Breathfaking

I don't usually like talking numbers (when you didn't pass your Maths GCSE until the age of 31, you generally don't...), and I realise mentioning salaries is terribly uncouth and un-English (maybe the Russian lessons are having more impact than I thought?), but I've discovered some particularly salient facts - or rather, figures - that I'd like to bring to your attention...

The salary for an MP in the UK is £86,584 (shocking, scandalous, what the hell do they do for it, etc.).

The salary for the Prime Minister is £164,951 (ditto, times a million, insert string of unprintable expletives, and so on).

The salary for Laurence Fox, meanwhile - unelected leader of a political party that does not accept members nor stand (non-celebrity) candidates - is £250,000.

This was confirmed in Fox's recent libel case, where he declared he earned a "wad of cash" totalling £250,000 per annum for what he described as the "game" of running Reclaim.

Just to be clear, then: the point here is not that Laurence Fox is prodigiously out-earning every other politician in the country (although he is), rather, it is that he is not earning a politician's salary.

Even the top politician in the land is earning substantially less than Fox is, and - whatever Sunak's many and manifold faults (of which we could write an encyclopaedia; as it is, I've just written a couple of articles) - he does actually preside over a party that people are permitted to join and that has elected representatives. As of the latest recorded figures, the Conservative Party has 172,437 members, 349 MPs, and 5,719 councillors.

Reclaim's reciprocal figures, meanwhile, being 0, 0, and 0 respectively, means we can conclude that Laurence Fox is not being paid to run a political party, since a) he doesn't (as it doesn't have members or stand candidates, 'Reclaim' performs no functions of a legitimate political party), and b) because his salary bears no relationship to that of any other politician in the country, including those high-profile enough to be running mammoth operations with tens of thousands of members.

So what, exactly, is Fox being paid so handsomely to do? What possible profession might pay you the whopping sum of £250,000 a year, and is this a role that Laurence Fox might in any way be qualified to undertake?

Well, consider this: Bill Roache - that beloved national treasure, famous for his decades-long portrayal of Coronation Street's Ken Barlow - earns £250,000 a year - exactly the same as flush Mr. Fox.

That's because - and clearly there is no other conclusion to be drawn here - £250k is an actor's salary, not a politician's: it's the amount paid to a seasoned thespian to portray a fictional character on a screen, not the sum awarded to a public servant to front a genuine political movement.

As I've said for many months about Fox: he's not a politician, he's not a formidable freedom fighter, and he's certainly not a free speech champion (as his love of litigation incontrovertibly attests), he's an actor. That's what his professional training is, that's what all his prior work experience is, and so - it's not a great leap of logic to deduce - that is what he is still doing now.

He's playing the scripted part of an outrageous, gaffe-prone, headline-grabbing politician - just as John James did as Joe Biden in 2022's "My Son Hunter" - a film in which Laurence Fox co-starred as the eponymous son.

Because he's an actor. He plays scripted parts. It's not real.

This is crucially important to bring attention to and to fully grasp and understand, because fundamentally, this is what comprises the world stage and so much of what we think of as current affairs and global events - actors reading from scripts, creating an entirely false reality, and convincing us to suspend all critical faculties and invest in it as "real".

What Shakespeare meant by "all the world's a stage and the men and women, merely players" was precisely this: that prominent, newsworthy events that are presented to us as unplanned and organic, are actually tightly scripted, rehearsed scenarios being produced and directed by a hidden hand. These productions are immaculately performed by highly trained actors, with their hypnotic abilities to captivate and mesmerise an audience: to convince them to invest in what they see before them as "real".

And never has that been more transparently revealed than this week, when political commentators, serious journalists, and millions of avid viewers alike, are rapturously gushing over the entirely fabricated and openly fictionalised ITV drama series, "Breathtaking", as if it is real.

Described variously as "deeply sad, often triggering, and authentic" (by The Independent's Sean O'Grady, last seen pushing mandatory jabs for kids), and "shockingly vivid" by The Guardian's Lucy Mangan (who most revealingly opens her article with, "How do you write a convincing drama based on real-life events when so many of those events were utterly unbelievable?"), we are explicitly being told that, even though this is a fictional drama scripted by screenwriters and performed by actors - we should react to it as if it is real.

This is not a new tactic: a friend of mine, who was still at school when it came out in 2011, told me that his entire Geography class was shown the fictional Hollywood movie 'Contagion', as if it were a documentary (and it was seeing this film that prompted me to predict an imminent fake plague, about a year before "Covid" happened, a prediction later ratified by Matt Hancock, who confirmed the UK's "pandemic response" was based on the fictional film).

To be clear, there was and is no "deadly plague", no real-life contagion to be seen, but rather, actors reading scripts on screens convinced the masses that there was - before (Contagion), during ("the news"), and after (Breathtaking).

(Please note that "Boris" is the stage name of actor Alexander Johnson, with "Brand Boris" being described as "a façade resembling that of P. G. Wodehouse's Gussie Fink-Nottle", whilst the character playing the role of "deputy chief medical officer", Jonathan Van Tam, has also starred in BBC drama, Call The Midwife.)

What this - all these actors and all this fictional storytelling - tells us is that this is all performative theatre: an immersive illusion that doesn't exist in reality, but is given credibility by gifted writers and skilled performers pretending that it does.

Let's be very clear on what is happening here: if "Covid" had been a real deadly plague, we wouldn't need fictional TV series starring top dramatic actresses to remind us of this "fact", because we would all have lived it every day. We would all have seen people dropping dead in the streets (just like the early, ludicrously faked, footage coming out of China promised us); our own family members would have started foaming at the mouth whilst sitting on the sofa; whole streets would have been plunged into horror and tragedy as no household was left safe from this cruel and virulent scourge!

But that wasn't anyone's experience at all, was it?

If anyone did get "seriously ill with Covid", it was only in hospital once "treatment" had started (and what was called "Covid" in 2020 was what, in all other years, was called flu - which "mysteriously disappeared" in 2020).

The average household, meanwhile - for the more affluent, at least - comprised perfectly healthy people watching a lot of Netflix and getting fat on furlough, whilst those in more challenging financial circumstances, for whom no furlough was available, carried on working as normal (so, as was astutely observed, lockdown could be more accurately described as "middle-class people hiding whilst working-class people brought them things").

As such, these less privileged people realised very quickly there was no "deadly plague" to be feared, because they were living as normal and they were fine, hence uptake of the vaccine has been vastly lower in working-class communities than in middle-class ones (which bucks all previous vaccination trends, where affluence and higher education have consistently correlated with vaccine scepticism).

In short, people living in the real world and not glued to their screens could see perfectly plainly that there was no deadly disease they needed to protect themselves from, whilst it was the laptop class - those zealously Zooming and dutifully Deliveroo-ing, whilst hermetically sealed off from reality in their Home Counties extensions - who fell for it, entirely because of the compelling nature of what they were seeing on telly.

And let us not forget just how compelling telly is: able to induce an alpha-wave brain state (just as is experienced when one is under hypnosis), messages directed at us from flickering screens, delivered by professional actors, can, ultimately, become far more "real" to us than actual reality, with which - with the rise of work from home and an ever-expanding cornucopia of absorbing screen-based entertainments - we are rapidly losing touch: just as the ruling classes have planned.

The social architects behind "Covid", and every other sensationalist world stage production, have been explicit - the future they envision consists of the masses living our lives entirely online as avatars in the Metaverse, whilst only the moneyed elite enjoy "reality privilege".

They are now very close to realising this vision, when we are in a situation where fictional stories on television, written by screenwriters and performed by soap stars, are discussed by serious social commentators as if they are real.

Those of us who have retained our connection to the real world know very well what the reality of the "Covid" chapter was: empty hospitals, dancing nurses, and patients drugged up and murdered (just as the NHS has been doing for years). There was no "deadly pandemic", no "overburdened NHS", and no dramatic excess death toll (well, not until the vaccine rollout began, at least).

That's the reality and that's why we can't have an actual documentary with real-time footage about the "hell" doctors went through in Covid: because they didn't (or rather, if they did, it was a hell entirely of their own making, created by giving patients lethal cocktails of Midazolam and Remdisivir - referred to by nurses as "run, death is near" - and then finishing them off with "death trap" ventilators).

So, we have to have a performative illusion instead, which is what 'Breathtaking' is, and what many people's experience of life is increasingly becoming.

Ask the average person to name ten people that live on their street and they can't: ask them to name ten soap stars, and give detailed biographical histories of their characters, and they'd have no problem (indeed, even I, who has never watched 'Corrie', know that Ken Barlow was once married to Deirdre, and that there was a national campaign to "Free Deirdre" when the character went to prison).

This is because the foundational mythology and storytelling on which we base our culture (all cultures having always been based on these things) is no longer forming organically within our own communities, based on the real-life experiences and interactions we have, but rather, the story of life and how we make sense of it is being dictated to us by our screens, and the actors who perform on them.

It's very interesting to note that the "memoir" on which 'Breathtaking' is based is written by a professional storyteller: a journalist. Note that the definition of journalist is not someone who reports truthfully or accurately on world events, but merely: "a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites".

Well, a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites can just as easily write fiction, as they often do. The book 'Subverted', written by a former staff writer at Cosmopolitan magazine, explains how the role of Cosmopolitan journalists in the 1960s when she worked there was not to report on reality as it actually was, but instead, to shape it.

The author details how she and her colleagues would make up "case studies" of ambitious, single young women, who eschewed long-term relationships, and instead, cynically slept with their married male bosses to advance their careers. None of these stories were real, but the instructions from the "higher-ups" behind Cosmopolitan - social engineers heavily invested in pushing the sexual revolution - was to depict them as if they were, knowing that impressionable young women would read them, and go on to mimic what they believed the cool, successful women they idolised were already doing.

This is what "journalism" often is: the modelling (normalising) of what the establishment considers desirable behaviour, by depicting fantasy and fiction as if it is real, knowing the audience will go on to repeat it (monkey see, monkey do) - so it's further noteworthy to consider that 'Breathtaking' is not only based on a tome by a journalist, but on a "memoir" - \with memoirs being renowned throughout publishing as often being fictional.

"Wait a minute," you may very well say. "What do you mean the memoir 'Breathtaking' is based on was written by a journalist? Isn't it the memoir of a frontline doctor?"

Well, that's where the story gets very strange...

The author of the text 'Breathtaking' is based on, Rachel Clarke, did subsequently become a doctor - but she began her career in top-tier journalism, working as a producer for Channel 4. Quoting from her website:

"Before going to medical school, Rachel was a broadcast journalist who produced and directed current affairs documentaries, primarily for Channel 4, on subjects such as Al Qaeda, the Iraq War and the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. She began her medical degree in her late 20s, qualifying as a doctor in 2009."

That is, by all accounts, a very unusual biography. Imagine having become successful enough in the extraordinarily competitive world of broadcast journalism to be working in a top job at a national TV station whilst still in your twenties... and then abruptly giving it all up to completely retrain (a very arduous retraining), before you're even 30? (I mean, did she get bored?)

It is, quite simply, a highly unlikely trajectory. For a start, just 4% of medical students in the UK are mature students (over 21), and I'm prepared to bet that the percentage of that 4% who abandoned high-octane, well-paid TV careers to spend seven years living as a pauper in medical school is infinitesimally small to the point of being non-existent.

Is it not more plausible, then, that - rather than throwing away a hugely lucrative, glamorous. and coveted career to do something far more stressful and far less well-paid - Clarke actually didn't do that at all, but rather, is still a journalist, merely one working undercover: posing 'as a doctor' to get the scoop?

Or rather, in this instance, to confect the scoop?

We could not rely on an authentic doctor to produce a "memoir" about the "hell" that was Covid, because that narrative is not real.

We could, however, rely on a professional journalist (storyteller), with deep establishment connections, to do so.

Clarke may very well have undergone real medical training to enable her to perform convincingly in her role (just as actors will often undergo various types of professional training to make their performances convincing), but it certainly is not beyond the realms of possibility to consider she is an intelligence asset in a long-form undercover role (much, indeed, as it very much appears the Prime Minister is).

The crossover between 'journalism' and intelligence agencies is immense, with very many high-profile journalists having intelligence ties (including, topically, Tucker Carlson), whilst the role of the medical and pharmaceutical industries is central to many world stage dramas (and surgery is, after all, referred to as 'theatre'). So it's not really that far-fetched to imagine an intelligence-asset journalist working undercover as a doctor, so said asset can write fictitious "memoirs', with the veneer of credibility, from which social engineering vehicles like 'Breathtaking' can spring.

In fact, it would be more surprising if there weren't undercover intelligence assets working within the medical and pharmaceutical industries, than if there were. The establishment does relentlessly infiltrate all significant aspects of society to gain intelligence on their inner workings, so it would be naive to assume this didn't apply to medicine also.

Please note that Rachel Clarke did her first degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (the irony that the acronym for this course is 'PPE', of the sort she later went on to claim could save the world from a deadly plague, is not lost on me), at the University of Oxford. This is known to be prime hunting ground for MI5. PPE at Oxford was also the degree course undertaken by Rishi Sunak, who bears all the hallmarks of a spook.

So that's where we are: we have intelligence-backed establishment scriptwriters (journalists, memoirists, screenwriters) fabricating theatrical illusions, and then actors performing them, to sculpt what we see as "reality".

So powerful and influential are these actors - so able to literally spellbind (note that 'Hollywood' is named after the Holly tree, the wood of which was traditionally used by wizards to make wands) - that they are paid extravagantly well, and far more than the authentic professionals doing the jobs that actors mimic.

Not only is Laurence Fox, an actor playing a politician, paid substantially more than any actual politician, but so too is Joanne Froggatt, a soap star playing a doctor, paid enormously more than any actual medic.

That's because actors know how to make their performances far more engrossing that dreary old reality; they immerse us entirely, captivating all our senses, whilst requiring absolutely nothing from us in return, not like difficult and complex real people who expect something back.

That's why society has made the tradition so seamlessly from talking to our neighbours, to watching fictional 'Neighbours' on television.

That's why the social engineers are able to hoodwink people into investing in the 'Breathtaking' illusion they see on their screens, rather than the objective reality that there was no "plague" in the real world.

And that's why those bankrolling Laurence Fox assume they can control and neutralise the opposition by having us invest all our attentions in this theatrical illusion of a "political crusader", rather than getting genuinely politically active ourselves.

It's all about keeping us glued to the screen and the performative mirage that the ruling classes control, and out of the real world, where their full dominance control is lost.

They don't want us meeting in person, they don't want us forging real human connections, and they certainly don't want us organising and strategising a genuine grassroots resistance. That's why they closed all the venues where people might meet through lockdown (pubs, restaurants, coffee shops), whilst allowing you to order as much fast food and booze as you liked to your home: e.g., it wasn't about your health.

So in conclusion, one of the most rebellious, activist, revolutionary things you can possibly do is to close this screen, walk out of your front door, and talk to real people (but please do consider sharing my website link with them too..!).

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly here or via Patreon

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you. 

Find Miri AF on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter (posting as Informed Consent Matters)