now rolling their eyes and shaking their heads and saying it's all nonsense and the government is lying and we need to get back to normal.


Is this situation going to simply be allowed to continue, and the government made to look even bigger incompetent clowns than they already do? Don't forget, this epic global production is being expertly stage-managed, and this stage too has been planned. It wouldn't be front-page news in the Daily Mail otherwise - if the government wanted us still in maximal panic mode, they would just have commissioned another headline about a terrifying rise in "cases" or some souped-up "tragedy" about a 103-year-old great-grandfather with terminal cancer and advanced heart disease who "died after testing positive for coronavirus".


But that isn't happening; major media outlets and relatives of major media figures are coming out and overtly stating the virus is, more or less, a hoax, and the restrictions completely inappropriate and counterproductive.


On the surface this looks encouraging. Too encouraging. So, I'm afraid that I think that this is a trap. I think that we are being encouraged to question and doubt the government, to set the stage for what they have planned next. We know that they are very aggressively pushing the 'flu vaccine this year, with God knows what in it - as the Corvelva Italian scientists found, "official" vaccine ingredients' lists bear little resemblance to what is actually in them; we know they are ambushing children at schools with "surprise" vaccination drives, again injecting them with God knows what (see this story where a 7-year-old boy "suddenly became ill and died" whilst at school - whilst this may of course be unrelated to vaccination, the fact remains healthy 7-year-olds don't just "suddenly die", and the date given, October 1st, is when many schools did their 'flu vaccines - https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/tributes-paid-happy-healthy-beautiful-19053990).


I think that in the very near future, we are going to see a sudden tsunami of very sick people. I do think the death rate will genuinely spike (it does every "flu (vaccine) season" anyway). I think that - quite unlike the "first wave", which was entirely illusory - the "second wave" will be real. Not that people will be dying from a cold virus, obviously, but that people will start becoming very sick and dying, this will be attributed to COVID-19 (since everything is now, even suicide) and then just imagine the power of the government and the media to deliver the biggest, most devastating "we told you so" of all time.


People are being encouraged to doubt and question the government, so when real illness and death does actually start happening, the government can say, "see, we told you this would happen, we told you how serious this was, and we were only trying to help you with our restrictions. If only you'd listened to us and trusted us and followed the rules, none of this ever would have happened."


Result of this? Huge increase in fear-based compliance to whatever the government says, and concomitant huge increase in hatred and distrust of "conspiracy theorists" and anyone who questions the mainstream view.


As ever, I sincerely hope my predictions are wrong. But as soon as I saw Spencer Morgan being touted as the "new conspiracy kid on the block", alarm bells started shrieking, nearly as loudly as his father does...

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


THINGS THE HEALTH SECRETARY DOESN'T WANT TO MANDATE:


*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


THINGS THE HEALTH SECRETARY DOES WANT TO MANDATE:


*Vaccinations


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


Risky business

Posted by Miri on September 29, 2020 at 10:25 AM Comments comments (1)

I've become fond of starting my posts with memable quotes, so I feel compelled to declare that not only is all the world a stage, but it is also all a rich man's trick...


People within "the truth movement" understand how reality is manipulated to extraordinary effect through false flags, crisis actors, psy-ops, propaganda, and generally an unrelenting campaign of mind-bending treachery and lies from the mass media and world's governments.


But what's harder to accept is that seeing through one level of illusion doesn't render us invincible against all others. There is no reason to believe the same strategies deployed in the mainstream aren't also being used to full and devastating effect within "the truth movement", because, well, why wouldn't they be? 


As all successful tyrannical forces in history have known, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it themselves, and to those ends, ALL significant anti-establishment movements are heavily infiltrated by the establishment. All of them. Obviously, that means the truth movement too, and pointing that fact out isn't "divisive" or "negative", it's vitally important, because eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and that means being extremely vigilant about the truth movement and its "leaders", too. Because some of them, inevitably, are controlled intelligence assets sent in by the establishment to weaken and neutralise the enemy (us). They're not "on our side" and "fighting for the same thing" - they're liars and actors, master illusionists (not all masks are made of cloth), trying to trick and deceive, because as I said, that always happens in all anti-establishment movements. This was detailed to particularly brilliant effect in David McGowan's "Laurel Canyon", an expose of how intelligence agencies so successfully infiltrated and ultimately destroyed the 1960s anti-war movement in America (and, having clearly given away too many "tricks of the trade", McGowan died suddenly soon after writing it).


 

To these ends, I had a chat with Westminster borough council yesterday. I asked them for a copy of the risk assessment that was submitted and accepted for the protest in Trafalgar Square on Saturday 26th September. They informed me I would have to put my request in writing to the Metropolitan Police, which I have done. I have made a formal Freedom of Information request, and I have been instructed I will hear from them within 20 working days.


Why have I made this request? Because nothing about this adds up.


Most people, including me until recently, didn't really know what a risk assessment was, nor the conditions for receiving one and having it remain valid. So I shall attempt to explain. In the simplest terms, a risk assessment is a document that describes what the potential risks of an activity are and what controls will be put in place to mitigate those risks. So if you were organising, for instance, a party at a Students' Union, a risk might be "people getting drunk and falling over", with the potential consequence of that being "injury", so the controls in place to mitigate that risk could be, "trained first-aiders on site" and/or "a token system to limit number of drinks". The controls are not expected to eliminate risks completely, as that is impossible, but to sufficiently minimise them, and the controls put in place to do that have to be realistic and persuasive for the risk assessment to be accepted. So for the student party, if the control was, "ban alcohol from the event", that would likely not be accepted, as it isn't realistic the students would adhere to it. If the controls are unrealistic and the risk assessment is therefore not accepted, the event cannot go ahead legally. 


A crucial piece of information to know about contemporary risk assessments is that, due to a change in the law in early September, risk assessments pertaining to protests are required to be "Covid-secure". That is to say, the risk assessment for a protest must acknowledge Covid infection as a risk (if it doesn't, it won't be passed), and detail what controls are going to be put in place to minimise that risk. If this is not done, the risk assessment will not be accepted, and the event will not be able to go ahead legally. 


Therefore, if indeed the risk assessment for Saturday 26th September was passed (and I am told that it was), the organisers of the protest accepted in writing that Covid infection was a risk and agreed they would adhere to "Covid secure" measures to minimise this risk. These would typically involve social distancing and masks where social distancing is not possible. Someone within the council and/or police decided their controls were compelling and realistic enough to pass the risk assessment. 


Let me be clear on what I am saying: the organisers of this protest agreed, in a legally binding document, to apply "Covid secure" measures at the protest, and furthermore, someone in the council/police decided that, despite the fact the point of the event was to protest "Covid secure measures", and despite the fact a near-identical event had been broken up by the police a week before having made no efforts to adhere to these measures, it was nevertheless entirely likely and plausible this time the measures would be adhered to. 


Let me say it again: if the organisers hadn't agreed to adhere to Covid-secure measures and explained in persuasive detail exactly how they and the attendees would do so, the risk assessment wouldn't have been passed and so the event would not have been able to go ahead; it would have been blocked from even setting up. 


"Okay," You might say. "So they lied to get the risk assessment passed. So what? They didn't have a choice."


That may be true, but why weren't potential attendees all openly advised of this? That these were the conditions of the risk assessment being passed, and in order for it to remain valid, these measures had to be adhered to? Nobody was told this, either before or during the event, and they absolutely should have been, because a risk assessment isn't a passive document. It's not just passed, then that's it, you're home free. A risk assessment is an active document which can become voided at any time if the event doesn't comply with the terms of its risk assessment. 


So as soon as the event began and there were no attempts to observe "Covid secure" measures or to advise the crowd to, the risk assessment became voided and the event illegal - and THAT is why it was able to be broken up by the police. It certainly was not broken up because "they're afraid of the truth getting out". If that was so, they would have broken it up in the first ten minutes (or simply not passed the risk assessment in the first place). 


Can you see some problems with all this? Why did event organisers agree in writing to apply Covid secure measures, but not tell anyone attending this is what they had done? The conditions of the risk assessment should have been transparently communicated to all attendees, otherwise they end up unwittingly breaking the law and risking highly unpleasant confrontations with the police - which, surprise surprise, is exactly what ended up happening, just as it did on the 19th.


Furthermore, why did the council/police pass the risk assessment? What person or persons decided that an event specifically protesting Covid restrictions was nevertheless highly likely to adhere to them, bearing in mind that no previous anti-lockdown protest had ever even attempted to? Apparently, Piers Corbyn submitted the risk assessment. He is a high-profile "Covid denier" who has been arrested repeatedly for breaching Covid restrictions. Who in their right mind would therefore believe he was likely to adhere to said restrictions and advise 20,000 others to do so as well? And frankly, even if the crowd HAD wanted to observe social distancing, that would have been impossible for such a large crowd in a confined space like Trafalgar Square.


So, none of this makes any sense. While I'm not accusing anyone of anything (yet), I am asking crucial questions which would not appear to have any readily-available answers. If anyone can provide evidence-based answers to the following simple questions, I would greatly appreciate it:


1. Who was involved in completing the risk assessment?

2. What risks were identified?

3. What controls were described?

4. Who submitted it?

5. Who did they submit it to?

6. Who passed it?

7. Were the conditions of the risk assessment clearly communicated to attendees?

8. Were they reminded of these conditions throughout the event?

9. If they weren't, why weren't they?

10. Why did the police wait three hours, until 3 (:03!) before going in, when it was obvious in the first ten minutes "Covid secure" measures weren't being applied?


These are all crucial questions that we deserve answers to, and anyone who attacks me for daring to ask questions about an event that culminated in horrific and brutal violence (and yet more arrests, which I was promised on multiple occasions by multiple people "couldn't happen" because the Covid rules "aren't the law") needs to have a little think about who's side they're really on. If the organisers have nothing to hide, they will have no problem answering my questions, and they also won't have any problem with being questioned or scrutinised, because that is what you must welcome and expect if you put yourself out there so provocatively and prominently. 


These protests were splashed all over the front pages of all the major newspapers, and scores of people have been left deeply traumatised as a result of what they experienced, with at least 19 more known state dissidents now having their DNA on police file (the police will take this when you are arrested, consensually or otherwise). Such an event deserves scrutiny. We deserve answers. So, I'm not going to sit here meekly and say nothing about all the ENORMOUS unanswered questions hanging over this event because that's "divisive". I might as well not question the government if that's the mentality you'd like to promote, since that's "divisive" as well. Not wearing a mask is "divisive". Being anti-vax is "divisive". In short, standing for anything, ever, is divisive, and that includes having opinions that friends and allies don't agree with. If they're real friends, they'll respect your right to have a different view. If they attack and condemn you for raising legitimate queries and concerns, they're not. 


Nobody is above being questioned and held to account, because - one more meme for those at the back - the truth does not fear investigation. 

The last supper and the final insult

Posted by Miri on September 25, 2020 at 10:15 AM Comments comments (1)

Yesterday, Mark and I made our regular trip down to our old stomping grounds in rural Lancashire, to visit a good friend's farm shop to pick up fresh eggs, farm-churned butter (literally putting the garlic and parsley one on EVERYTHING), organic veg, and some rather delectable home-made honey soap. Whilst it's obviously a little bit further than the local Tesco's. we go there for most fresh staples anyway, to do our little bit to boycott the corporate economy, and support local business and organic farming (and, of course, to talk conspiracy theories - I now make a concerted effort to only purchase goods and services from verified crackpot nutjob whackaloons, so if you're one too and would like the details of this farm shop to do your shopping, please let me know :) ). 


As we wouldn't be back until late, we decided to stop at a local pub on the way back to get something to eat. I knew this was the first day the new "rules" had come into force, but I couldn't see a quiet, out-of-the-way country pub, renowned for its relaxed and laid-back atmosphere, being too draconian about them.


And oh how wrong I was.


First of all, we had to queue at the door (unheard of for a quiet country pub that caters mainly to families and retirees), and watched the group in front of us dutifully don their muzzles as they assidiously checked with each other whether every member of the party had downloaded the NHS track and trace app. In front of us, there were two sanitiser machines, one affixed to the door and one just inside the entrance, and Mark nudged me and muttered we'd better pretend to use them because the staff were patrolling the entrance glaring at everyone to make sure they did.


Once we entered the pub, we were "greeted" (doesn't seem the right word, really) by a waitress wearing a large surgical muzzle, who said robotically:


"Can you put your masks on while we seat you please." 


I could not believe what I was hearing. It was a small pub where even the furthest away table would have taken less than 20 seconds to reach.


"We can't wear them," I said, appalled by myself for having to say these words - to have to explain to a waitress that we "can't" suffocate ourselves in ritual, degrading, Satanic submission before we have a quick bite to eat, sorry. 


"No, that's fine,"  She said quickly, obviously having been prepped that, for now at least, it's not something that can be forced. She escorted us to a table that was quite literally right next to the door, and took about three steps to reach, and she really did want us to have muzzled ourselves for that trip. By the time I sat down I felt a knot in my stomach of nausea and despair, and then I looked around me. The pub was bustling and full, and at first glance it could be mistaken for a normal night out - but every time anyone got up to go to the toilet (you're not allowed to go to the bar), they robotically put their muzzles on. I felt like I was in a horror film.


More muzzled staff came up to us to take our drinks and food orders, and when one young waitress was clearing the table behind us, she dropped her tray and glasses went flying everywhere.


"Sorry, I'm so sorry," She said, flustered. "It's just I can't see where I'm going properly," at which she indicated the large muzzle which came right up to her eyes. 


The whole scenario was completely and utterly insane and awful.


"I think this is the last supper," I said quietly to Mark, as we both knew this was it, the screws have been tightened too far for us to continue to participate in "the new normal". We compromised at first, we negotiated - fake details for track and trace, pretend hand-sanitising, but there is no more dodging and swerving we can do: we cannot participate in this. The law states one is exempt from wearing a mask if it causes one "severe distress" - well, if it does, what effect is it going to have on one being confronted with legions of other people staring dead-eyed and expressionless from beneath theirs?


We finished up quickly and got back in the car to drive the 40-minute journey back home. We decided we would stop at the corner shop that I wrote about yesterday, as we were low on cat food and bottled water, and to say hello to our "tormenting" friend. As we approached the shop, I suddenly had an awful thought.


"Oh my God," I said to Mark. "What if he's wearing the muzzle?"


The reason the pub staff were now all muzzled is because the rules have been tightened to now make it "mandatory" for all hospitality and retail staff to wear them; previously, the rule just applied to customers. Given our corner shop friend had never sported a muzzle at any stage, beamed at us warmly every time we came in muzzle-free, and giggled when we told off a woman who took exception to seeing our muzzleless faces, it's obvious he isn't scared of a virus and has no desire to suffocate himself throughout his 16-hour working day. He'd made it clear just how much it meant to him being able to see people smile and laugh, and so surely to God he wouldn't now be forced into suffocating, shrouded submission himself?


We went into the shop and he was very pleased to see us together.


"Aha," He said happily. "Now this is better!"


Mark didn't have the right money to pay, so asked me for some change. Our friend tutted disapprovingly.


"I did not tell you to bring her with you," He admonished Mark. "So you could ask her for money!"


Although he seemed as mischievously upbeat as ever, I came out of the shop with the knot of nausea and despair back in my stomach.


He was wearing the muzzle.


Rss_feed