Burqas, bodies, and bombshells: Bumper catch-up special!

When I was on The Delingpod most recently, host James asked me to confess what my "guilty secret" was where it came to throwaway TV that we know we shouldn't be watching, but shamefacedly watch anyway.

I don't watch much screen-based content, as I detailed in my last article, but I do watch a little, and I was prepared to admit to James that I sometimes watch Friends... although it was an admission I didn't feel too bad about, as the primary reason I watch Friends is because it is such a valuable resource of "clues", regarding social engineering and how the ruling classes wish to shape the narrative.

However, in reality, I wasn't entirely honest with James: my guiltiest TV secret is not in fact Friends, but...

Brace yourselves...

Teen Mom.

Yes, I'm afraid it's true. Originally called '16 and Pregnant', the show debuted on MTV in 2009 to chart the lives of teenagers facing unplanned pregnancies, intending to show young audiences how such a scenario would ruin their lives, and hence put them off it.

As successive stars of 16 and Pregnant went on to become top celluloid celebrities, dominating all the talk shows and gossip columns, it didn't really have that effect, but it did attract a kind of cult following, as the "sculpted reality" scenarios its stars faced became ever more ridiculous (as, indeed, did their children's names).

The original series spawned several offshoots, following new pregnant teenagers, so it quickly became impossible to keep on top of the storylines by trying to watch all the episodes, which I've long since given up doing (you'll be pleased to know).

However, I do occasionally check in to an "aggregate" Teen Mom news site, which summarises all the major (and minor but interesting) storylines and plot twists that have happened in the Teen Mom franchise that season.

So, taking inspiration from that approach, I'm going to have a go at "aggregating" all the plot twists and shock stories in the world stage soap opera this week, as there have been been so many that a separate article for each would be as challenging as expecting one of the Teen Moms to give their children sensible names (latest arrivals: Ja'Kharie and Ja'Meikah, following Gannon, Broncs, and - I kid ye not - Jaxie. Yes, there are five good reasons right there why teenagers shouldn't have babies...)

And now, for a recap and analysis of all you might have missed this week in the grand global deception of the world stage soap opera...

Should we impose more bans for our freedom?

One of the hot debates this week, which rears its (partially or fully obscured) head every so often, was the question of whether the 'burqa' - the Islamic garment that covers women from head to toe, fully obscuring their face (the similar 'niqab' leaves an open slot for the eyes) - should be banned.

I am not a fan of these garments - neither the burqa or the niqab - which many women in my locality of Huddersfield wear, and I would rather that they didn't, not least because I am well aware that a large percentage of them are coerced, threatened, or outright forced into wearing them.

Coercion and force are, of course, deeply wrong, and that is regardless of whether these things are coming from one's own community, or from the state.

Hence, I am completely opposed to the state ordering women not to wear burqas, for the same reason I am opposed to their families ordering them to wear them.

Coercion is wrong, in all its guises, and no person or authority should have the right to tell another human being what they may or may not wear. Private businesses can obviously impose dress codes, and many do ("no trainers" etc), but when it comes to your own personal life and perambulating about the community, what you wear is up to you and is nothing to do with the state.

So, if you are in favour of a burqa ban, let me ask you how far you would take it?

We are told that people shouldn't be able to wear burqas because they obscure the face.

Well, so - I have been frequently told - do hats.

I am a great hat fanatic (the world was a better place when we all wore hats, don't you think?), and often sport items of headwear when I visit pubs.

On at least four different occasions, I have been instructed by a member of staff to remove my hat "for security reasons", i.e., they believe my face is not visible enough on CCTV with my hat on.

I have always refused to remove my hat, because I am not in the habit of removing items of clothing because random strangers tell me to, and nor do I wish to be more visible on CCTV.

I am not a criminal, I have no criminal record, and we are not in a Minority Report situation where I "might" commit a crime (as "might" anyone), therefore my face has to be fully available to the surveillance state "just in case".

If you think the state is debating banning the burqa for any other reason than aggressively corralling people into ensuring they are fully identifiable to state surveillance equipment at all times, please think again. It's simply about getting the public behind increased state surveillance by pretending it's about "liberating women".

And if you think such a ban would stop with the burqa, you may also wish to reconsider that position.

If the burqa is banned, it throws open the door for a "state approved dress code", one which ensures faces are always "optimally visible", which could easily entail a ban on hats, sunglasses, face warmers, Halloween masks, children's face paint, and frankly, even make-up. After all, heavy make-up users look completely different without it on, and therefore, it could be argued that make-up obscures the identity almost as much as a face covering does, so if we're banning one, why not the other?

This is why bans are never the way to freedom. Never, ever. Whether you choose to bear your face entirely as nature intended; partially obscure it with make-up, sunglasses, or hats; or cover it entirely with a burqa, is, and always should be, entirely up to you.

We also have to remember the fact that the ruling classes openly wish to foment a war between the Islamic East and the Zionist West, and agitating Islamists by banning their religious garb would be a transparently obvious example of "shots fired" to try and provoke the Islamists into firing back, which, of course, they would.

When you ban things, this inevitably causes their proponents to double down on their position and fight back harder to defend the banned thing. Banning books, for instance, imbues them with more mystique and hence people become far more interested in reading them. We saw a recent example of that with the "banned" New Yorker Lucy Letby article. Obviously, such a high-profile "ban" increases clamour ten-fold to read it, which was exactly what happened with the Letby article (which was subsequently un-banned).

It's the old "forbidden fruit" syndrome, and don't think our ruling classes, past masters in human psychology, aren't fully aware of it.

If they genuinely wanted to stop Muslim women wearing burqas, they could adopt the same enormously successful strategies they used to stop Christian women wearing head coverings, which many of them used to do, in the form of head scarves. You never see that now, and it's not because these items were "banned", it's because the ruling classes used tactics that actually worked to convince women to dispense with head coverings, and to generally change the way they dressed. Both men and women dress completely differently now than they did 100 years ago, and that's not because of any clothing ban.

So, bans don't work, are antithetical to freedom, and, whenever the state threatens to ban anything "for our freedom / safety", there's always a nefarious reason (or twelve) behind it.

As Henry Makow says, whenever the ruling classes do anything, there are always two reasons for it:

1. The reason given to the public to make it palatable, and

2. The real reason.

The world's most famous non-covered up cover up making the news again

It's been a good three or four weeks since she last hit the headlines, so, like clockwork, Madeleine McCann - world's most famous missing child (indeed, world's ONLY famous missing child) is back in the press.

The police have decided to dig up the Algarve again, "looking for clues", and this predictable pantomime is just a way of keeping Madeleine's name in the headlines in the build up to the grand finale of this very long running crime abduction drama.

Newer readers may not be aware of my theory of what really happened to Madeleine McCann, but in short, I believe the whole scenario was a staged, scripted psyop from the start, and that the "the parents killed her and covered it up" theory is a red herring planted on purpose to mislead those of a conspiratorial disposition. Please read my full theory for why I think this is.

The media is always throwing out new red herrings and plot twists to keep us engaged in the action, the latest theory being that Madeleine was accidentally killed by a drink-driver who panicked and hid the body.

This is, quite literally, a storyline straight out of child abduction drama, The Missing.

In this fictional drama, five-year-old British toddler, Ollie, suddenly goes missing one night whilst holidaying abroad with his parents. He is hit by a drunk driver, who assumes he has killed Ollie and bundles his body into the car meaning to dispose of it.

However, when he gets home, he finds Madeleine, I mean Ollie, still alive...

That's literally the plot of the show, which would appear to be very obvious predictive programming to make it "plausible" something similar might have happened to Madeleine.

The Missing is left on an ambiguous cliff-hanger when, many years later, it is still not entirely clear what has happened to Ollie, and whether he is still alive, in another country, living under a different name...

You may recall that, recently, a young woman from another country named Julia Wendell has been claiming to be Madeleine McCann.

Although these claims were initially dismissed (after the press obligingly made her famous first), a new DNA test allegedly revealed the strong possibility of a close genetic tie, of the parent-child type, to Gerry McCann.

Julia flew over to the UK in February to meet a friend, where, it is claimed, she was promptly arrested for "stalking the McCanns" and remanded in custody. At her initial trial, she pled not guilty, meaning there will be a further trial in October, at which the McCanns will be required to give evidence.

Will this include the DNA evidence Julia has long been pleading for and which they have consistently - and inexplicably - refused to give?

Will scapegoat, "Christian B", who the press keep accusing of murdering Madeleine with no evidence, sensationally storm into the courtroom - his current prison sentence conveniently ending in September, the month before Julia and the McCanns are due in court - and declare, pointing a trembling finger at Julia:

"Alright, I admit it, I took Madeleine... But I DIDN'T kill her... and there she is!!"

Did he accidentally hit her with his car, panic and assume she'd died, only to realise later she was still alive?

Did he fear, with his criminal history, that police wouldn't believe his story of "accidentally hitting her" and charge him with abduction?

Did he therefore sell her to a desperate childless couple in order to cover his tracks?

What great crime drama writing that would be!

And on the subject of great crime drama writing...

Elon drops bombshell revelation that Trump is in the Epstein files!

Which, of course, Trump isn't, because there are no Epstein files. It's just another scripted show.

Needless to say, there are very real paedophile rings all over the world, and which involve high ranking members of the political elite: but the public knows nothing about them. They aren't plastered all over the headlines, their ringleaders made into household names.

If Elon Musk had real evidence that Trump was a predatory paedophile, and threatened to share it, the security services would just have him killed. He claims to be worried about assassination (that's why he purportedly puts his toddler son on his shoulders during press interviews, to stop snipers from taking him out), but isn't worried that smearing the world's most powerful man might endanger his life? Or that of his family's?

Talking of his family, why was he so happy to repeatedly entrust the care of little X to an evil paedophile like Donald Trump?

Yeah, doesn't really add up, does it?

That's because this is all pretend play-acting and part of the show.

The whole Epstein scenario stinks to high heaven of "psyop", its "victims" mere actors, a scenario that became an even more likely possibility with the supposed suicide of Virginia Giuffre.

As I've argued at length before, the global machine does not promote to high prominence real, organic events, because it lacks control over situations and people that are not controlled and contracted. The Epstein storyline appears to have been concocted to give an easy way to discredit and dispose of all world stage characters who are no longer required, perhaps because they have reached retirement age and so are keen to fly off to the luxury island and enjoy their dotage under a new identity, just as appears to have happened to Special Agent TV Doctor, Michael Mosley (who "died" the moment he reached retirement age of 67).

I have been theorising for some time that the elderly Donald Trump's presidency would come to a premature end, and that he would be replaced by the much younger JD Vance, as it's obvious it is JD who the puppet masters really want in place.

Donald Trump was therefore basically used as a Trojan Horse to get JD in. Almost completely lacking in political experience, and only 39 years old at the time he was selected as VP, obviously Vance would have had no chance of being elected president himself, so the way-past-retirement-age Trump agreed to come back for a brief encore performance, before swiftly exiting stage left to make way for JD.

Admittedly, I thought the way the Trump character would be disposed of would be via a fake "assassination", blamed on Iran, but it appears the scriptwriters are going for the "bombshell revelations" approach to discredit him instead, which I guess is quite clever.

If Trump had been killed off, it would have martyred him and there might not have been much enthusiasm for JD, a bitter consolation prize who could never measure up to perfect hero saviour, Trump.

But if Trump is totally discredited and "revealed" as a predatory paedophile, his supporters will immediately be looking for a new hero-daddy, and will be only too happy to get behind the clean-cut (albeit bearded) family man, JD.

There have long since been many rumours surrounding Trump and his past proclivities and dalliances, but there are no such rumours about JD. His public image has been very carefully cultivated to avoid that, not least including a heart-rending biopic charting his struggles through terrible adversity to truly achieve the American dream...

I mean, who could embody American values more than a disadvantaged boy from the wrong side of the tracks who battled against all the odds to not just succeed... but to become the President of the United States?!

It's a far more gripping backstory than Trump's "born rich, stayed rich" narrative, and I think the scriptwriters behind Mr Vance are about to plunder it for all it's worth...

Ultimately, this is all just a scripted show, "sculpted reality", just like Teen Mom, even including the weird names (worse, actually, because at least the Teen Mom kid names are vaguely pronounceable, whereas Elon's offspring...).

As if to confirm the above, note that, upon sharing these "revelations" about Trump, Elon Musk Retweeted:

"The world's greatest fiction writers couldn’t have conceived of a timeline like this."

Elon shared this soundbite with his 220 million global followers, simply adding a laughing face.

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 at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

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 (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

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