Miri’s Massive Missives

Smears, scandals, and splitters

Miri AF — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:06:17 GMT

Before commencing the main body of this article, I’d first like to defer to those virtuoso past masters of psychological insight and political analysis... Monty Python.

Behold the moment in the legendary Life of Brian when our eponymous hero tries to join “the resistance“.

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People’s Front?

REG: Fuck off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Judean People’s Front. We’re the People’s Front of Judea! Judean People’s Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off.

BRIAN: I didn’t want to sell this stuff. It’s only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.

PEOPLE’S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.

REG: Stumm.

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you’d have to really hate the Romans.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People’s Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People’s Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

STAN/LORETTA: And the People’s Front of Judea.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

STAN/LORETTA: The People’s Front of Judea. Splitters.

REG: We’re the People’s Front of Judea!

STAN/LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: People’s Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He’s over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!

Monty Python made this sketch to satirise the fact that “resistance” movements always end up scattered and divided, and that, ultimately, many “resistance” sub-groups end up hating other “resistance” sub-groups more than the actual enemy.

This isn’t new. It isn’t unusual. It’s what always happens to “good cause” movements, and anybody who’s ever been involved in one - whether it’s ‘the truth movement’, political activism, charity work, or whatever - will confirm it.

I illustrate it now because there’s a tedious trend of relatively new “conspiracy theorists” to constantly bemoan the fact that “the movement is divided” and hark back to halcyon days when we were all blissfully united and everybody loved each other and sang hymns and baked (gluten-free) bread - and nobody ever fell out.

Needless to say, this never happened. This was never true of “the truth movement”, just as it’s never been true for any large group of people. There is always bickering, in-fighting, back-stabbing, personality clashes, and “splitting” as described above whenever you assemble a large group of humans and try to get them to work together. So, what tends to happen - as the Monty Python sketch shows - is people naturally organise themselves into smaller, more closely connected “splitter” groups with those with whom they are most closely aligned.

That’s just how humans are.

(And that’s before we even factor in the massive degree of infiltration that always occurs into any resistance movement, from actual state assets who are sent to provoke said bickering, back-stabbing, and in-fighting.)

So the point I want to raise is that, whenever someone in this large, very loosely defined, and often completely incoherent “movement”, critiques someone else in it, to malign that person as “dividing the movement” is a non sequitur. The so-called movement has always been divided, always will be. People in large groups will never always all get on, agree on everything, or like each other, as that is simply not human nature.

However, what we can justifiably hold people to account for when they critique others is - not “dividing the movement” - but the way in which they do it. Or, indeed, don’t.

For a movement that variously refers to itself as ‘the truth movement’ and ‘the freedom movement’, anyone claiming to be in it must, obviously, be deeply committed to the principles of both freedom and truth. That means fearlessly investigating the evidence, without fear or favour, and going wherever it takes you, no matter how jarring or uncomfortable the destination. It also means studying other people - especially those in any kind of ‘leadership’ or otherwise prominent position - and coming to your own conclusions about whether they can be trusted.

If you come to the conclusion that they cannot, you may decide, quite reasonably, that you have a moral responsibility to share this information with others also in pursuit of the truth.

I have come to this conclusion several times myself, and have written a variety of exposés on such contentious characters as Andrew Bridgen, Laurence Fox, and Russell Brand. Most people would now agree with me that these individuals are “controlled opposition”, but I can assure you that this was not the uniform view at the time I wrote the pieces, and I took a lot of flak for them, including all the usual accusations: you’re dividing the movement / you’re just jealous / why are you focusing on them instead of the real enemy, etc.

None of these rebuttals are fair critiques of what I wrote. I am not motivated by jealousy or a specific desire to cause gratuitous “division”, nor to detract from “the real enemy”, because, if these people are, as I very much believe they are, controlled opposition, then they are the real enemy. That’s the point. They’re the enemy cosplaying as the good guys. Classic wolf in sheep’s clothing stuff, which makes them a good deal more dangerous than wolves in wolf’s clothing, as you can see what they are from the start.

I could write lots of long essays exposing Bill Gates, Matt Hancock, and all the people above them, and I have - but there comes a point where only doing that is simply not enough, because we already know they’re our enemy. We know who they are and what they want and that, to a large degree, immunises us (to coin a phrase) from their influence. We are not as highly at risk of being malignly influenced or led astray by overt enemy forces like them because we recognise them as such: it’s the covert, tacit, infiltrators that are far more dangerous, which is why it’s important to expose them.

But it certainly matters very much how we expose them.

Imagine there is some high-profile influencer I am suspicious about, and I present my findings like this:

“Influencer X is an obvious fookin’ plant, piece of absolute scum. Look who he’s connected to, the disgusting twat. And where he’s worked, the evil piece of shit. He’s a fat f*cker too.”

Would you find that a reasonable, persuasive critique of someone? Would you believe it plausible I was genuinely just motivated by a desire to get to the truth if I wrote about someone like that?

Contrast it to a critique written more like this:

“Influencer X is a high-profile contributor to the truth movement, who has a number of questionable connections, including his period working for [dubious company] and operating business ventures with [dubious individuals]. Here we will further delve into his connections and contributions, and explore the possibility that he has undisclosed motives for his involvement with this movement”.

The latter is a reasonable exploration of someone - a genuine investigation, which is obviously a very important facet of journalism, especially alternative journalism.

The former is just a gutter hit job: a smear piece not motivated by moral imperative or regard for the truth, but simply by malice and spite - and, not infrequently, envy. “You’re just jealous” is very likely to be true of people who descend into invective and personal abuse when they critique others - i.e., they’re jealous that the person they are targeting has something they themselves want (influence, significance, talent) and, therefore, they want to take it away from them. That’s how malignant narcissists (who tend to infest “good cause” movements) operate. Others who are more successful than they are provoke within them a toxic and corrosive envy so intense, they can only deal with it by trying to destroy the person who has induced these feelings.

Conversely, people who write reasoned and measured critiques of others are not acting out of these kind of disordered motivations. They are not trying to “destroy” the person they’re investigating nor intentionally trying to cause them harm or distress. They genuinely are trying to get to the truth - and yes, sometimes that process is painful for all involved, but an active desire to produce pain is not the goal. When the personal abuse starts, you can tell it is.

Let me give you an example: I am, somewhat notoriously, a significant critic of Lucy Connolly, the woman supposedly sent to prison for a Tweet, who I believe to be a state asset and actress, involved in a major ongoing psyop.

While I have been extremely critical of Connolly in a variety of ways, I have never joined in the pile-ons abusing her for her weight.

Why have I not done this? Is it because I care about Lucy’s feelings?

No, it is not. I do not care about her feelings. I think she’s a predatory deceiver, involved in unconscionable activity, so of course I don’t care about her feelings.

Rather, the reason I do not insult her weight is because it’s totally irrelevant to her role, and by invoking her weight, I would immediately dilute the strength and significance of the very real and important criticisms to be made of her - given that, as soon as you start getting personal about someone like that, it is so easy to dismiss you as a nasty, bitter individual, motivated either by spite or envy or both.

So why do people do this, when it makes them much easier to dismiss?

It’s because there is a big difference in the reasons a person might write an investigative analysis of someone they are suspicious of, versus a “hit piece” or smear job. And there is a chasm of difference between true investigative journalism, and spite-driven smears.

As regular readers know, the writer Francis O’Neill recently wrote an investigative piece on the cartoonist Bob Moran.

Francis has since been accused of doing a “hit piece” on Bob, but that is not what he has done. There is no personal abuse of Bob. No gratuitous insults. No mocking him or making outlandish or cruel accusations. Francis has simply assembled a number of facts in a reasonably impartial way and suggested they paint a certain picture. It is left up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Conversely, in the aftermath of Francis’s piece, there has been a lot of very nasty abuse of him, including his being labelled jealous, mad, paranoid, mental, and even “autistic”. He has been ridiculed by people as high-up and well-connected as John Mappin. For someone like Mr Mappin (elite hotelier and friend to the stars) to target Francis (an internet blogger with around 5,000 followers) is, to put it mildly, punching down.

It is, therefore, very easy for any impartial observer to assess the enormity of difference between the way Francis wrote about Bob, and the way he is being written about in return.

The insults and personal abuse of Francis represent a type of demoralisation strategy well-known to be employed by the military in subversive propaganda-based operations. It’s called “non-lethal psychological warfare“.

What that basically means is attacking, insulting, and undermining someone so much that eventually they “crack”, and think, this is too awful, it’s too much, I’d better stop what I’m doing and retreat.

We saw a lot of that over the Lucy Connolly episode, where I, Francis, and others who questioned her were ruthlessly abused by a coordinated team of attack dogs over many months. These state assets are trained to use the most crude and degrading language possible, frequently invoking pornographic and scatological language, because it is known most humans have an in-built “disgust” response, and hence find that kind of language particularly repellent, demoralising, and off-putting.

Normal people can’t tolerate even reading very much of that kind of thing, so people who spend many months and years writing it are, by definition, not normal, not psychologically sound, and, very often, in service to some kind of nefarious entity.

The purpose of these kind of attacks is not primarily to “expose” the target to a wider audience - although that can certainly be a partial motivation, as a sort of humiliation thing - as much as it is to simply stop the target doing what they are doing, because it is threatening to the larger entity these attack dogs work for.

One of these accounts assigned to harass me has literally stated “don’t forget that if she doesn’t stop what she’s doing, we know where she lives”, so they are not always that subtle about what they do and why.

Another of them, in response to Francis’ latest article, wished death upon his children.

But they’re totally just freedom fighters after the truth, just like he is, yeah?

No. By their fruits you shall know them, and so - whether you agree with Francis’ article or not - it’s indisputably a genuine attempt at investigation and truth-seeking, and was not written with any other motivation: certainly it was not written intending to cause pain or distress (although the truth inevitably can sometimes do this).

The article has been criticised for not containing “evidence” by which people mean incontrovertible, indisputable evidence, such as the copy of an employment contract or some such. However, this is a total misnomer: the article does contain “evidence”. It’s what would be termed in court ‘circumstantial’ evidence. Not the absolute gold standard of proof, but nevertheless, valid, important, and admissible. People can get convicted on circumstantial evidence alone (not, I hasten to add, that Francis’s article is accusing anyone of any crime). And you can also be falsely convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence - absolutely - and we must always keep that in mind, and refrain from pitchfork wielding “witch-hunting”.

But the point is: Francis has provided evidence. What readers make of it is up to them.

Conversely, people who respond to Francis by defaulting to personal abuse (paranoid, mad, jealous, mental, autistic - and worse) clearly reveal themselves as having a very different motivation to simply seeking the truth.

Indeed, to paraphrase the ever-insightful Monty Python:

“They’re not the messiahs, they’re very naughty boys.”

AUDIO: How to silence conspiracy theorists

Miri AF — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 12:57:37 GMT

Some strange conspira-shenanigans are once again afoot with the high-profile conspiracist, Richard D. Hall, and those whose who most prominently endorse and promote his theories. There appears to, unsurprisingly, be an agenda at play, and here I explore further what it might be…

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version, please see here.

(*Please note that since composing this article, Iain Davis responded to me on Twitter to clarify that his book is still available, although others claim when they try to buy it, the sale won’t go through.)

How to silence conspiracy theorists

Miri AF — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 11:38:19 GMT

As regular consumers of conspira-content are likely aware, a few days ago, my friend Francis O’Neill wrote a rather controversial article, about someone named Ed The Techie, his relationship to Bob Moran, and, primarily, Ed’s direct connections to the Lucy Connolly state psyop.

Nearly all conspiracies seem to lead to Connolly these days, but that’s not actually the conspiracy I want to comment on today, but rather, on the couple of comments on Francis’ article that didn’t reference Ed The Techie or Lucy Connolly at all, but instead... Richard D. Hall.

Eh?

Francis’ article had nothing to do with Mr Hall, not even peripherally, but nevertheless, two separate individuals brought him/his work up in the comments: one to say something to the general effect of “if you can see through this, why can’t you see through Richard D. Hall and his lies about Manchester Arena?” (We’ll return to this shortly.)

The other, rather randomly, referenced me (I was mentioned in Francis’ article, but so were a lot of people, and it was far from centrally about me), in which the commentator stated they didn’t trust me because my “early opening posts” had been scrutinising Richard D. Hall, and this, apparently, was “unconscionable”.

It’s true that I have written articles critical of Hall, but they certainly weren’t part of my introductory oeuvre, and came a good four years after I started my miriaf.co.uk website, publishing regular pieces - and about a decade after I started publicly commenting on conspiracy matters. (Not that I’m looking for extra conspira-points or anything - well, maybe just a few - but I did not “awaken” in 2020, but rather, had been a conspiracist for about eight years by then, and was a regular contributor to online alternative communities, such as the Arnica natural health group. My main focus pre-2020 was vaccines, and my first website, STRIVE, launched in 2015, was an education resource for students regarding vaccination, following my nearly being kicked out of a university for refusing one.)

Anyway, back to Hall: when it was pointed out that my critiques of him were far from my “early opening posts”, the individual making this claim responded by saying they meant that my articles on Hall were my first Substack articles.

I therefore undertook the tedious task of counting how many articles I had published on Substack before discussing Richard D. Hall, and got to 80-something (not including audios or interviews) before I stopped counting.

So, this begs the question of why someone would so brazenly lie about my approach to Richard D. Hall like this (it would have been very easy for them to verify what they were saying wasn’t true before publicly smearing me), and on an article that in any case had absolutely nothing to do with Hall (and fairly little to do with me).

It appears to be because Mr Hall is, once again, set to take centre stage in the conspira-verse, and so an operation is now underway to smear and discredit his critics.

You can read my initial article about Hall here, but to sum, I believe this very high-profile man, who has received extensive press attention from the mainstream media, including the Daily Mail, the BBC, and the New York Times, is a fraud, inserted into the narrative to manipulate and mislead, with an ultimate aim of making “conspiracy theorists” look so terrible, that we need more anti-free speech laws to protect society from them.

Hence, Hall has been instrumental in setting the stage for “Eve’s Law“, legislation that is framed as the UK’s first anti-conspiracy theory law.

Proposals for this law developed from Hall’s coverage of the Manchester Arena bombing (or non-bombing), after he was accused of harassing the (alleged) victims.

Hall suggested the victims might be faking their injuries, but conceded eventually, after secretly filming them, that they were not. One of the people he secretly filmed was a teenage girl.

Obviously, the optics of middle-aged men secretly filming teenage girls are terrible, even if it’s legal, and this behaviour did not make Hall a sympathetic character to the public, handing easy ammunition to the press to savage him. There was no particular reason for Hall to secretly film a schoolgirl when he could have focused solely on the adult victims - other than intentionally making himself look bad, which is exactly what I believe he did.

The Manchester Arena event was nearly a decade ago, and Hall’s court case two years ago - that’s a long time in the news cycle (tomorrow’s fish paper etc.), so why is it/he being dragged up again now?

It appears to relate to a recent article by the journalist Nick Kollerstrom, delving into Hall’s case. Interestingly, this is Mr Kollerstrom’s first Substack article, so what was falsely ascribed to me (writing my first Substack article about Hall, and this being framed as suspicious) is actually true of Kollerstrom.

Kollerstrom’s article was published on May 22nd, the nine-year anniversary of the Manchester event, and thus adding yet another Freemasonic ‘22’ to the melee (Kollerstrom, as other commentators have, covers the many ‘22s’ associated with the Manchester Arena event).

I’ve had a look into Kollerstrom, and I recommend reading his lengthy Wiki bio here, and coming to your own conclusions about him.

Kollerstrom’s article is entirely supportive of Hall, and also other writers who have publicly endorsed Hall’s theories, including Iain Davis and David A. Hughes.

Strange then that both men should so publicly distance themselves from it, using very formal and legal language.

Davis said in the comments section of Kollerstrom’s article:

“Hi Nick, please make it clear that these are your own words and your own opinions and that I (Iain Davis) and the journalist Richard D. Hall neither authorised nor encouraged you in any way to write your article titled “The Maddest court case ever” published on Sub stack on 22nd May, 2026. Sorry to be a pain, but I’m sure you can appreciate why it is absolutely essential that you make this fact clear. I do not speak for David Hughes but I strongly suspect he will be of a similar view.”

Hughes replied:

“I concur.

I, too, neither authorised nor encouraged you to write “The Maddest Court Case Ever.”

These facts were brought to my attention by the writer Aisling O’Loughlin, and I want to be clear that I don’t agree with Aisling’s conclusions on Manchester - that it was real, there was a bomb, and the victims died the way the authorities told us they did. There are several other things I don’t agree with Aisling on, too.

However, I do agree with her on the general illegitimacy of Richard D. Hall, and she and I concur that he is so heavily publicised by the establishment and mainstream media for a reason.

Regular readers of this site know what it means when someone or something is heavily publicised (whether positively or negatively) by the mainstream news, and to sum up by way of my two ‘razors’:

If you know their name, they’re in the game;

If it’s headline news, it’s a ruse.

(And, if you don’t know how “the news” really works by now, this excellent short video by Alistair Williams explains it succinctly - and very entertainingly.)

So, to sum, I believe that Richard D. Hall took a real scandal (that the Manchester event was a staged hoax), and muddied the waters by making intentionally false claims about it, such as suggesting that Eve Hibbert wasn’t really disabled and secretly filming her (thus giving the press reason to savage him), as well as conducting ludicrous “statement analyses” of people he himself says are actors (i.e., if they’re actors, then they’re reading from scripts, so Hall is analysing the personality of the scriptwriter, then ascribing it to the person reading the lines).

Hall’s obfuscations and meanderings into silliness mean that, now, when people say “Manchester is a hoax” and attempt to explain why (as Francis O’Neill cogently did here and here), their arguments can immediately be conflated with Hall’s nonsense, and, as such, dismissed.

It’s the David Icke effect: Icke is right about a lot of things, including, for instance, the dangers of vaccines - but he has ensured that as soon as a person says something like, “vaccines aren’t always safe for everyone”, they can be dismissed with, “oh, been reading David Icke again, have you? I suppose you think the Queen’s a lizard, too.” Even if - as Icke claims - this is not the effect he intends, the effect is very real.

That is equivalent to Hall’s role, in my opinion: to make critical thinkers, and those who legitimately question state narratives, look dangerous and deranged, by conflating truth (Manchester is a hoax) with nonsense (pseudoscientific “statement analysis”; secretly filming disabled teenagers; suggesting they aren’t really disabled).

I also believe Hall has done something similar with Madeleine McCann, by promoting the least “covered-up” cover-up in history (i.e., that the parents did it), when this is, in fact, highly unlikely to be true. And it certainly isn’t “covered up” - this theory is one of the most well-known, and widely promoted, “conspiracy theories” in the world.

Hence, if and when Madeleine is discovered alive and well (which is what I suspect will eventually happen), imagine the global public outcry that will erupt regarding all these evil conspiracists - led by Hall - who so persecuted her innocent, grieving parents. Even more reason for muzzling legislation such as ‘Eve’s Law’ to stop these dangerous, vile ghouls from harassing innocent people.

We are being given an inkling that something like this is on the way, by both Iain Davis and David A. Hughes publicly and formally distancing themselves from Nick Kollerstrom’s article on Hall, despite it being wholly supportive of them and their views. Their statements read very much as if they know legal trouble is coming, and they’re trying to preemptively limit the damage.

It also appears that Iain Davis’ book on Manchester has been pulled from circulation.

Why? What do Davis and Hughes know? What are they suddenly so scared of?

Aisling O’Loughlin has publicly asked Iain Davis about this, but he has not responded. This is inconsistent with his previous stance, where he has happily engaged with O’Loughlin and appeared on her podcast to debate their differing views.

Hence, we can only speculate upon the reasons for his silence now.

It’s important to note that I - and anyone who has ever critically questioned the integrity of apparent sacred cow, Hall - always gets absolutely ambushed afterwards, so what we can expect in response to my writing this article is a variety of dubious characters trying to smear me, without actually engaging critically with my arguments. They will say all sorts of nonsense about me, like “she is in the intelligence services because her name begins Mi” (yes, people have seriously said this - ‘cos MI5 begins that way too, geddit?).

I am not in the intelligence services, nor in service to the/any government in any way, nor have I ever been in any secret society - neither the Freemasons nor any other such group (it may also be worth noting that I have never been funded by Marcel Jahnke).

I am completely independent, solely reader-funded, and I have written a detailed biographical history of myself here, because I understand why people are sceptical of anyone with any kind of a platform in a movement so riddled with infiltrators and deceivers. So I wanted to set the record straight about myself. If, having read that, there’s still anything about me that seems anomalous to you, you can ask me about it and I’ll explain, because the truth really does not fear investigation.

So, if anyone tries to deal with my article about Richard D. Hall by attacking and lying about me, rather than directly engaging with the content of what I’ve written about him, you can draw your own conclusions about why they’re doing that.

This article is not about me. It’s about Richard D. Hall, and whether he is - as I and an increasingly large number of other commentators strongly suspect - a pied piper plant, leading critical thinkers out of the proverbial Hamelin, and towards a far darker destination altogether.

AUDIO: Henry Nowak is our George Floyd

Miri AF — Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:35:44 GMT

A huge media event that is amplified by Elon Musk and Donald Trump (despite not even occurring in their country) is highly unlikely to be authentic and organic. An investigation into the Henry Nowak operation….

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version (that was initially blocked by Substack) please see here.

Henry Nowak: The Truth...

Miri AF — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:56:53 GMT

… Being blocked by this platform?

My article on the subject has not been delivered to recipients, and I am being told there is a “network error” preventing my editing it.

To read the article, please click here to read it on this platform or here to read it at my website.

Thank you!

UPDATE: Substack has now sent my article out, over an hour after I initially published it, a lag that has never happened before. Make of that what you will…

Henry Nowak is our George Floyd

Miri AF — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:28:11 GMT

In that it’s another fake psyop, but aimed at “the right” rather than “the left” this time.

On May the 4th of this year - Star Wars date! - I wrote an article exploring the latest machinations of online controlled opposition narrative-steerers, and I said this:

“I’m writing about them today because their malevolence and manipulations have recently stepped up a gear. They have been particularly abusive and intolerant of different views these last few days (even publicly disseminating “warnings” to those who cross or challenge them, whilst simultaneously calling those people “nuts” and “irrelevant”).

This leads me to believe there is a very big, very significant, and very, very fake operation coming up, that they desperately need the dissident right / “conspiracy” class to believe in. They are already setting the stage to frame sceptics of this upcoming op as lunatics, nobodies, c***s, etc., and using threatening language to get them to back down, so this suggests the significance of what they are soon to push is extremely high.

The fact is that social media (particularly Twitter) is to dissidents and conspiracists what the mainstream media is to “normies” - a very powerful propagandist tool which shapes and controls their views. So, just as the establishment controls the normie view through the MSM, and what (and who) it uses MSM vehicles to promote, so too the same establishment attempts to manage and manipulate the dissident class through alternative and social media.“

If you consume social media, especially Twitter, you will know that yesterday, it absolutely ignited with the story of Henry Nowak, an 18-year-old British-Polish university student, who, in December last year, was reportedly stabbed to death by a young Sikh man, whilst walking home from the pub.

The official story goes that, when the police arrived on the scene (having apparently been called by neighbours, despite there being no eyewitnesses to the attack), they treated Henry as if he were the antagonist - a racist - and, rather than tending to his stab wounds, handcuffed him as he lay dying.

Henry uttered the iconic phrase, as first immortalised by America’s George Floyd, that:

“I can’t breathe“.

Then, reportedly, he died.

Horrendously horrific, terribly tragic, and the pitch-perfect rage-bait to send the terminally online right into a state of complete incandescent apoplexy.

And, just in case you were in any doubt about whether you should be experiencing said state of ultra-inflamed enragement, Elon Musk put out a Tweet drawing attention to the situation, with a one word instruction:

“RAGE.”

Elon Musk, owner of Twitter, has over 240 million followers - more than three times the entire population of the UK - and his Tweet was viewed over 20 million times.

For context, this makes Elon Musk significantly more visible than - and therefore significantly more influential than - even a top-tier mainstream newspaper, with the UK’s Daily Mail averaging only around 100,000 views per premium news headline.

Social media in general, and Twitter in particular, is hugely influential when it comes to shaping global news narratives, and that is why it is so important for the ruling classes to control the narrative on Twitter via their stable of indentured assets who amplify and reinforce the desired narrative - and savage any sceptics.

Of course, that is exactly what is going on right now with the Henry Nowak operation, and it follows the exact same playbook as all the other ops, whereby it blows up in a very rapid and coordinated way, is promoted by high-profile mainstream voices like Elon Musk and Nigel Farage (who, like Musk, is also demanding ‘rage’), and is headline news everywhere.

One of my ‘razors’ is, “if it’s headline news, it’s a ruse“, simply meaning that the establishment does not give huge, sensationalist, international press attention to any situation they are not in complete control of, and they can only be sure they are in complete control of it if they staged it in the first place and own all the central performers.

If they didn’t, and they don’t, then there’s simply too much margin for error. There’s too significant a possibility the survivors will go off-script and say the wrong thing, or simply refuse to play ball at all - after all, who could blame a family in such a situation who refused to speak to the press in any capacity and simply wanted to deal with their grief privately?

Hence, a major tell for an op is that the families are always happy to speak to the world’s press, and always do so in a very composed and coherent way. One could not rely on real families, dealing with real grief, to always do that. Far from it.

So, for high-profile, high-stakes operations, which are meant to manipulate and sway millions of people, the rulers don’t take those kind of chances. They don’t just “opportunistically exploit real events” as some claim: they stage them from the start. Why wouldn’t they? How else could they ensure exactly the right event, at exactly the right time, would occur?

There’s also plenty of the signature tells that the Henry Nowak situation is fake, including the alleged screenshot from the bodycam footage, supposedly showing a dying Henry’s hand in cuffs. To the right, there is a gloved hand, formed in a claw, which apparently belongs to a policewoman - yet long, fake nails can clearly be seen under the gloves, whereas, to quote an official police resource:

“Police officers are generally prohibited from wearing false nails (acrylics) or extensions while on operational duty. Grooming policies mandate that nails must be kept neatly trimmed, clean, and free of attachments to prevent injury, infection risk, and to ensure you can safely perform duties like using physical restraint or tactical gear.”

In short, a policewoman on active duty would not wear fake nails or keep her nails long. An actress playing a policewoman in a staged crisis op might, though.

We also have what appear to be hastily created online profiles of Henry’s family, including a profile where Henry is pictured as a young child doing the baphomet sign.

We can also see the usual flourishes of masonic theatre, such as Henry’s father wearing purple outside the courtroom (purple being the colour of deception), and the masonic checkerboard being inserted onto the ruler measuring the alleged “murder weapon”.

Obviously, it’s still very early days with Henry Nowak, and so as with Charlie Kirk, we can expect in the subsequent weeks and months to see more and more detailed and conclusive evidence that this is fake - and the comparison to Kirk is not incidental, as Elon Musk has made abundantly clear, by sharing this meme, directly comparing the Henry Nowak event to the Charlie Kirk “assassination”.

If we know the Charlie Kirk assassination was fake - and we do - then, when such a high-up member of the club as Elon makes this direct comparison, we know he is confirming that Henry Nowak is fake, too.

Of course, with this op as with all of them, as soon as I voiced my suspicions that all was not what it seemed, I had people instantly leaping on me on Twitter telling me they “know the family and this is definitely real”. This happens every time there is a major state operation, which is remarkable really, given that there are over 60 million people in the UK, only around 10k of them follow me, and yet there’s always several of them who “know the family” in any given sensationalist media event. Guess I’m just really well-connected like that.

Of course, I never actually know who these people are, they’re never people I’ve had significant long-term interaction with, yet they will say things like, “I’ve followed you for ages and usually agree with you on everything, but not this time”. So then I will search their profile and find that they have, in fact, never agreed with me on anything: never shared any of my articles or Tweets or even interacted with me before.

But as I said in my May 4th article quoted at the beginning, it’s absolutely vital to the social controllers that they have full-spectrum control over important media narratives as they develop on Twitter, so they can manipulate the right-leaning masses (who no longer trust the MSM but do trust their “friends” on Twitter) as they desire.

George Floyd was staged to manipulate the left, and Henry Nowak is for the right. The primary purpose of this operation is to further rile up the right-wing (in the same way George Floyd riled up the left: that’s why they’ve given the two characters the exact same catchphrase), including the dissident and conspiracy right. There are several purposes to inflaming the right in this way, but a primary one is to further cement Reform’s electoral chances, as - for reasons I have explored before - the social controllers desire a Reform landslide at the next General Election.

Consequently, Nigel Farage has made much of the Henry Nowak event, as have all the predictable bought-and-paid for Reform cheerleaders, such as Allison Pearson (the erudite scribe who once referred to me as a ‘mad cow’) and, but of course, Lucy Connolly.

Farage, Pearson, and Connolly, and all of their coordinated ‘crew’, are all ardently pro-Israel (Pearson is on the board of the British Friends of Israel), and staging attacks on indigenous white Brits by nasty brown invaders is part of the psyop to form a fake alliance between Jews and native Britons, by sculpting the idea that, “wherever you get antisemitism, you get anti-white sentiment as well. See, all these nasty brown races - Muslims, Sikhs, whatever - hate both Jews and Brits. That’s why we’ve got to band together against them.”

Consequently, and right on cue, ‘Reform Friends of Israel‘ officially launched itself on Twitter yesterday, amongst all the Nowak cacophony.

It’s all just more tedious theatre, another politicised pantomime, and - as always, and as their ‘code’ dictates - they tell us this directly, as an astute Tweeter noted.

Henry’s surname is ‘Nowak’. A slang term for murder is ‘whack‘,

Henry No-wak.

Henry No Murder.

They always tell us explicitly, and as ever, it’s up to us to decide whether we believe them - or whether we continue to consent to being part of the deception.

AUDIO: Restore the rich, wipe out the workers

Miri AF — Fri, 29 May 2026 12:32:03 GMT

“We are being re-engineered. We are, in marketing speak, having our ‘expectations managed’ by all manner of sophisticated propaganda to make us accept a subsistence-level, largely indoor lifestyle, where we don't own anything, have any money, or any real utility.”

The full audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version, please see here.

Restore the rich, wipe out the workers

Miri AF — Wed, 27 May 2026 15:51:32 GMT

A young man and a young woman got married at the weekend, and the father of the groom celebrated the occasion with a Twitter post, declaring himself “a very proud father”.

Pretty uncontroversial, you might assume (if decreasingly common in this day and age, where marriage rates are at a record low).

But you would be wrong.

Oh-so very wrong.

This is because the marriage in question was between Angus Lowe, son of Rupert, the leader of supposedly “hard right” political party, Restore, and one Yasmin Mezran, daughter of the Libyan pro-Islam, pro-immigration academic, Karim Mezran. Halal food was reportedly served at the wedding reception.

Given that Restore has publicly promised to reverse the ‘Islamification of Britain’, ban halal slaughter, and robustly challenge immigration policy, this has not gone down especially well with Restore’s supporters.

In fact, it has made many of them question whether Rupert Lowe is really the staunch British nationalist he styles himself as, or whether the whole of ‘Restore’ is just a cosplaying performance designed to cynically mock and exploit the very people it claims to stand up for.

Which, of course, it is.

A cursory glance at Rupert Lowe’s CV - he’s a privately-educated, ex-financier, multi-millionaire - should tell us all we need to know about the level of affinity he has with the working-classes, white or otherwise. And if it doesn’t, all we need to do is check out all of history to determine how much solidarity elite multimillionaires have typically had with ordinary people.

The ruling classes have only ever seen the working classes (whether they are literally “working-class” or middle-class matters not, the issue is they have to work for a living) as a resource to be plundered and exploited insofar as it benefits them.

However, exploitation is no longer the most dangerous threat ordinary people face, because when someone wants to exploit you, it means they want something from you, which gives you a degree of leverage. That is why ordinary people have been able to push back at various times in history, and successfully improve conditions for themselves: when the rulers continue to want and need something from them, they have that power.

Hence, the most dangerous threat to the working classes is not exploitation and it never has been: it is redundancy.

The WEF have warned us that’s it’s much more dangerous to be redundant than to be exploited, because once you are considered redundant - no longer needed, surplus to requirements - you have no bargaining power left.

We are in a situation now, courtesy of huge leaps in technological progress, where the system no longer requires large numbers of people to work within it, especially those who have come to expect a certain standard of life, such as owning a house, driving a car, and being able to enjoy work and leisure opportunities outside the house.

That level of life expectation is not compatible with the “ideal” future the elites have in mind, where nobody ordinary owns anything, nobody drives, and everyone subsists as “indoor humans”, with going outside redefined as “reality privilege“, reserved only for moneyed elites.

There is consequently a multi-tiered social engineering operation currently going on to remake society in this image, and to either reprogram or remove everyone who opposes it.

One of the biggest social groups that opposes it is the white, right-leaning working classes (which can include people who are economically middle-class) who see their country as being taken over by unfettered immigration and increasing communistic agendas.

This group is fairly large, and hence politically powerful, and therefore, has to be properly managed and contained by the elites so they don’t cause a real revolution.

Enter Restore. And Reform, too.

The purpose of these two psyop fake parties (who serve all the same masters as the ‘left-wing’ parties do) is to ultimately gain mass social support for the destruction of traditional, conservative (small ‘c’) British values, by depicting the people who hold these values as being so unutterably dangerous and evil that society will only be safe when we thoroughly subdue them. Or get rid of them altogether.

Rupert Lowe’s picture of his son’s wedding, therefore, was posted as part of a highly strategic psychological operation to get Restore’s supporters to “reveal themselves”.

There was no need or requirement for Mr Lowe to publish any pictures of his son’s wedding on his professional Twitter account. He was entirely at liberty to keep this a private family celebration.

Yet he chose to publicly picture the very obviously not white British bride precisely in order to galvanise an ugly display of anger, vitriol, and hard racism from Restore’s base, which, of course, is exactly what has happened. (And Karim Mezran, the bride’s father, stepped in to help further fan the flames.)

This, in sequence, gives the communistic globalist left impeccable ammunition to say, “you see? You see how awful and evil these people are? Something must be done about them.”

Of course, not all of Restore’s supporters have reacted this way, but enough of them have to help further cement and amplify the image of the “white right-wing” as the overlords want people to see it.

As is always the case, we can also see this political manipulation being reflected and further reinforced in programming, and there are no shortage of films and television shows telling us how awful and evil the white, right, working-classes are.

A particularly revealing example is the 2021 film, ‘Brighton‘. This film (adapted from a 1994 play by Steven Berkoff, entitled, rather less subtly, ‘Brighton Beach Scumbags’) tells the story of two white working-class couples who first meet in Brighton as teenagers in the sixties.

Decades later, the foursome decide to return to Brighton for some reminiscence and nostalgia, but are shocked at what they find, as the idyllic beach town they remember from their youth has been overrun by (in their words) “Pakis” and “poofters”.

The straight white couples are shown to be thick, uninformed, inarticulate, drunk, emotionally volatile, and of course, extremely racist (and homophobic).

The heroes of the piece are a well-educated black woman, and a gay immigrant.

The film does not bother with any nuance or subtlety by jarringly contrasting how articulate, thoughtful, empathic and successful the black woman and gay immigrant are, in comparison to the brash, belligerent, barely human white working classes.

It is of note that Steven Berkoff, who wrote the play on which the film ‘Brighton‘ is based, is a Jewish man, who stated in 2009:

“There is an in-built dislike of Jews. Overt antisemitism goes against the British sense of fair play. It has to be covert and civilised. So certain playwrights and actors on the left wing make themselves out to be stricken with conscience. They say: ‘We hate Israel, we hate Zionism, we don’t hate Jews.’ But Zionism is the very essence of what a Jew is. Zionism is the act of seeking sanctuary after years and years of unspeakable outrages against Jews. As soon as Israel does anything over the top it’s always the same old faces who come out to demonstrate.”

This underlines what has been observed many times: that many Jewish individuals possess a deep persecution complex, and they perceive non-Jewish individuals to be infected with a highly dangerous disease known as “antisemitism” (which, they feel, often masquerades as anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism). This is such a dangerous disease, and such an urgent and existential threat to the Jewish people, that it is right they fight back by framing these “antisemites” (anyone who critiques Israel or Jewish power) as so unutterably prejudiced, bigoted, and evil, it really would be best and safest for everyone if we got rid of them.

Because they’re not just antisemitic, you see. They’re racist and xenophobic as well!

That’s what films like Brighton, and Rupert Lowe’s latest political stunt, seek to “prove” to us.

Whenever you find high-level propaganda seeking to depict the white right-wing as deeply racist and bigoted, you invariably find Jewish money and influence behind it.

Rupert Lowe, for example, is a vocal supporter of Israel, as his voting record attests.

Lowe is very well aware that his base is overwhelmingly anti-Israel and (what is regarded as) antisemitic. Hence, he is fully instrumental in manipulating these people into “exposing themselves” as the evil dangerous racists Jewish propagandists like Steven Berkoff say they are.

This results in public backlash, and the increased sentiment that “something must be done about them”.

We see similar propaganda in TV programming such as Years and Years, which I’ve written about before, and in which populist right-wing values are depicted as being particularly dangerous and evil (the UK in this series is run by an individual openly modelled on Nigel Farage, who erects literal concentration camps for immigrants).

Another central theme in this show is that one of the primary protagonists, 40-ish Stephen, is forced for financial reasons to sell his house and then move his family in with his elderly grandmother.

Of Stephen’s two surviving younger siblings (a third dies trying to smuggle an illegal immigrant into the country), one rents a poky apartment in a high-rise, and the other is “of no fixed address”.

This is telling us much about the plans for home ownership in the future.

The overlords are in the process of dismantling the affluent, aspirational lifestyle that has been the achievable norm for most since the 1960s, and replacing it with neo-feudalism. Neo-feudalism is defined as:

“a socio-economic concept suggesting that modern capitalism is evolving into a system that mimics the oppressive, hierarchical structures of medieval feudalism. In this model, immense wealth and power are concentrated within a tiny global elite, while the majority of the population faces declining upward mobility, debt entrapment, and a loss of economic independence.”

The show Years and Years depicts this transition in real-time, spanning the years 2019-2034, as the aforementioned Stephen begins the 2020s as an affluent banker living in a million-pound house, but by 2030, lives with his grandmother, eking out a living as a part-time delivery driver (or rather, rider, as he has a bike, not a car) and part-time medical guinea pig.

Reflexively, The Guardian ran an advertorial recently openly encouraging unemployed young people to offer themselves up for medical experimentation as a way to make money, despite casually noting it comes with a risk of disfigurement and life-threatening organ failure.

This is a key reason we’re currently seeing a coordinated renaissance of the generation wars, where the older generations are being vigorously encouraged to pour scorn and contempt on the young for their lazy, spoilt entitlement of expecting a stable job and a house before they’re 50.

It’s simply part of the same social engineering operation I began this essay exploring. We are being re-engineered. We are, in marketing speak, having our “expectations managed” by all manner of psychological warfare and sophisticated propaganda, to make us accept a subsistence-level, largely indoor lifestyle, where we don’t own anything, have any money, or any real utility (beyond having drugs tested on us for the elites).

We are being taught to conflate such a lifestyle with being a good person, and that aspiring to anything more, as past generations did, is the preserve of the type of evil white racists who abused Rupert Lowe’s lovely daughter-in-law (and on her wedding day too, the scum!).

Good People more resemble characters such as the Green Party’s Zack Polanski, who accepts living in an HMO well into his forties, having never really had a stable job, and who condemns racism (Zack is Jewish).

All these themes are inextricably entwined with each other, and are, in my view, designed to culminate in around 2034, when the evil-right wing government (probably Reform, or a Reform-Tory coalition) is kicked out by an outraged public, and the communist green globalist “utopia” can finally be installed.

But as ever, the ruthless ruling classes and predatory propagandists require our cooperation and consent to remake reality as they desire. So it’s more important than ever that we stand strong, see the psychological operations for what they are, and don’t give it.

AUDIO: When sexual freedoms increase, all others decline

Miri AF — Mon, 25 May 2026 16:44:03 GMT

When trying to unpack current social and economic woes and which specific generation is to blame for them (spoiler alert: none of them), there is one big elephantine factor that keeps getting ignored. Here, I delve into it…

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version, please see here.

When sexual freedoms increase, all others decline

Miri AF — Sat, 23 May 2026 14:48:03 GMT

(A sort-of sequel to my piece, ‘It’s not the Boomers fault, by a Millennial‘.)

The old generation wars have kicked off again on social media this week, and this time (a blessed break from Boomers v Millennials), it’s the turn of Gen X (born 1965-1981) to blame Zoomers (born 1997-2010) for “ordering too much DoorDash“ (a modern variation on the avocado toast / pumpkin spiced lattes theme that the previous generation got harangued about).

That is to say, the older generation believes the younger generation is spending too much of their money on needless self-indulgences like takeaways, and that is why they’re not getting ahead economically.

The younger generation has reacted in fury and frustration, countering that the economic climate is not what it was, and that no amount of skipping Starbucks or making their own avocado sandwiches (which sound disgusting, quite frankly - what’s wrong with cheese?) is going to resolve their financial difficulties.

The truth, as it often is, is somewhere in the middle: spending on delivery services is up amongst the young, but at the same time, opportunities for them have collapsed, and we’re only just seeing the beginning of the bloodbath employment-wise, as AI becomes more and more competent - a bloodbath that will disproportionately affect the young, because AI will take entry-level jobs before it takes more senior roles (although it will soon take many of those, too).

A major UK bank recently announced it is replacing all its “low-value human capital“ (entry / junior-level positions) with AI, and this trend will explode over the next years and decades. Predictive programming vehicles, such as 2024’s Subservience, warn us of an imminent future where AI lifeforms do every job, from waiter to builder to surgeon.

Moreover, the hospitality industry, that millions of young people have depended on to provide initial and bridging employment, is in a state of sustained collapse which is only going to get worse.

So, whatever way you slice it, opportunities are contracting almost everywhere, and this is not a temporary anomaly or a recoverable blip: it’s all by design, and the brutal truth is that we are in the midst of creating a “useless class“ of humans, that the job market no longer requires.

This class is, and will continue to be, composed disproportionately of the under-25s (too young and inexperienced - AI can do it better and cheaper) and the over-55s (too old and a liability - get someone twenty years younger).

In fact, there is now only about a ten-year window in which a job seeker is not afflicted by ageism at either end of the spectrum, since studies show many employers consider applicants “too old” once they hit 40, and this discrimination can even start in the late thirties.

To further exacerbate the growing employment crisis, many people in their fifties are being laid off(especially white men), a phenomenon that has exacerbated exponentially since “covid” and its ruinous effect on so many businesses.

These people - too young to retire and considered too old to rehire - are in a dire situation.

They get talked about far less than the struggling young, however, because it’s much harder to blame them for their own woes.

“Hey, Grandpa, why don’t you consider making your own sandwiches, you spoilt, lazy git?” isn’t really going to go down too well with someone who’s worked all their life, especially if the scolding voice is several decades younger than they are.

(I know of someone in his mid-fifties who was laid off and joined a recruitment agency as part of his employment search, only to be told bluntly by the recruitment consultant - aged about 25 - that, despite his decades of experience, “his age would count against him”. They never found him any work.)

Anyway, the point is this: whilst the cacophonous generation-based arguments centre relentlessly around money, employment, and housing, these debates invariably ignore one central factor in how we as a society have got into such a mess:

The unprecedented sexual freedoms granted to Western societies since the 1960s, and how these paved the way for the collapse of every other kind of freedom, especially economic.

One of the major drivers of youth unemployment is an over-saturated graduate job market. We have an ever-increasing supply of surplus graduates, and an ever-decreasing pool of graduate-level jobs (ones that are looking for humans to do them, at least).

15 months after completing university, only around half of graduates are in full-time work, and many send off hundreds of applications, never to hear anything back. These are emphatically not just graduates who went to subpar universities and studied fluff subjects, but to quote a recent report:

“Even respondents who had graduated with a first class degree, often from prestigious universities, and even in subjects such as engineering, computing, cybersecurity or other STEM sectors thought to be crying out for skilled workers, said they had been sending dozens or even hundreds of applications without getting an interview.”

It would also be a total mischaracterisation to say these graduates are “holding out for their dream job”. Many have long since given up on that and are applying for literally any job - and many can’t even get that.

The days of “just take any job until something better comes along” are long gone, and statistically, it is now harder to get a job at McDonald’s than it is to get into Harvard, whilst overall, the proverbial AnyJobs (bar work, shelf-stacking, kitchen cleaning) that some well-meaning individuals imagine can simply be snapped up by anyone willing to do them, are often the hardest to get, because they have the highest volume of applications.

For example, the budget supermarket Aldi reports receiving several hundred applications for a single ‘store assistant’ (shelf-stacking) role. University graduates are not preferred for such work. They’re considered over-qualified and seen as a bad bet to take on and train, as they will leave the minute “something better comes along”. And yet, the proverbial something may be a long time coming, and for increasing numbers, may never come along at all.

So how did we get here? How did we convince so many teenagers to delay adulthood by 3-4 years (or longer) by going to university, racking up huge debts whilst doing so, when the data has been there for years showing this isn’t the best route to a secure economic future for most?

Put simply, it was via the promise of sexual freedom. And I’m not saying people go to university simply to sleep around (although universities strongly encourage them to, some now even handing out “shag packs“ to their students), but rather, the fact that young people are able to easily access uncommitted, consequence-free sexual relationships is the specific factor that makes mass attendance at university (rather than most people settling down with their high-school sweetheart) possible.

Until the 1960s gave us the pill and legal abortion, if young people wanted to enter an intimate relationship, as the large majority of young people have always wished to do, then they were required to make a lifelong commitment to another person in front of all their family and friends, or risk huge stigma and social ostracisation. For most, the risk of illicit sex simply wasn’t worth it, so they got married.

Children usually followed fairly quickly afterward.

Consequently, in 1950, around 60-75% of 25-year-olds were married parents.

Today, that number stands at just 2-7%.

Young people who are married with children are extremely unlikely to go to university, as anybody who’s attended one can attest: the only students who were married or had children were mature students who had come back to university later in life. The standard student profile was, and is, young, free, and single - and that’s a vital part of the appeal.

To funnel half the population into university (a target set by Tony Blair in the 1990s and that was achieved in 2018), the social engineers had to offer unfettered sexual freedom as an incentive, or this would never have happened. That is to say, they had to tell young people that sex had now been completely untethered from commitment or responsibility - and certainly from children - so they didn’t need to limit themselves in life by settling down early.

So, rather than proposing to them, youngsters could instead breezily dump their sixth-form girlfriend or boyfriend (everyone I know was warned about the “dangers” of going to university with a boy/girlfriend at home, and that they would be missing out on the full uni experience if they didn’t go single), and defer committed relationships until “later”.

However, if it had continued to be the societal expectation that sex was reserved for marriage, and if the pill and abortion hadn’t arrived, then this message could not have been successfully delivered. Hence, university would have remained the preserve of a select few, and the vast majority would have stayed in their hometowns, begun working and earning in their teens, and typically married their first boyfriend or girlfriend in their early twenties.

With this model, there were not only far less useless graduates, but also far less competition in the workplace overall, because so many young women were at home looking after children, rather than competing with men for jobs.

So, the social engineers offered these women “liberation” from early marriage and childbearing via the pill and abortion, and offered “independence”, specifically through university and the pull of a glittering career. That worked reasonably well for one generation (the Boomers) and has been an increasing disaster ever since, hitting the younger Millennials and Zoomers hardest of all.

Social engineers have openly, laughingly, confirmed this was the plan: Nicholas Rockefeller, of the eponymous dynasty, admitted to film director Aaron Russo that his immensely wealthy and influential family sponsored feminism in order to increase the tax base, drive down wages, and get the children away from the parents and into state indoctrination centres (daycare, school) as soon as possible.

Women going to university also leads predictably to a dramatically lower birth rate.

One might argue, “well, what’s the problem with people delaying settling down until after university? They’re still only in their early twenties then, they’re not old!”.

Yet their age upon graduation isn’t the issue: early-to-mid twenties is indeed when people have historically got married for the last few hundred years. So it’s not that people are too old to get married when they complete their studies, rather it’s what they have been doing in the years leading up to this age, i.e., it’s that once they have got used to casual, consequence-free sexual relationships (by which I mean, no formal commitment such an engagement/marriage and no pregnancies), they are decreasingly less likely to make - or to want to make - such a commitment.

If they don’t make such a commitment, children are less likely to be born.

If children are less likely to be born, then we reach the situation we are facing now where the white birth rate is 1.4 and falling.

If large numbers of young people are not getting married and not having children - and they are not (marriages and births are both at the lowest levels ever recorded) - then what defines them in a world where they struggle to get even the most basic entry-level job? Internet scrolling? (The sad reality is that is precisely what does define the day-to-day life of many, especially since “covid”, and is what WEF spokesman Yuval Harari confirms is the future for “the useless class”.)

There is certainly some truth to what older people say about budgeting, and that they themselves spent less money on such things as takeaway food when they were in their twenties.

Yet we have to explore the real factors behind their youthful frugality, and not just go with surface explanations like: “they were less lazy”.

Older people were, overwhelmingly, more frugal because they were saving for the future. They were saving for the future because they saw a future.

Younger people, increasingly, do not.

We are not talking about dramatic seventeen-year-olds here who’ve just discovered existentialist philosophers, we are talking about real adults pushing thirty (the oldest Zoomers are turning 29 this year) who see no professional future and no personal future.

If they cannot realistically expect a decent, stable job that pays them enough to have a reasonable quality of life (and realistically, millions cannot), and they cannot expect to have a decent, stable relationship and children if they want them (and, realistically, millions cannot) - what’s there to save for?

What’s the point?

That’s primarily what’s driving the increased spending on “luxuries” like takeaways amongst Zoomers, not the fact that they don’t know how to make a sandwich.

It’s not about moralising and preaching about whether they “should” feel like this and hauling out the Four Yorkshiremen impersonators to tell us how, when they were young, they survived on a half a packet of razor shavings and a clip ‘round the earhole and they damn well liked it - it’s simply about observing what is actually going on. It’s about acknowledging that it’s much more serious than a generation being lazy or lacking in budgeting or culinary skills. Those are fairly simple skills to teach. If that was the extent of the problem, then frankly, there would be no problem.

But there is a problem: a huge and potentially civilisation-decimating one.

And it’s this...

We as a society have collectively destroyed the primary thing that has given young people’s lives meaning for most of human history, which is finding a partner when they are young and energetic, and channeling that energy into building their own home and family, supported by a network of extended family and friends.

We have taken that away with the pill, abortion, and wall-to-wall propaganda starting more or less the day they are born telling them how wonderful casual, consequence-free sex is, and how they will completely ruin their lives if they settle down young - see: Friends, Sex and the City, Girls, and a million other examples.

Billionaire social engineers did not spend such a fortune on this programming because it does not work.

They facilitated it, and made it so socially iconic, precisely because of how devastatingly well it does work.

We cannot then smugly finger-wag at people whose brains were still years off being fully formed as they consumed hundreds of hours of this programming, all throughout their most neurologically formative years, for being programmed by it.

Not to mention the thousands of hours of programming they received through the government indoctrination camps known as schools.

For a modern young person, what their parents were like or the messages they tried to instil often pale into insignificance compared to the dominant cultural messages they received from school and the mass media. An average family these days only spends about 45 minutes together: this can never compete with the hours and hours daily young minds spend being marinaded in, and manipulated by, schools and screens.

So, the under-30s have virtually all been programmed to believe that settling down young is the death knell for ambition and success, and that qualifications and career are the holy grail of existence.

However, unless a young person is exceptional (and, by definition, the vast, overwhelming majority of people are not), then, even if they are eventually able to find a stable job (which in itself is becoming less and less likely), they are are not going to find deep, enduring life fulfilment solely in their career, as very few people in history ever have. For most people, work has always been a means to an end - and that end is supporting the things that do matter: namely, family, and what springs from that - community, culture, tradition, faith.

Take away the first one (marriage and children) and all the others unravel and disappear, as they largely have. Even the decreasingly few young people who do settle down and have children often report feeling lonely, isolated, and overwhelmed, with no access to the kind of support structure human societies have traditionally provided to young parents.

There is a widespread dismissive, callous social attitude now, including not infrequently from people’s own families, that, when it comes to children, “you chose to have them, they’re your responsibility”. The implications of this attitude are a major driving factor of why so many people decide to have just one child - or none at all.

Leading on from this, I often hear young people, and aspiring parents, being scolded with: “well, if you wanted family support, you should have stayed in your hometown, not gallivanted off to the big city seeking excitement”.

Well, what about those people who really wanted to stay in their own hometowns, but it was everyone else who left?

I love my hometown. I can get embarrassingly emotional merely at seeing it on street view (I sometimes look up my old childhood home, and feel irrationally annoyed about what the new owners have done to the windows). I would have loved to have stayed there, and made efforts to do so, getting a job at 18 rather than going straight to university. But by the time I was 23, all my family and friends had left. So, inevitably, I left too.

Millions of people are now in that position. There is no cohesive home community for them to return to and begin their own families. Everybody’s gone.

If these were simply fringe and atypical examples, it wouldn’t much matter, but they are not. Fractured, scattered, non-existent communities have become the norm - hence why so many seek out online communities instead - and the implications are catastrophic - yet it seems almost a taboo to discuss why this has happened.

I have observed that most people are very willing to volunteer their opinions on the economic and employment struggles of the young, but very few wish to confront their personal lives, and what a shocking, scandalous, historically unprecedented situation it is to live in a society where the vast majority of 30-year-olds (adults not far off middle-age) are not married.

No advanced society has ever seen such a thing. There is no reason to think any society that produces this outcome has a flourishing future ahead of it. The white birth rate is already 1.4 - once it declines to 1.3, this is known demographically as critically lowest low, which means no society historically has ever managed to turn it around and hence has died out. We are on the precipice of that right now.

Often, using a personal example can prove more powerful than bandying about statistics, so here is one: an old friend of my family’s, now in his seventies, grew up an only child and hated it, so vowed when he grew up, he would have a large family. He went on to have seven children, the oldest six of whom are currently aged between 35 and 50.

Do you know how many grandchildren this man has?

One.

One grandchild. And the parent of that child is the only one of his seven children to be married.

I doubt we would be able to find any other society in history where a person could have six middle-aged children, all physically healthy, and just one grandchild. It’s extraordinary. It’s scandalous. And if we don’t turn it around urgently, we’re in real trouble.

We have to go right back to basics: what are children being taught in their earliest, most formative years about what’s important in life, and what is most likely to bring them enduring fulfilment, meaning, and purpose (all much better terms than the vague and ephemeral “happiness”)?

“Career” has only ever been the route to lasting fulfilment for a small minority, a minority which is now dramatically shrinking with the advent of AI and a generally over-saturated job market.

Hence, we must find something else to offer the young if we do not want them to give up altogether. Like every other past generation in human history, they need something to live for, and that thing needs to be deeply human. We cannot write millions of people off as semi-cyborgs who spend 15 hours a day interacting with screens and call it a life, even if they are earning some money.

We’ve had decades of the blame game now and so I think we’ve collated quite enough evidence to conclude it isn’t helping anyone. The generation wars are a manufactured artifice by a devious and frankly genocidal elite who want us constantly at each other’s throats (Millennials blaming Boomers, Gen X blaming Gen Z, Gen Z blaming Boomers, ad infinitum ad nauseam) because this stops us doing the one vital - now urgently vital - thing for our individual and collective survival: uniting, understanding - and, ultimately, fixing what has clearly been deliberately broken.

AUDIO: Maker Mess of Makerfield

Miri AF — Thu, 21 May 2026 11:28:58 GMT

We have a de facto referendum coming up in this country, posing as a by-election, where the question is: do you want Andy Burnham as Prime Minister?

Yes? Vote Labour…. Or Restore.

Rupert Lowe’s smoke and mirrors party is not what it appears to be…

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version, please see here.

Maker Mess of Makerfield

Miri AF — Tue, 19 May 2026 15:18:28 GMT

I have a cousin, soon to turn 30, who currently lives in a house-share with ten other people (yes, ten) in a northern city, hundreds of miles away from where he was born in London.

His parents, my aunt and her husband, met as students in the early 1980s, and when they graduated, were easily able to rent a flat in Islington, just off the iconic Upper Street, despite their youth and modest salaries.

Later on, when they had accrued a bit more money, they moved to more expansive premises in Ealing, just by the tube station, and had their first child in their mid-thirties. A second child followed a few years later, and the family remained resident in Ealing until the children had grown up and left for university.

In terms of advantageous starts in life, the children appeared to have had it all: born into a comfortable middle-class environment with two employed parents and a stable home life not disrupted by family breakdown, it was expected they would enjoy successful life trajectories comparable to their parents.

Yet on the cusp of turning 30, their oldest child, my cousin, has achieved none of the milestones his parents had at the same age. Not married or in a stable relationship, not a home owner or even able to rent his own place, and not on a stable career track. He graduated from university with a degree in the arts, as his parents had, but whilst their qualifications led them straight into stable graduate work, he has been eking out a living working in bars.

Most notably, he is not able to live in the city of his birth (to rent a single room in a shared house in London costs around £1,000 a month, plus bills), and the city where at least six previous generations of his family were born, because he has been completely priced out. So has his sister.

I relate this anecdote to underline that I empathise entirely with the idea of a ‘broken Britain’, and that various (wholly engineered) social and economic shifts have left many indigenous Britons facing a very raw deal, with many not able to enjoy even (what should be) the most basic birth right of being able to live in their own hometown.

(I face sort of the opposite problem - technically, I could live in my hometown, as it’s one of the cheapest places to live in the country, but the factors that make it so cheap have driven every other member of my family, as well as all of my old friends, away, so there’s nobody I know there left.)

When looking at the prospects - or the lack of them - for their children and other young family members, it’s no wonder there is an increasing groundswell of frustration amongst many in the UK, culminating in the idea that we need to “take our country back” from the forces that have so decimated it: forces that are perceived to be squeezing out the native populace in favour of immigrants.

This is to say, I understand why the ruling classes needed to invent a ‘Restore’, which is currently at the forefront of a major socio-political battle as pertains to the northern, working-class constituency of Makerfield.

In case you don’t spend a lot of time engaging in complex political analysis* (*arguing with bots on Twitter) and missed it, last week, Labour MP Josh Simons stood down from his seat in the traditional Labour heartland of Greater Manchester’s Makerfield, in order to trigger a by-election in which current Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, can stand as an MP.

As the Labour Party continues to further collapse under the catastrophic leadership of Keir Starmer, increasing support is building behind Burnham to take over as party leader - but he can’t make a leadership bid unless and until he is an MP (which he was from 2001-2017, before giving it up to serve as mayor). Hence, this by-election has been arranged specifically in order to propel Burnham to power.

The only obstacle that stands in the way of Burnham - who is very popular locally - is Reform, who gained 31.8% of the Makerfield vote at 2024’s General Election, coming in second, and only losing out to the Labour candidate by around 5,000 votes. Public mood towards Labour has soured considerably since then, as the recent local election results attest, so running a contest between Labour and Reform - even with a candidate as popular as Burnham - was always going to be a very close race, and one that Reform could conceivably have won...

Until ‘Restore’ entered the picture.

I’ve written about Restore before, Rupert Lowe’s hard right new party, and what I believe its role in the political pantomime is: essentially, to hoover up Reform’s less desirable “lunatic fringe” (the genuine far-right, those seriously invested in ethno-nationalism and remigration), therefore making Reform look far more moderate in comparison, and thus, far more electable.

In short, the press will stop calling Nigel Farage and Reform “far-right extremists” if they’ve got an even further right party like Restore to point fingers at instead.

Although vehicles like Restore create the illusion of great popularity on social media (and we will delve further into how they accomplish that shortly), the reality is that they are completely unelectable at a national level, as there simply isn’t an appetite in this country for a far-right government, and Restore are polling at about 4% nationwide.

“But their odds are brilliant for Makerfield! They’re dropping and dropping!”

This triumphant declaration is currently echoing all over Twitter, proliferated by Rupert Lowe himself.

Although this is true, it’s important to ask why:

It’s because (”allegedly”), rich Restore bigwigs are betting on themselves precisely in order to cause the odds to drop. It’s a tried and tested political tactic to manipulate the electorate by creating the illusion that a fringe party is in with a chance and voting for them isn’t a wasted vote.

If the odds weren’t being manipulated in this way, then the electorate would see for themselves that Restore cannot win, and that a vote for them simply functions as a vote for Burnham. In essence, this election is less a by-election and more a referendum, where the question is: do you want Andy Burnham as Prime Minister? If yes, vote Labour. If no, vote Reform.

However, with Restore in the race, there is now another ‘yes’ option for Burnham, and that’s a Restore vote.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Restore knows this, which is precisely why they are fielding a candidate. They’re fielding one (and not a particularly credible one) precisely in order to hand the election to Burnham. It was always going to be exceptionally close, but without Restore in the race, Reform could have won it. With them, they very likely cannot.

If this happens - if Labour wins the seat by a slim margin and we end up with Andy Burnham in Downing Street - then both Reform and Restore voters alike will be furious with Rupert Lowe. He will be held as personally responsible for ensuring a Burnham premiership, when he could have prevented it by refraining from standing a candidate (as Advance’s Ben Habib has).

The backlash this creates could be unsurvivable for such a fledgling, and disorganised new party, causing thousands of its supporters - many/most of whom are ex-Reform - to flood back to Reform in their hordes.

And that, I believe, is precisely the point - that Restore was only ever a containment vehicle to manage Reform’s outliers, for whom the party was not right-wing enough, in order to eventually coax them back into the fold.

It is therefore entirely possible that, after the mess of Makerfield, Rupert Lowe will simply take his millions (Restore is estimated to have taken in roughly £2 million in membership fees) and disappear, perhaps blaming the “dementia” it keeps being rumoured he has, and that would provide a very handy “exit stage left” strategy.

Personally, I wouldn’t vote for any of these sham parties, but Makerfield residents should know that, if they vote for Burnham, they’re voting for Burnham, but if they vote for Restore, they’re voting for Burnham as well.

(This, as an astute Tweeter pointed out, is why Advance’s Ben Habib is backing Restore: it’s because he knows Restore running almost certainly means a Burnham victory, and a Burnham victory means a new mayoral election as Burnham cannot serve as MP and mayor at the same time. Advance’s Nick Buckley stood unsuccessfully in the mayor elections last time, and no doubt is very keen for another shot at it.)

The overlords desire a Reform supermajority at the next General Election, for reasons I have laid out in this article, and the best way of ensuring that is reuniting the ever more splintered right around a single party, and that is what I believe Restore is ultimately there to do. It is there to self-detonate, and therefore send its dismayed and betrayed supporters careering back to Reform, crowning them “the real deal all along, not like that bitter loser Lowe who couldn’t put his ego aside for the good of the country”.

After Makerfield, we can expect that Burnham, if and when he is installed as PM, will do some truly horrendous things, which will trigger an early General Election (2027, according to predictive programming vehicle, Years and Years), in which Reform, with no significant competition on the right (the Tories and Restore both having imploded), will win a landslide victory, making them a particularly powerful administration.

To achieve this resounding victory, they will cynically exploit all the social problems I outlined at the beginning of this piece, disproportionately blaming them on immigration (and yes, immigration is a problem, but it’s not, for instance, why 90% of 30-year-olds were married in the 1950s compared to 20% today), whilst enacting some seriously sinister social changes. You may have seen those videos doing the rounds on Twitter, showing that, beyond immigration, many Reform voters not only have no idea what the party’s other policies are, but are actively horrified by them when they find out.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Labour are any better, or that any party that’s considered ‘electable’ is, I’m merely outlining what I believe to be the current trajectory, and why and how the electorate is being manipulated to ensure a Reform supermajority at the next General Election.

Can we stop this? Probably not, but we can be aware of how and why it’s happening, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

We could also take a leaf out of the crafty politicians’ books and place a few bets... So, while we may not be able to afford to live in our capital city, with 11/2 odds for a 2027 General Election, we might almost be able to afford a pint there...

AUDIO: Why the Muslim takeover is a hoax, by a far-right extremist

Miri AF — Sat, 16 May 2026 13:57:24 GMT

As ‘Tel Aviv Steve’ (Tommy Robinson / Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) storms the capital today to protest the ‘Muslim takeover’ of the UK, is this really the imminent threat it’s being presented as by certain high-profile agitators? Or is there another agenda at play?

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version, please see here.

Why the Muslim takeover is a hoax, by a far-right extremist

Miri AF — Wed, 13 May 2026 15:35:10 GMT

Often, when I’ve finished my extremist duties for the day (refusing poison injections for fictitious diseases and so on), I like to unwind with a film. It frequently takes nearly as long as a three-part epic itself to actually find something worth watching, but one strategy I have come to employ in my stratifying endeavours is looking up the film’s score on the ‘Rotten Tomatoes‘ review site - because you know that, if the film has a score of over 90%, it’s likely going to be absolutely awful.

Or rather, to put it another way, absolutely agenda-full.

Hands down the worst film I have ever seen got a score of 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, and the film in question is about a man who cleans toilets. That’s literally the whole film, but because he’s Japanese and doesn’t speak much, it’s profound.

The man is poor, single, and lives alone in a matchbox-size bedsit, but didn’t you get that he’s Japanese, doesn’t speak much, and cleans toilets? So it’s totally aspirational and inspiring, yeah? The Guardian, of course, absolutely loved it.

Needless to say, being poor, single, and living alone, without meaningful or well-remunerated employment, is exactly the aspirational future the overlords have in mind for the masses, so that’s why the film scored so highly on the establishment review sites (Rotten Tomatoes, for example, is owned by media giants Warner Brothers and Versant).

Hence, when I discovered the film ‘The Big Sick‘ had an even higher Rotten Tomatoes rating - an extraordinary 98% - I knew it would be transmitting some very powerful propaganda indeed.

It did.

The Big Sick tells the (apparently true) story of stand-up comic, Pakistani Muslim Kumail, and white liberal American, Emily, as they strike up a relationship.

Kumail’s devoutly religious family, who migrated to the USA from Pakistan several years before, expect him to follow familial and cultural traditions by having an arranged marriage with a woman from a similar background. Hence, when they find out about Emily, they are devastated.

Kumail’s parents express to him their dismay, reminding him of all the sacrifices they have made to give him the best start in life, and how supportive they are of him in any ambition he should choose to pursue - but the one thing they ask of him is that he continues their 1,400 year old cultural traditions by marrying a woman from a similar background.

Kumail refuses, and so they disown him.

Kumail goes on to marry Emily, and rejects his religious background entirely. He now describes himself as an atheist, and the couple (who married in 2007) have no children.

Of course, this story is presented to the audience as the triumph of true love over archaic religious dogma, with Kumail’s “backwards, oppressive” parents portrayed as the villains of the piece - yet the reality is that Kumail’s behaviour underlines that their concerns were absolutely right.

The reason his parents wanted him to marry a woman from a similar background is not because they are evil tyrants who don’t want him to be happy (the film shows how much effort they put into introducing him to a variety of pleasant, attractive women he might be compatible with), but because they desire the continuance of their culture - their traditions, language, religion, family - all the things that make a people unique, and that give human life meaning beyond “work and pay bills”.

His parents knew that, were Kumail to marry a woman not from a similar background, the couple would be highly unlikely to continue any of these things, and hence, the culture would die out.

This is typically what happens when two people from very different cultural backgrounds marry one another - the cultural traditions are not passed on to the next generation (if a next generation is produced at all). That is precisely why people from cohesive cultural backgrounds are generally so against their children marrying outside of it.

And what makes it dramatically less likely a person will marry someone from the same cultural background?

Moving them to a completely different one.

If Kumail and his family had remained resident in Pakistan, the chances of him marrying a white liberal atheist are fairly close to nil.

If he moves to a white liberal atheist culture, surrounded by white liberal atheists, the chances become drastically higher. Not only that he will marry a liberal atheist, but that he will become one himself. As he did.

So, this film - which, to repeat, received a 98% score on propaganda-approver site Rotten Tomatoes - is telling us exactly what happens to Muslims, and what is engineered to happen to them, when they mass-migrate to the West.

Not that they all accrue four Muslim wives and sire twelve Muslim children each, but rather, that they become Westernised, reject their religion, and become just another cookie-cutter liberal progressive, with few or no children.

This illustrates the fatal flaw in the ideology of those who claim that “Muslims” are going to make up a large percentage of the population in the future, based on current birth rates of those from a Muslim background.

Namely, that you cannot project a ‘Muslim’ percentage of the future population in the same way you can project a ‘white’ or ‘Asian’ population, because Islam is a religion, not a race, and therefore people can leave it. And Western Muslims do, in their hordes - it’s estimated that around 25% of those raised Muslim in the United States no longer identify as Muslim.

Although we may be able to accurately predict that, in the future, people of South Asian extraction will make up a bigger percentage of Western populations than they do today, we cannot in good faith claim this is synonymous with a large ‘Muslim’ population, because extrapolating from current trends (and current propaganda), this is what happens to Muslims when they come to / are born in the West:

They (funnily enough) get Westernised.

They become less religious. They focus more on personal fulfilment in terms of education and career, than they do on faith and family. They have (dramatically) fewer children than they do in their own cultures - contrary to current click-baity fearmongering, the current European Muslim birthrate is actually 2.6 (and falling).

In short, they become ‘Kumails’.

The only proven way of foreign groups reliably preserving their traditions and customs - and birthrates - is to entirely segregate themselves from the host culture. They must have their own schools, their own places of work, and completely insulate themselves - especially their children - from Western influences.

Muslims who come to the West overwhelmingly do not do this. Their children are sent to the same schools as the native populace, they watch the same TV shows, and they work alongside the natives in every environment from shops to hospitals.

They consequently become more Westernised with every year that goes by, and less religious, until - eventually and inevitably - they become a largely secular people, just as has happened to the vast majority of ancestral Christians in this country.

Modern Western lifestyles and influences corrode religious observation and unique cultural identity, just as they are designed to do.

So, no, there will be no ‘Muslim takeover’ in the West simply because the so-called ‘Muslim’ population gets to a certain level.

By 2100, the “Muslim” population is projected to be around 20%, but if we are actually honest, rather than polemical, and extrapolate from real, observable data and trends, it is far more likely that this population will simply be secular atheist South Asians, not fanatical religious Islamists starting caliphates.

As I’ve mentioned before, there is only one religious group in the UK which has created the apposite conditions to maintain their culture and customs - including a very high birthrate - immunised from corrosive Western influences, and it isn’t Muslims.

That group, therefore, may have all sorts of reasons for getting you to point fingers and scream about the make-believe “Muslim” takeover - whilst ignoring the very real religious takeover that is, quietly and in the background, gathering ever more pace.

This is not to say I’m pro mass-migration of Muslims, whether they remain Muslims or not - it is totally unnecessary and undesirable, both for the host cultures and the indigenous ones. Mass migration, and “diversity” in general, dilutes and destroys cultures, and so I am against it. In fact, I am so against it, that I endorse the Amish, one of the most static and uniform cultures in the world.

However, I am very much pro the truth, and exposing what the real agenda is of those who squeal the most vocally and visibly about “the Muslim takeover”. Raise your hands, Tommy Robinson - or ‘Tel Aviv Steve’, as he has been splendidly rechristened - Laura Dodsworth, Allison Pearson, Toby Young, et al.

What do all these people have in common? Whose cultural interests are they really representing and protecting? How many of them, for example, just so happen to be past or present directors of the British Friends of Israel? (Three out of the four aforementioned names.)

We’re being played.

There is no imminent ‘Muslim takeover’. Rather, the social controllers want to degrade us all into one big amorphous blob of liberal atheist ‘global citizens’ with no clearly defined identity in terms of religion, culture, or tradition. They do this by painting religion and tradition as backwards, evil, and oppressive, via plentiful propaganda such as The Big Sick (and, needless to say, there is an encyclopaedic array of programming demonising Christianity)...

Except for Judaism, of course, which is sacrosanct and beyond any kind of critique, because critiquing the Jews leads to the holocaust, you know.

So, for those countries that don’t actually have laws preventing people from having an opinion on this event - like the UK - the overlords have to stage psyops pretending you can get into legal trouble for opining on it. If people fall for this, then we have de facto “Holocaust denial” laws, without the establishment actually having to go to all the hassle of passing the requisite legislation.

Meanwhile, you can deny Christian or Muslim genocides all you want, and nobody is going to even pretend anything happens to you.

So, to sum, and as ever: “to find out who rules over you, learn who you’re not allowed to criticise” (as well as which films get the highest ratings on Rotten Tomatoes...).

AUDIO: Reforming the Right at the Gaylord Texan Resort

Miri AF — Tue, 12 May 2026 18:18:46 GMT

In the kind of political analysis you won’t see on the news, I investigate the ramifications of the recent Reform electoral success, and how it connects to the Back To The Future movies, fake political assassinations, and, well, gaylords.

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version, please see here.

Reforming the Right at the Gaylord Texan Resort

Miri AF — Mon, 11 May 2026 14:28:31 GMT

Believe it or not, unlike my previous article, the title of this one is not actually clickbait... It refers to the very real Reform sweep at last week’s local elections, and a major US conservative conference (shortly to debut in the UK) that was held this year at the ‘Gaylord Texan Resort‘.

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was founded in 1964, and is described as “the nation’s oldest conservative grassroots organization and seeks to preserve and protect the values of life, liberty, and property for every American“.

CPAC has been associated with all the biggest, starriest names in conservatism over the years, including Ronald Reagan, who gave the organisation’s inaugural keynote speech in 1974, and who we will return to later.

More recently, CPAC has platformed such high-profile characters as Donald Trump (it is credited with helping kick-start his political career in the Republican Party), Hungarian Prime Minister, the Christian nationalist Viktor Orban, and UK PM hopeful - whose Reform party has just swept the board at the recent local elections - Nigel Farage.

So, of course it stands to perfect reason that the UK version of this conference, to debut later this year, is platforming that towering political virtuoso, er, Lucy Connolly

Famous for a profanity-laden Tweet endorsing the idea of burning migrants to death, that supposedly landed her a prison sentence, Ms Connolly is currently most renowned for her “bare feet and wine“ pictures on social media, whilst the c-word she is most associated with is - let’s put it this way - not exactly ‘conservatism’.

A foul-mouthed, perennially sloshed ex-con, who recently publicly ‘joked’ about punching her child in the face, headlining a serious conservative political conference?

Something’s not quite stacking up here, is it?

Let’s look back a bit more at the history of CPAC, and more specifically, it’s first keynote speaker.

Ronald Reagan.

An actor.

Mr Reagan enjoyed a long and distinguished career in Hollywood before taking on the role of president, to the extent this rather unlikely trajectory has been lampooned by Hollywood itself.

In a famous scene from 1985’s Back To The Future (a movie Reagan is reported to have loved), 1955’s Doc Brown asks Marty McFly who the president is in 1985.

“Ronald Reagan,” replies Marty.

“Ronald Reagan?! The actor?!” Doc throws his eyes to heaven in incredulous mockery. “Then who’s vice-president? Jerry Lewis?”

Jerry Lewis was a renowned comic actor at the time, known as the “King of Comedy”, and so by making this comparison to Reagan, Doc is explicitly informing the audience that a Reagan presidency would be as ludicrous and non-serious as a Lewis one.

To reiterate, Reagan himself loved the Back To The Future movie, and this scene in particular, which he ordered the White House theatre projectionist to rewind and replay.

Okay, maybe the guy just had a great sense of humour, but that’s not the only revealing Hollywood detail of note. As everyone who isn’t a “spaceman from Pluto” (Back To The Future in-joke) knows, the breakout star of Back To The Future was Michael J. Fox.

Back To The Future made Fox a movie star, but he had already made his name in TV, as the beloved Alex P. Keaton, of NBC’s hit sitcom, Family Ties.

The show’s signature joke, that all seven series centred around (the show ran from 1982-1989) is that the parents, Steven and Elyse, are 1960s liberals, whilst the children, teenagers Mallory, and in particular, her brother Alex (Fox), are 1980s conservatives - and Alex’s big hero is none other than Ronald Reagan.

In return - and mirroring his sentiments regarding Fox’s Back To The Future - Reagan declared Family Ties his favourite show.

Now, as eagle-eyed readers may recall, a few months ago I wrote an article (my most-read ever, in fact) comparing Family Ties‘ Alex P. Keaton to the supposedly “assassinated” young conservative activist, Charlie Kirk.

I said:

“Depicted as a “young fogey”, aged just 17, Alex - by far the most popular character in the show, launching actor Michael J. Fox to superstardom - involved himself deeply in conservative politics, and would scold the adults around him for their liberal, permissive ways, whilst praising the work of his heroes, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.

Alex’s mother worked as an architect.

You can imagine, then, that something felt a bit... familiar when I read the following about the allegedly assassinated young conservative activist, Charlie Kirk...

Describing Kirk’s background and teenage years, the Guardian reports:

“Kirk was raised in a politically moderate household... in high school he emerged as a vocal conservative... [he] clashed with teachers he accused of “neo-Marxist” bias, drawing on influences that included Ronald Reagan’s economics and Milton Friedman’s free-market ideas... He made his first media appearance on the Fox Business channel at the age of 17... His father was an architect.”

Hm. A crazy conspiracy theorist, of the type who believes we live in an actor-based simulacrum, and that the world stage of politics is just an offshoot of Hollywood (hence all the relentless crossover between the theatrical and political arts), might suggest that ‘Charlie Kirk’ is simply a fictional scripted creation based on the hugely successful and enduring ‘Alex P. Keaton’ archetype - even down to the signature nudge-wink of the scriptwriters giving the respective parents of the two young activists the same career.“

To underline the veracity of this analysis, we can now bring it full circle, and note that Charlie Kirk - clearly based on the Alex Keaton character who starred in Ronald Reagan’s favourite show - also spoke at the CPAC conference (CPAC branded Kirk ‘the single most influential political figure of our time’) that we opened this article with, and at which Ronald Reagan was the inaugural - i.e., first ever - keynote speaker.

The Ronald Reagan who laughed so heartily along with the Back To The Future inference that his presidency was a joke.

The Ronald Reagan who headed a ‘conservative’ conference that has (on more than one occasion) hosted itself at a resort named ‘Gaylord’.

A ‘conservative’ conference that is, in the UK, headlining with a lairy, sweary (alleged) ex-convict, who wants to burn people to death in the name of free speech.

The point is that this is all one big, cynical, long-running lampooning joke.

These people are not really conservatives. These events are not platforming real conservative values or real conservative activists. Rather, they are aiming to undermine and unravel conservatism as much as they can, with the ultimate goal of destroying it altogether.

They intentionally make famous banal cartoon characters like Lucy Connolly so that real conservatives will undermine themselves and make themselves look ludicrous by supporting her, as Alistair Williams astutely explained in this short video.

Equally, other high-profile champions of “the right”, like Donald Trump, aren’t real conservatives, and this has been known for decades. Donald Trump - as another comic actor with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame - is just playing the part of crazy, right-wing demagogue, specifically in order to embody all the worst caricaturist features of what left-wingers have always said right-wingers are.

Ditto his deputy, JD Vance. A left-wing atheist until about yesterday, Vance suddenly and dramatically claimed to have swung to the right and converted to Catholicism just in time to head America’s “conservative revival”.

Vance is another one with very strong ties to Hollywood, with his childhood memoir made into a Hollywood blockbuster by (famously left-wing) director, Ron Howard.

Equally, the actor Michael J. Fox, who played the lead role in Ronald Reagan’s favourite TV show, and his favourite film, is also renowned for being left-wing and opposing Donald Trump.

Furthermore, the voluminous villain of the Back To The Future movies, the violent sadist Biff Tannen, is openly modelled on Donald Trump.

The actors, producers, and scriptwriters behind both Hollywood and high-level “politics” are telling us quite clearly what their views really are, and that they are merely lampooning and cosplaying ‘conservatism’ with their high-profile “conferences”, the same way they lampooned Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan in the Back To The Future movies.

This is because the ultimate agenda aims are to make conservatism - and its close cousin, Christianity - appear so completely and utterly repulsive, that we finally reject them for good, and are inducted into the worldwide communist dystopia as laid out in change agent John Lennon’s ‘Imagine‘ (no countries, no religions, no possessions).

The exact trajectory, at least as it unfolds in the UK, is laid out pretty clearly in the BBC predictive programming, ‘Years and Years‘, which charts a “fictional” UK from 2019-2034. Many of its predictions have already come true, and it forecasts the 2027 victory of a “populist right-wing leader” (openly modelled on Nigel Farage) who reveals herself as a villainous crook after putting immigrants in “detainment” (concentration) camps, as Nigel Farage has already promised to do.

So the point of all this cosplaying ‘conservatism’ from people who are really liberal atheists is simply to destroy the conservative Christian ideology for good, by driving it to its most twisted, unpalatable extremes, as laid out in additional predictive programming vehicle, the Handmaid’s Tale.

In this high-profile, big-budget offering, a cadre of cool young conservatives tour American college campuses, trying to convince the youth of the merits of a return to moderate, traditional values. The movement gains traction, but when this faction actually comes to power, they reveal themselves as psychopathic sadists who oppress women and minorities in the most brutal ways imaginable, including punishing homosexuality with death.

Currently, in the press, we have some very high-profile stories about hideous abuse carried out by high-profile homosexuals, and several notable figures such as Rupert Lowe have called for a return to the death penalty.

So, that’s where we’re going: we’re ramping up towards an “arch-conservative” hellscape of a future in the UK and USA, headed by JD Vance and Nigel Farage respectively, where all the worst, most twisted extremes of the conservative position are pushed, until we reach complete catastrophe, the whole thing collapses, and conservatism is abolished for good.

One of the big vehicles they’re using to manipulate perception and to ensure this occurs, and to ensure the electorate vote as desired at the next General Election (as they have just successfully done at the local elections) is all these manufactured, fake “free speech arrests” - the idea that “you can’t say anything” (on Twitter, on a train, wherever) without immediately being apprehended by the local constabulary.

Of course, this is complete nonsense, but “they” need you to believe it, and blame Keir Starmer for it, so you’ll vote for “free speech warrior” Farage - who had Lucy Connolly as the guest of honour at the recent Reform conference - at the next General Election (which I speculate will occur much sooner than summer 2029).

It’s all nonsense. It’s all a show, scripted by the intelligence agencies and performed by actors (quite often literally professional actors) to manipulate us and manufacture our consent. Just as with ‘covid’, the devious social puppet masters never use brute force to ensure compliance, they simply use the might of mass media (including high-profile social media) propaganda, instead - a far more formidable weapon, as the overlords worked out many decades ago.

However, as in keeping with their ‘code’, they always have to tell us what they’re doing (as per predictive programming like Years and Years and The Handmaid’s Tale) and they’re not always subtle...

To refer back to this year’s CPAC conference venue, and previous years’ venues, they are literally telling us that - far from being visionary, pioneering conservative warriors - they’re basically just a bunch of Gaylords...

And, just in case you’re not up to speed with the precise definition of modern-day internet slurs, please allow me to clarify:

“Gaylord” is primarily used as a slang term for a foolish, incompetent, or uncool person. Colloquially, it acts as a derogatory term... often intended to describe someone as effeminate, weak, or generally “lame”.

So, just like they tell us with the Hanta-Pantovirus (’Hanta’ being a Hungarian word meaning ‘nonsense’ or ‘balderdash’), they’re telling us with politics, too.

The question as ever remains, when they tell us who they really are, will we believe them?

Audio: DAVID ICKE EXPOSED

Miri AF — Thu, 07 May 2026 11:32:16 GMT

Regarding the very important truths about the truth movement this attention-grabbing headline reveal…

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version, please see here.

DAVID ICKE EXPOSED

Miri AF — Mon, 04 May 2026 13:18:18 GMT

Okay, I admit it.

I’ve been a bit naughty.

This article isn’t actually about exposing David Icke, but rather, the provocative title is to illustrate a key point about human psychology: that this article will get far more views than my articles normally do, purely due to the “big name” invoked in the title.

Equally, my most popular articles, by some considerable margin, are those centring on “big names” involved in “big events”, namely, the fake assassination of Charlie Kirk, and various members of the Royal Family pretending to have cancer.

Conversely, my articles on far more unfashionable subjects, such as the Amish (although I personally think their sartorial choices have quite the charm), get a fraction of the views or shares.

Is this because my Amish article was less interesting or well-written than the “big name” pieces? No (or at least, I don’t think so, although I’m sure my hate-fans will be quick to correct me if I’m mistaken) - rather, it’s because of how profoundly influenced we all are by what (and who) is perceived as being popular and significant.

When a story - or a person - is amplified by the news media, we pay attention to it, purely by virtue of the fact it is prominent, and regardless of how significant it actually is in reality.

For example, we were all caught up in the whirlwind of the supposed ‘meningitis outbreak“ a few weeks ago, even though precisely two people were reported to have died, which is no different to the meningitis death toll every year, and far more youngsters would have died in the same period in car accidents.

In short, the hysterical headline fanfare given to this meningitis “outbreak” in no way reflected the reality of how serious or significant the situation really was. If it’s not headline news every time a youngster is killed in a car crash (it isn’t), why all the lockstep, crowd-whipping, attention-seeking splash over these particular deaths?

Were the youngsters who apparently succumbed to meningitis more special, more valuable, or more loved than the dozens of children who died in car accidents during the same time period?

Is meningitis (annual death toll: 20-40) more of a threat to the nation than road accidents (annual death toll: over 1,500)?

Obviously not, so this reveals something very interesting to us about how propaganda works, and we can apply it not just to the news media, but to alternative media and “the truth movement”, as well.

In 2020, the social architects in control of all “world events” pulled off one of the biggest psyops of all time, by convincing millions of people of the existence of “a deadly virus” that they needed to inject themselves with poison to prevent - as well as shutting down their businesses, isolating themselves from their family and friends, and engaging in weird rituals, involving saucepans, stickers, and Scotch Eggs.

Obviously, the devious world stage directors behind this farcical production knew it would, to use the twee vernacular, “wake people up”. That was a given, and they counted on it: after all, how could it not? Whilst millions fell for it, millions more saw through it and realised “covid” was simply a media production and psychological operation, not a real pandemic.

So, of course, with a huge contingent of new people suddenly awakened to the fact that their government, and all governments, lie to them outrageously in order to manipulate, poison, and kill them, the establishment knew they had to manage these people. Otherwise, they had a very real risk of revolution on their hands.

Enter stage left, a coordinated cabal of “thought leaders” who all arrived on the social media scene at exactly the same time in 2020, saying all the things the newly awakened were desperate to hear: covid’s a big scam, the government is lying, don’t take the vaccines.

Even though these people appeared from nowhere, they instantly enjoyed significant prominence, visibility, and influence - and not for any clear reason. These weren’t “special” people - celebrities, or “experts”, whose significant visibility and clout would be understandable. They were - so we were led to believe - “just ordinary people”.

Yet ordinary people with massive influence and visibility who were controlling the narrative of the entire “truth movement”...

As someone wrote to me recently [names redacted by me, so as to not confer further publicity on these people]:

Hi Miri

I’m highly suspicious of anyone with an abnormal follower number for the type of content they post. It’s totally inorganic. “Normal people” don’t amass these vast number of followers. You should do one of your deep dives on it 🙂

G___ K___ - 33k followers. How?! Posts nothing of any interest really... Distinctly average account.

N__ A___ - 98k followers?!
An absolutely insane number for a nobody.
Her account also disappeared for ages.

J___ S___ - 254k WTF level. Plenty of celebs have less than this!!
She’s just a woman... Regularly appears on GB News. How and why?!

A___ B___ - 438k
Also regularly on GB News. Seems nice enough, but absolutely insane number of followers.

S___ T____ - 42k. Vile woman. Very rude.

Y___ L___ - 80k

S___ D___ - 90k

F___ - 43k

D___ L___ - 58k

You get the idea: what my correspondent is expressing here is very sensible scepticism about seeming “nobodies” (as in, not celebrities or significantly accomplished people whose high visibility would make sense) getting huge traction and being given huge influence in “the movement”.

Why?

You realise why when you see they all go lockstep on the same agendas, which was first exposed in their reaction to the Lucy Connolly fiasco.

I’m sure regular readers are very familiar with this character, but for newer ones, “Lucy Connolly” is a British woman who allegedly “went to prison for a Tweet”, following writing some intemperate remarks on social media following the fake Southport stabbings.

Many of us smelt a rat about this story at the time, and increasingly felt it smacked of an intelligence agency psyop being used to manipulate the dissident right, and, when we started to express our suspicions, the “thought leaders” circa 2020 all went nuts and started subjecting us to the most extraordinary abuse.

At first, we could make no sense of it. Why had our “friends”, who had been so charming and lovely up to this point, who we had had so much in common with during “covid”, suddenly all turned on us like a rabid (and highly coordinated) dog pack?

Well, now we understand it. It is because the establishment seeded an interlinked unit into the truth movement in 2020 to manage and control the newly awakened class. This unit gained the trust of the newly awakened by saying all the “right things” during covid, and became viewed as authoritative and significant because of how prominent they were, and how popular they were perceived to be - always referencing and backing each other up, to further enhance the idea of an authoritative consensus view.

Hence, whenever one of us not in their gang went off script, they would be tasked with aggressively hounding us with endless smears and insults to try and a) exhaust and demoralise us into silence, and b) make it appear to their huge followings that people challenging their consensus view are crazy, paranoid “maggot c**ts” (as one charmer described Lucy Connolly sceptics, and they as a class are especially fond of the c-word).

I’m writing about them today because their malevolence and manipulations have recently stepped up a gear. They have been particularly abusive and intolerant of different views these last few days (even publicly disseminating “warnings” to those who cross or challenge them, whilst simultaneously calling those people “nuts” and “irrelevant”).

It would, quite frankly, be a completely crazy conspiracy theory to believe the establishment wouldn’t infiltrate and dominate social media in this way.

So it’s important to recognise why and how they do it, in order to immunise ourselves from its effects.

Or, to put it another way, if Lucy Connolly is attacked in an antisemitic terror attack by an illegal Muslim immigrant shouting Allahu Akbar the day before the elections... it’s not real.

AUDIO: It's not the Boomers' fault (by a Millennial)

Miri AF — Sat, 02 May 2026 13:24:36 GMT

If there’s one group of people blamed for everything more than the cabal, the J’s, and even the vegans…. It’s the Boomers.

But is everything really their fault? Or is there yet another divide and conquer psyop at play?

The audio version of this article is above, and for the fully-referenced written version please see here.

It's not the Boomers' fault (by a Millennial)

Miri AF — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:42:15 GMT

As I’m sure we’ve all noticed, you can’t take a proverbial stroll (scroll) through the modern town square - Twitter, Instagram - these days without being accosted by a miasma of memes regarding how Everything Is Terrible, and It’s All The Boomers’ Fault.

The expensive, useless educations, that leave 25-year-olds lumbered with huge debts whilst unable to get a decent job.

The spiralling property prices, and inability of the young to get on the housing ladder.

And, most indicting of all, the crisis of loneliness and isolation, as families shatter and scatter, and more and more of the young fail to form their own.

It’s undeniable that these trends are real: the useless education, the huge debts, the unstable careers, and the increasing failure of younger generations to hit the historically normal milestones of early adulthood - buying a house, getting married, starting a family.

But whose fault really is this?

The dominant, fashionable narrative goes something like this:

The Boomers (named for the post-war ‘baby boom’ that took place 1946-1964) were handed a pristine civilisation of iconic, reel-worthy idealism (we’ve all seen those vintage clips of 1950s London on Twitter), with safe neighbourhoods, strong families, and sealed borders, but they decided to destroy it all for one big sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll extravaganza, whilst opening the UK’s borders up to the entire third world. Meanwhile, they enjoyed free education, stable careers, affordable housing, and overall great lives, essentially gobbling up all the resources and opportunities to leave subsequent generations - particularly Millennials (born 1981-1996) and Zoomers (born 1997-2010) - with nothing.

It’s a nice little story, and it serves well for agitating the endless divide and conquer ‘generation wars’ the ruling classes are forever fomenting (and that didn’t exist prior to the 1950s and the creation of ‘a youth culture’) - but is it true?

Funnily enough, like just about all “official history”, no, it is not.

When evaluating the Boomers, and blaming them for everything, there’s one rather significant detail that is conveniently sidestepped, and it’s this:

Who raised the Boomers, and what had they just lived through?

The Silent Generation, and a world war (or, for some of the older Boomers, The Greatest Generation, and two).

So, Boomers’ parents - young adults starting their families in the late 1940s and 1950s - had grown up in a country torn apart by war. What was that experience like?

It was characterised by “extreme personal hardship“, defined by the Blitz, strict rationing, and deep social shifts. Over 60,000 civilians died in air raids, and life was dominated by blackouts, evacuations, and shortages.

Approximately 384,000 British service members - fathers, brothers, and sons - were killed in combat, leaving hundreds of thousands of families reeling in bereavement, whilst many veterans who did survive were left facing life-changing injuries, both physical and psychological.

When peace was finally declared in 1945, after six years of huge upheaval, loss, and devastation, millions of people were left processing enormous trauma. They were given little or no psychological support in the form we would now understand it, and then they were starting families.

As a consequence, this cohort of people, unsurprisingly, didn’t always create the most warm, nurturing, and loving family homes.

Profoundly shaped by what they had endured in the war, where they had had to contend with all sorts of brutality and deprivation, these generations tended to prioritise the value of hard work and emotional repression, over encouragement or emotional expression.

This meant many of their children - the Boomers - were unhappy at home, and associated family life with coldness and repression, if not outright abuse.

Research indicates that untreated post-traumatic stress disorder in parents who had lived through the war often led to toxic family environments, featuring violence, severe discipline, and significant emotional neglect.

And it was this upon which the conniving social engineers (those who had fomented both the world wars in the first place) leapt upon.

In the late 1960s, when the oldest Boomers were just becoming adults, a trifecta of momentous social reforms were introduced, radically reshaping personal relationships and family life. These were:

The Abortion Act 1967

The Divorce Reform Act 1969

The Family Law Reform Act 1969

Between them, these laws gave society no-fault divorce, legal abortion, and the reduction of the age of majority, when a person is given all the full responsibilities of adulthood, from 21 to 18.

We can hardly blame the Boomers for these laws, given the very oldest of them were only in their early twenties when they were introduced, and the youngest were just five.

The Boomers did not devise or pass these laws (we will get on to who did shortly) but they did enter adulthood profoundly influenced by them, and at a time when they were particularly vulnerable to such influence.

A lot of Boomers had been very unhappy growing up, with parents they experienced as antagonistic towards each other, incarcerated in miserable marriages and with more children than they wanted or could provide for. As such, many Boomers saw these radical new social reforms as the magical solutions to all the deep and scarring problems of family life that they had experienced growing up.

“The family” is itself the problem, Boomers were told - and they believed it. They had seen it, often within their own homes. People trapped in the oppressive institution of marriage because of archaic laws, and saddled with too many babies because of religious superstition.

Now, though, society had pioneering, progressive new laws that would liberate people from the torturous prison of the family, allow them to only have the children they wanted, and this would ensure an incredible, idyllic future where everyone was happy and free!

You can see why the Boomers believed it. They were young and impressionable - and that’s why they were targeted. That’s why the same social engineers that gave us no-fault divorce and abortion, suddenly and dramatically dropped the age of majority from 21 (when brains are close to full maturity) to 18 (when they are still decidedly adolescent). It was to ensure to ensure they had maximal access to malleable minds, and could thoroughly (as subversive social controllers had always sought to do) corrupt the youth - and thus, erode the society.

Nobody suggested to the young Boomers that it was not in fact “the family”, but rather, the people in it, horribly traumatised and broken by brutal world wars, that had created the problems at home - and that broken people who get divorced don’t magically become fixed.

No, nobody mentioned that possibility. It was made emphatically clear: it wasn’t the people that were the problem. It was - as subsequent generations came to dismissively call it - “the piece of paper”. The institution of marriage itself that so confined and damaged people, and that made them behave so destructively. Divorce, therefore, was the magic bullet to happiness.

That transformative tonic hadn’t been available to the Boomers’ poor, miserable parents - but it sure would be to them.

Consequently, many Boomers sincerely believed, when they themselves began divorcing in their hordes in the ‘70s and ‘80s, that they were doing the right, progressive, liberating thing for everyone involved. Not just for themselves, but for their children, too. Because, they perceived, their own childhoods would have been so much happier if only their own warring, unhappy parents had divorced, and set everyone free.

The children of the Boomers, however - Gen X and the Millennials - often saw things rather differently. Suddenly catapulted back and forth between two homes, negotiating new schools and new friends, and with, not infrequently, stepparents and step-siblings thrown into the mix, many of these children reacted by growing up to reject marriage and family entirely - and not necessarily consciously. Rather because, without having observed and grown up within a conventional marriage themselves, it was a “knack” many never learned.

People whose parents divorce are less likely to marry themselves, and more likely to divorce if they do- and societies not founded on lifelong monogamous marriage flounder very quickly. Stabilising societies with marriage has long been identified as been the fundamental underpinning to advanced civilisation.

The social engineers who introduced the social reforms of the 1960s knew all this, of course.

The long-game plot of the social engineers over the twentieth century, which began with two world wars, was to destroy Western civilisation - but not simply by outright killing people. That’s never been the most effective way of permanently overthrowing a society. Rather, they aimed to do it by destroying the social institutions upon which all advanced civilisation has always been based - specifically, marriage and the family. As a certain communist revolutionary is alleged to have said, if you want to destroy society, destroy the family.

The social engineers with this goal in mind therefore had to convince an entire generation that marriage and family were the source of all discord and despair in the world, so they would willingly break up their own - and they did this by brutally traumatising two generations with war, giving them no effective support or treatment to deal with this trauma, and then leaving them to raise children.

Those children (the Boomers) were then targeted when they were very young and vulnerable with radical new social reforms regarding the dangers of marriage and family. They consequently applied these subversive ideologies to their own lives, sincerely believing they were doing the right thing - and here we are today, when marriage and birth rates are at catastrophic lows, and almost all white European groups are at risk of extinction.

This, however, is not the Boomers’ fault: they were weaponised victims, manipulated and played to be instrumental in their own country’s demise in ways they could not possibly have fathomed at the time.

They were, effectively, “bought off” as teens and young adults, by devious social subversives, who offered them tantalising incentives for rejecting historic conventions regarding family formation and ordinary life.

Don’t be boring and stay in your hometown with your family and friends, go off to university instead - it’s free! And you’ll have a really exciting career, not like your boring old parents.

Don’t settle down at 19 with your high-school sweetheart, we’ve got the pill and abortion now, you know, go and have some fun!

There’s no need to suffer through this difficult period in your marriage, unhappy parents are bad for the kids, you know. We’ve got no-fault divorce now, leave your spouse, start again with someone better!

It’s not remotely surprising that many of the Boomers went for all this, and, for a lot of them, it worked out well. They did get the impressive degree, great career, nice house, and plenty of money. The divorce didn’t hit them too hard, they often were happier with a subsequent spouse.

So, they quite understandably handed these same expectations down to their children: leave your hometown at 18 (because, the Boomers thought, imagine how awful their own lives would have been if they hadn’t); enjoy your youth and don’t rush to settle down (because of all the amazing experiences they’d have missed if they had); leave your partner if things aren’t right, life’s too short to be unhappy (they know from experience).

But these expectations were handed down to generations growing up in a completely different climate. By the time the Millennials were going to university in the twenty-first century, they, by and large, weren’t embarking on the first prestigious step of an enriching educational journey that would culminate in a rewarding and dynamic career: more often than not, they were simply acquiring debt, a drinking problem, and joining an over-saturated graduate job market, leaving many of them unemployed or in minimum-wage jobs.

Failing to commit to a partner in young adulthood, as past generations typically did, has left many people permanently single and childless, as availability of suitable partners sharply contracts with age.

And the inability to buy a house has left many stuck in shared houses with strangers, well into their thirties and beyond.

So, while rejecting social mores worked for the Boomers to a certain extent, and they often did enjoy more professionally rewarding and personally fulfilling lives than their parents, when their children and grandchildren tried to replicate these patterns, they have been increasingly left with very little.

What the Boomers were sold was a con. A convincing con, but one that only really “worked” for one generation - and that was designed to only work for one generation - leaving the subsequent ones with a very poor legacy. Not for them the stable careers and nice houses their parents (the Boomers) had. Neither the lifelong marriages and integrated communities their grandparents (the Silent and previous generations) had.

But just transient work, unstable accommodation, and broken or non-existent relationships.

This was always the endgame of the social engineers: to destroy the family, destroy the community, and create the “perfect” isolated consumer-drone who doesn’t have independence through meaningful work, or support through stable family, and therefore is maximally vulnerable to state control.

And to repeat, the social engineers who devised this plan and carried it out were not the Boomers. The Boomers were, for the most part, still at school when all the destructive new social reforms of the 1960s were being put into place.

The Abortion Act, for example, was given to us by “Lord Steel of Aikwood”, who was born in 1938 - nearly a decade older than even the oldest Boomer.

In 2019, said Lord Steel was suspended from the Liberal Democrats over allegations he had helped to cover up the prolific child abuse of MP Cyril Smith.

The Divorce Reform Act, meanwhile, was introduced by Labour MP Alec Jones, who was born in 1924, and was never himself divorced.

So you can see the sorts of people imposing these changes on society were not only not Boomers, but not benevolent champions of oppressed people, either. Decorated and privileged, it’s clear that Lords who cover up child abuse are not motivated by a concern for the vulnerable, whilst MPs who make available no-fault divorce for the masses, whilst enjoying all the benefits of lifelong marriage themselves, must also have their motives exposed to extreme scrutiny.

The point is that if we want to do any finger-pointing, and we most certainly should, these are the kinds of people who ought to bear the brunt of the blame. The specific people who devised, and passed, socially destructive laws that so gutted society, and the shadowy paymasters and handlers who instructed them to do so.

Not the beleaguered Boomers who, at the time all this was happening, had an average age of about fourteen.

They were handed a broken system - one broken entirely by design, in order to have exactly the effects it has had - but they did not create it.

They are victims of the same psychopathically cruel social engineers their parents were, and their children are.

Whether these ruthless predators are trying to destroy a generation with brutal wars, devious social reforms, or mind-controlling screens, their endgame is always the same - ultimate control over the individual - and it’s always achieved by turning us, the victims, against each other, so we don’t unite and identify the real culprits.

It’s not the Boomers. It never was.

It’s the bastards. It always was.

So we mustn’t let them grind us down - or fall into any of their devious, divisive traps.

(Such as blaming my generation for eating too much avocado on toast and consequently not being able to afford a house. I *never* eat avocado on toast, I’ll have to you know. It’s too vegan. Pumpkin spiced lattes, however...)