I've never actually made either of these declarations before, but I'm so often accused of having done so by my critics that I thought I may as well use the clickbait...
Yet again an exceptionally well written and researched article Miri. I spent a while the other day trying to find online photos of the Connellys and there was nothing I could find other than the published two (this was before her interviews).
Thank you, Susie, and yes, this is a key point: they've supposedly been married for 16 years and had at least two children together (Ray isn't always sure how many), but there are almost no photos of them together, and the very small handful that exist appear photoshopped. No wedding pics? No photos from kids' birthdays, holidays, and other family milestones? It's all rather strange indeed.
Miri you need to get yourself an online shop and start releasing your slogans on t shirts & mugs. Now that's a message I would wear & normally I poo poo all that stuff. Keep sticking two fingers up at the establishment!
Re your comment " the ruling classes are far more likely not to utilise real events for high-profile propaganda purposes, but instead, to script and stage them”, have you seen that YouTuber Simon Webb has a recent video asking if the British government is preparing for a mass-casualty event involving 700 simultaneous deaths? He posted a link to a contract published on 18 August 2025 by the government for mortuary equipment to be used "in the event of a major incident resulting in a large number of fatalities which could overwhelm existing body storage capacity”… https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/6bc9c974-d864-4f8f-9d02-024c03ea6d49
Thank you Jake, I had caught wind of this and will look into it further. I seem to recall similar things during "Covid", so they may be aware of some upcoming reason for a sudden spike in excess deaths.
Wow. These could be for the people who run into the road when project bluebeam kicks in during rush hour. I did spend at least a few hours worrying about that when I first woke up. I do think holograms in the sky could cause all sorts of road traffic accidents but I'm not sure it's likely anymore. Death by a thousand cuts seems more probable not a glamourous fake alien invasion.
"Everything is a psyop and everyone is fake" ... AND they let you know it is.
That's what gets me. People getting on their high horse about claiming everything's a psyop when they let you know. They tell you with their Revelation of the Method rule ... and you catalogue all the glaring anomalies, Miri, exposing that rule, admirably. Good on you for all the research you've done. If they wanted to make it much more difficult to determine the fakery of Lucy and Southport they could have done a much better job.
The just-out-of-prison behaviour and images are often a giveaway - Chelsea Manning supposedly served a 7 year sentence during which she we are told she spent quite a lot of time in solitary. She was released in 2017 and feted in Out Magazine's Out100 of 2017 as Newsmaker of the Year. Does it look remotely look like she suffered what they said she did?
Thank you, Petra, and you are absolutely right - they make their psyops obvious on purpose. They could make them much more convincing. If you look at any well-crafted film or TV series, the plot will be watertight and you won't get all these glaring anomalies and holes. There may be the odd minor continuity error (such as the example I often cite, Rachel's birthday and star sign changing in Friends), but they won't get key, fundamental details wrong, or keep changing them.
So what they do with psyops is indeed Revelation of the Method, but it's also about humiliation and control. We are meant to agree things are real even when we know they're not. "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." (George Orwell, 1984)
Oh yeah it's totally about humiliation and control.
"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Petra I find it very strange that you completely understand the “revelation of the method” and yet still bang on about the “fake fake moon landings”. I struggle find a more glaring example of the revelation of the method than the moon landings. Buzz “accidentally” took the first photo on the moon of the “jet bag”, basically a bag of sh*t. I mean come on, you have to stop with your moon nonsense Petra. Its weird.
Mary, Buzz is a 33 degree Freemason and may well be part of the “we didn't go to the moon” propaganda campaign - I do find it strange the way he said in response to the little girl “we didnt go there” - in context he means “again” but i find it weird he doesn’t say “again”. Obviously the astronauts were in on certain lies such as the fake Apollo 13 explosion and pretty sure Apollo 1 was just a drill in managing the eventuality of astronauts dying - going to take a closer look at it - and then Challenger of course. So it's certainly not all truth when it comes to space or even specifically Apollo, however, the evidence says they went to the moon regardless - and what weird thing an astronaut says doesn't prove they didn't.
We certainly see RoM with the “we didn't go” campaign particularly in the first moon hoaxer, Bill Kaysing, as I explain in my post on him. And even the propagandist in my most recent post refers to Thomas Baron (the guy who allegedly died in a train accident shortly after he presented a report on the Apollo 1 tragedy) speaking of a glue stick when he allegedly died 2 years before they were invented. Don't think he died either - he's one of those “suspicious” deaths pushed out for the disbelievers. Actually I think it's a definite - Apollo 1 was faked.
Hum. You are consistently inconsistent I'll give you that! :-)
Search for "jettison bag photograph" you'll find it. Oh how they laugh at us. Its details like that that seal the deal for me, I did all my "intersecting shadows, van Allen belts, telemetry data" research, I know it all inside out as it was the psyop that woke me up (late to the party I know) but the first photo from the moon being a bag of sh*t? Case closed! Ha!
So I found the jettison bag photograph. Where's the issue?
The "jettison bag photograph" refers to AS11-4-5850, the first photograph taken by Neil Armstrong on the Moon's surface, which shows a jettison bag containing waste and packaging under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) descent stage. These bags were crucial for keeping the LM cabin free of trash and were discarded during the mission to manage space and weight for the return journey.
I couldn't agree more with you, Mary, that they laugh at us ... but to me it's the other way around about what they laugh at us for with the moon landings.
The missing telemetry data, the impassability of the Van Allen Belts, the non-parallel shadows, the missing stars in the photographs, astronauts' movements controlled by wires, missing blast crater, astronauts should have sunk deep into the lunar dust, flag waving - all these bogus anomalies have been put forward by the "we didn't go to the moon" propagandists starting with 'ol Billy Kaysing.
They have all been roundly debunked.
Why don't disbelievers actually look up the claims that supposedly say we didn't go and see what the explanations are. It's like they have an absolute ALLERGY to doing due diligence. I mean that's what I did from the beginning: I saw "flag waving" - looked it up; "stars missing from the photographs" - looked it up; - "missing blast crater" - looked it up; "non-parallel shadows" - looked it up.
Disbelievers don't look up any of these claims up to see if there's a reasonable explanation for them or not.
I disagree. Most non believers do look up the explanations for the inconsistencies as being a moon landings denier puts you in a position to me ridiculed and nobody likes that. Let's leave it there, and marvel at how a bag of sh*t ended up "accidentally" being the first photo taken on the moon.
I hadn't been aware of this person until reading your recent articles. and so I watched the interview with Pearson. She couldn't stop smiling, dupers delight. And what did she have to smile about?
interesting, I hadn't noticed that. Pearson is such a dissembler she must get confused about what face to put on. Ten years ago, she was a gigantic snob like most of the MSM, but now look at her. the Bestie mate of the proles.
Lockdown introduced me to the Podcast, and one of the first was 'Planet Normal'. Dame Alison P by her own admission was not used to this type of thing, but became far more fluent and comfortable with broadcasting in a matter of weeks.
That was in stark contrast to the stilted delivery during the L of Nowhere interview. In addition, she clearly read from the raft of notes before her. That's very odd given the number of articles she has written about this subject.
I was quite pleased when I saw Lucy was going LIVE! I chuckled and said to my wife, “oh good!”. The marvelous Miri will be bombarded with so much annoying material that I’ll get to enjoy another article almost back to back.
With moar and moar tools of surveillance “they” can perpetually keep a finger to the pulse of public reaction. Allowing them to make constant tweaks to any absurd narrative. Wild.
Were it not for the Naomi Wolf video and other staged past events (9/11,JFK, 7/7,Trump assassinations etc) I would think the staging of the killing of the 3 girls is an impossibility. To imagine it otherwise is truly frightening. The horror and depravity of the mind behind it is utmost evil.
Almost worst still are the public figures you mention, TR, NF, AP, DW and even LTY. We could add Matt Goodwin as Alex K has uncovered.
Quote from Andrew Bridgen (who you say is fake) seems spot on. Starmer is deliberately breaking the country in order to force a backlash, after which he could invoke Blair's Civil Contingencies Act 2004. This act allows the the de-facto imposition of martial law, the seizing of property and assets, the freezing of bank accounts and the cancellation of elections.
Most importantly, the act does not preclude the utilisation of foreign "persons" should the "emergency" so demand. Such "persons" could be from NATO, the UN, EuroGendFor (Europe's paramilitary force) and Interpol.
I strongly suspect a 250k strong UN army is already here, strategically garrisoned across the country. I also note Starmer will soon allow Blackrock to take over three main British ports. It need hardly be said that those who control the ports control the safe passage of containers bulging with smuggled AK-47s and such like.
Blair's Civil Contingencies Act 2004 simply needs an "emergency" in order to enforce genuine totalitarianism, backed up by foreign soldiers. If we had patriotic senior military officers we would not be in this catastrophic position.
I don't think it's likely. The 250k army. I have tried to wake up my brother gently over the last 12 months, he is what Miri points out is a white native fighting age man. He has categorically told me... 'if I see trouble outside my door, I'm out there and fighting but if not then I don't care". They will never rouse the fighting spirit of the nations men by imposing martial law. It will be death by a thousand digital cuts.
The psyop extends into all sorts of things. Last week Stellantis did a pan-European recall for 72000 vehicles due to a potential fuel system leak on the engine. It was punted via social media, poorly detailed by the recall systems (72000 vehicles over a total of 2 years out of 350000... makes no sense) and disappeared.
Its a good example of real news being buried. It's done with energy, air travel, water companies and more.
The tell-tale is the uniformity of reportage across MSM and complete lack of detail. Which makes me think, why now? Who gains?
On this subject, but admittedly perhaps tangentially related, I would be very grateful to hear your views on the St George's Cross and Union Jack current campaign. My husband is super keen on it and says it's about being proud to be English (and no, I do not understand what exactly he means by that) and I cannot look at a flag and see it as about anything bar state violence, unless it's an international sports game, in which case I associate it with domestic violence (but that might be because I lived in NZ for 12 years and EVERYONE knows when NZ looses at Rugby, lots of women get beaten-up).
So, that's my view, I would be SO grateful to hear yours!
I think it's about further demonising white, right-wing Britons as "flag shaggers", "gammons" and all the other pejoratives, in a bid to ultimately destroy the right wing. If you look at any of the predictive programming (the film 'Civil War', the TV show 'Years and Years'), white, right-wing patriots are always depicted as low IQ vicious brutes, whilst immigrants, POCs, gays and so on are shows as intelligent, sensitive, moral, etc. The aim of the ruling classes is to conflate "white right wing" so entirely in people's minds with "thick lawless thug" (think Tommy Robinson) that people ultimately call for this faction of people and these type of beliefs to be destroyed. It's also part of the agenda to destroy countries (as per John Lennon's Imagine) because "look what awful violence erupts in the name of people being loyal to their country's flag". The NWO wants no countries, no religions, no possessions, and the way it intends to get this is to show all these things as being the cause of all the hostility, division, violence and hate in the world - just as Imagine says.
While I think, given the current state humanity is in, you are right that destroying things like countries, religion and possessions would be harmful, I am looking forward to the point that everyone takes responsibility for themselves, sees themselves as guardians rather than owners of their property and we can do away with large bodies that try and control adults.
The long bit:
That seems probable. I am slightly conflicted on the issue of nation states and flags as I have been learning more about how countries protect us - not from innate issues with humanity, but from other forms of exploitation (e.g. other countries, corporations and NGOs). However, this reminds me of a friend who was brought up by a very violent alcoholic father who was also warm and loving to her and a cold, unaffectionate mother who never was. When she was older she got into a relationship with a man who was violent to her and, when her mother came calling and saw she had a black eye, she left without saying anything. Her father then kidnapped the boyfriend and buried him in the sand up to his neck at lowtide at a remote beach. Fortunately, a dogwalker found him and helped him escaped after which he quickly ended the relationship with her. I found this all very strange because I thought "if he's happy to beat you up when you are a child, why does he object so much to your boyfriend doing the same to you as an adult?". But he clearly did and, while I don't understand why, he was clearly keen to prevent anyone else from beating her up. That's a little what I feel like being a citizen of a country is.
At the same time, I think they are too big, largely infantilise the population and, clearly, create perverse incentives for behaviour with ridiculous legislation (not to mention war - I just don't like that aspect of flags and nationalism AT ALL!).
However, if you move quickly enough, you can generally not only do what you want to do, but be supported in doing it. Governments are very slow to respond - their timeframe tends to be months to years, if not decades. A small group of committed individuals' timeframes can be days to weeks; they have a massive agility advantage.
A lot of the time when people are suffering within a government-created situation, I think "the rules have changed, you need to change/adapt/evolve". And, if you do that, they can be more of a help than a hinderance.
I am still very much more drawn to situations in which everyone is negotiating their own relationships with each other and, while considering the perspectives of others, honouring their own experience of and relationship with the person.
For example, at work, there is a guy who is gay and just feels totally at liberty to be an arsehole to certain women. It's something he turns on and off - super friendly one minute, total bitch the next and he hides his total bitchiness from anyone he doesn't want to see it (like the lovely gay programme manager who signs off his timesheets/decides whether his contract is extended). I knew there was no one at work I could have this conversations with, but I called a male friend of mine whose partners have mainly been men and discussed it with him and he *immediately* knew what I meant. I then spoke to another woman who has has the same sort of experience with him but (as it's massively to her financial advantage that I get on with him) she basically said "come on, play the game" (I can be a bit like "Honey Bunny" at the beginning of Pulp Fiction at times and, if you meet me, this is easy to discern).
So, I decided to reflect on the situation and thought about it from his perspective. I know this behaviour is driven out of jealousy. I know jealousy can be such a corrosive and dehimanising force. I know he'd love to have some of the things this other woman and I have. I also know that I haven't been jealous of people that much since I was a teenager, but that when I was a teenager, I was jealous of almost everyone (I had very bad acne for a girl and I was jealous of everyone with better skin, which was about 99% of the girls - and I REALLY felt for that other 1%!).
So I get it. And I get that being jealous as an adult is a very occassional experience for me and I realise, as a Hare Krishna person once said to me "once you accept it, jealousy becomes love". So, I am grateful I am not currently being debilitated by that issue. However, it's still zero fun having someone be an arsehole to y
Anyway, I started to think about how I could effectively engage with this guy. He's like a plant that needs small and regular watering. So, as long as I do that, he's fine. Also, he is quite funny and I can have a laugh with him, so it's not like engagement with him is dull and painful, he's just someone with whom I can't be that open/vulnerable.
Then I was thinking about what this means in the context of friendship. I had this conversation with my brother when we were teenagers and his view was "a friend is just someone you like". I knew what he meant, but I knew that wasn't right for me. For me, a friend is someone who wants the best for me and whom I want the best for. I can enjoy a lot of other people's company and collaborate with people on projects, but they are not friends.
Ideally, I'd like all my relationships to be managed within this sort of autonomy and boundaries. I might well want this colleague to change if I open myself up to him, but, if I don't and remember he's not my friend, his behaviour really isn't my problem. And I'd really like it if everyone was doing this. I understand that children need a framework to grow-up in so they can operate in the world prior to being fully-formed human beings capable of this sort of autonomy, but I think parents can do that without civil servants, priests or politicians. Yes, we need relationships and we need a tribe, but we can all shape that using our own discernment. I get that it's easy to connect with someone when you are working from a place of "we are both x" (where x can be a woman, or a Christian or English) but, really, I find the most important thing is my direct experience of connecting with them and what boundaries I need. So, helpful as national boundaries probably right now, I think (as my parents like/liked - only one is alive saying) when it comes to all people "there is more that unites than divides".
Phew. There's a lot there Rosie. Lets go over that when I see you. Miri, you need to know that Rosie and I have met IRL as a result of being your subscribers. Substack platonic dating! Turns out that Rosie and I work 100m from each other. What wonderful serendipity.
That is a good point. I was at the protests in NZ and they were very messy in terms of placards and people - I quite liked it!
I am currently reading "The Hare with the Amber Eyes" and I am at the point where there's overt anti-Sematism and nationalism. It definitely feels similarly unhealthy!
Yet again an exceptionally well written and researched article Miri. I spent a while the other day trying to find online photos of the Connellys and there was nothing I could find other than the published two (this was before her interviews).
Thank you, Susie, and yes, this is a key point: they've supposedly been married for 16 years and had at least two children together (Ray isn't always sure how many), but there are almost no photos of them together, and the very small handful that exist appear photoshopped. No wedding pics? No photos from kids' birthdays, holidays, and other family milestones? It's all rather strange indeed.
Just like Antifa boy, Mr Tricky Dicky of Dartford.
Miri you need to get yourself an online shop and start releasing your slogans on t shirts & mugs. Now that's a message I would wear & normally I poo poo all that stuff. Keep sticking two fingers up at the establishment!
That's a great idea, acki, I will look into it! My shop will of course also stock a range of hats, including in tin foil...
Re your comment " the ruling classes are far more likely not to utilise real events for high-profile propaganda purposes, but instead, to script and stage them”, have you seen that YouTuber Simon Webb has a recent video asking if the British government is preparing for a mass-casualty event involving 700 simultaneous deaths? He posted a link to a contract published on 18 August 2025 by the government for mortuary equipment to be used "in the event of a major incident resulting in a large number of fatalities which could overwhelm existing body storage capacity”… https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/6bc9c974-d864-4f8f-9d02-024c03ea6d49
Thank you Jake, I had caught wind of this and will look into it further. I seem to recall similar things during "Covid", so they may be aware of some upcoming reason for a sudden spike in excess deaths.
"The core requirement will be at least 450 fatalities including bariatric and/ or fragmented fatalities." The mind boggles...
Wow. These could be for the people who run into the road when project bluebeam kicks in during rush hour. I did spend at least a few hours worrying about that when I first woke up. I do think holograms in the sky could cause all sorts of road traffic accidents but I'm not sure it's likely anymore. Death by a thousand cuts seems more probable not a glamourous fake alien invasion.
"Everything is a psyop and everyone is fake" ... AND they let you know it is.
That's what gets me. People getting on their high horse about claiming everything's a psyop when they let you know. They tell you with their Revelation of the Method rule ... and you catalogue all the glaring anomalies, Miri, exposing that rule, admirably. Good on you for all the research you've done. If they wanted to make it much more difficult to determine the fakery of Lucy and Southport they could have done a much better job.
The just-out-of-prison behaviour and images are often a giveaway - Chelsea Manning supposedly served a 7 year sentence during which she we are told she spent quite a lot of time in solitary. She was released in 2017 and feted in Out Magazine's Out100 of 2017 as Newsmaker of the Year. Does it look remotely look like she suffered what they said she did?
https://www.out.com/out100-2017/2017/11/08/out100-chelsea-manning-newsmaker-year
Thank you, Petra, and you are absolutely right - they make their psyops obvious on purpose. They could make them much more convincing. If you look at any well-crafted film or TV series, the plot will be watertight and you won't get all these glaring anomalies and holes. There may be the odd minor continuity error (such as the example I often cite, Rachel's birthday and star sign changing in Friends), but they won't get key, fundamental details wrong, or keep changing them.
So what they do with psyops is indeed Revelation of the Method, but it's also about humiliation and control. We are meant to agree things are real even when we know they're not. "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." (George Orwell, 1984)
Oh yeah it's totally about humiliation and control.
"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Anthony Daniels aka Theodore Dalrymple (edited)
Excellent quote.
It’s the brainwashing process as per “The Ipcress File”
Petra I find it very strange that you completely understand the “revelation of the method” and yet still bang on about the “fake fake moon landings”. I struggle find a more glaring example of the revelation of the method than the moon landings. Buzz “accidentally” took the first photo on the moon of the “jet bag”, basically a bag of sh*t. I mean come on, you have to stop with your moon nonsense Petra. Its weird.
Mary, Buzz is a 33 degree Freemason and may well be part of the “we didn't go to the moon” propaganda campaign - I do find it strange the way he said in response to the little girl “we didnt go there” - in context he means “again” but i find it weird he doesn’t say “again”. Obviously the astronauts were in on certain lies such as the fake Apollo 13 explosion and pretty sure Apollo 1 was just a drill in managing the eventuality of astronauts dying - going to take a closer look at it - and then Challenger of course. So it's certainly not all truth when it comes to space or even specifically Apollo, however, the evidence says they went to the moon regardless - and what weird thing an astronaut says doesn't prove they didn't.
We certainly see RoM with the “we didn't go” campaign particularly in the first moon hoaxer, Bill Kaysing, as I explain in my post on him. And even the propagandist in my most recent post refers to Thomas Baron (the guy who allegedly died in a train accident shortly after he presented a report on the Apollo 1 tragedy) speaking of a glue stick when he allegedly died 2 years before they were invented. Don't think he died either - he's one of those “suspicious” deaths pushed out for the disbelievers. Actually I think it's a definite - Apollo 1 was faked.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/chatgpt-fakery-now-featuring-in-the
I'm unfamiliar with the Buzz thing you put forward. Can you give more detail or a link?
Hum. You are consistently inconsistent I'll give you that! :-)
Search for "jettison bag photograph" you'll find it. Oh how they laugh at us. Its details like that that seal the deal for me, I did all my "intersecting shadows, van Allen belts, telemetry data" research, I know it all inside out as it was the psyop that woke me up (late to the party I know) but the first photo from the moon being a bag of sh*t? Case closed! Ha!
So I found the jettison bag photograph. Where's the issue?
The "jettison bag photograph" refers to AS11-4-5850, the first photograph taken by Neil Armstrong on the Moon's surface, which shows a jettison bag containing waste and packaging under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) descent stage. These bags were crucial for keeping the LM cabin free of trash and were discarded during the mission to manage space and weight for the return journey.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/first-photograph-taken-moon-neil-armstrong-featured-trash-bag-243698
I couldn't agree more with you, Mary, that they laugh at us ... but to me it's the other way around about what they laugh at us for with the moon landings.
The missing telemetry data, the impassability of the Van Allen Belts, the non-parallel shadows, the missing stars in the photographs, astronauts' movements controlled by wires, missing blast crater, astronauts should have sunk deep into the lunar dust, flag waving - all these bogus anomalies have been put forward by the "we didn't go to the moon" propagandists starting with 'ol Billy Kaysing.
They have all been roundly debunked.
Why don't disbelievers actually look up the claims that supposedly say we didn't go and see what the explanations are. It's like they have an absolute ALLERGY to doing due diligence. I mean that's what I did from the beginning: I saw "flag waving" - looked it up; "stars missing from the photographs" - looked it up; - "missing blast crater" - looked it up; "non-parallel shadows" - looked it up.
Disbelievers don't look up any of these claims up to see if there's a reasonable explanation for them or not.
I disagree. Most non believers do look up the explanations for the inconsistencies as being a moon landings denier puts you in a position to me ridiculed and nobody likes that. Let's leave it there, and marvel at how a bag of sh*t ended up "accidentally" being the first photo taken on the moon.
I hadn't been aware of this person until reading your recent articles. and so I watched the interview with Pearson. She couldn't stop smiling, dupers delight. And what did she have to smile about?
I made it through 5 mins.
Interestingly, Dame Alison P read from a script and was nervous.
L of Nowhere did not appear to have a script and was more polished in the interview.
Listening to it, one would think Dame Alison P was the newby.
interesting, I hadn't noticed that. Pearson is such a dissembler she must get confused about what face to put on. Ten years ago, she was a gigantic snob like most of the MSM, but now look at her. the Bestie mate of the proles.
Lockdown introduced me to the Podcast, and one of the first was 'Planet Normal'. Dame Alison P by her own admission was not used to this type of thing, but became far more fluent and comfortable with broadcasting in a matter of weeks.
That was in stark contrast to the stilted delivery during the L of Nowhere interview. In addition, she clearly read from the raft of notes before her. That's very odd given the number of articles she has written about this subject.
I was quite pleased when I saw Lucy was going LIVE! I chuckled and said to my wife, “oh good!”. The marvelous Miri will be bombarded with so much annoying material that I’ll get to enjoy another article almost back to back.
With moar and moar tools of surveillance “they” can perpetually keep a finger to the pulse of public reaction. Allowing them to make constant tweaks to any absurd narrative. Wild.
Always a pleasure! Thank you!
Thank you, Galactic, much appreciated!
OMG! I just saw this. "9/11 families blast skyrocketing salaries of Sept. 11 Memorial execs as it bleeds taxpayer money: ‘Slap in the face’"
“How can you justify these salaries?” wondered Jim McCaffrey, a retired FDNY firefighter whose brother-in-law, Firefighter Orio Palmer, died on 9/11.
“It’s just another slap in the face of the families, more pain and grief to add to the heartache.”
https://nypost.com/2025/08/23/us-news/exec-salaries-skyrocket-while-cash-strapped-9-11-museum-continues-to-bleed-red-slap-in-the-face/
The 118 so-called "oral" histories of the 9/11 firefighters are pure phoniness.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
They just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie ... and everyone lies down and takes it.
Were it not for the Naomi Wolf video and other staged past events (9/11,JFK, 7/7,Trump assassinations etc) I would think the staging of the killing of the 3 girls is an impossibility. To imagine it otherwise is truly frightening. The horror and depravity of the mind behind it is utmost evil.
Almost worst still are the public figures you mention, TR, NF, AP, DW and even LTY. We could add Matt Goodwin as Alex K has uncovered.
Everything is definitely not as it seems.
This dominant "alternative" sphere almost makes you yearn to be "normal." Almost.
Quote from Andrew Bridgen (who you say is fake) seems spot on. Starmer is deliberately breaking the country in order to force a backlash, after which he could invoke Blair's Civil Contingencies Act 2004. This act allows the the de-facto imposition of martial law, the seizing of property and assets, the freezing of bank accounts and the cancellation of elections.
Most importantly, the act does not preclude the utilisation of foreign "persons" should the "emergency" so demand. Such "persons" could be from NATO, the UN, EuroGendFor (Europe's paramilitary force) and Interpol.
I strongly suspect a 250k strong UN army is already here, strategically garrisoned across the country. I also note Starmer will soon allow Blackrock to take over three main British ports. It need hardly be said that those who control the ports control the safe passage of containers bulging with smuggled AK-47s and such like.
Blair's Civil Contingencies Act 2004 simply needs an "emergency" in order to enforce genuine totalitarianism, backed up by foreign soldiers. If we had patriotic senior military officers we would not be in this catastrophic position.
I don't think it's likely. The 250k army. I have tried to wake up my brother gently over the last 12 months, he is what Miri points out is a white native fighting age man. He has categorically told me... 'if I see trouble outside my door, I'm out there and fighting but if not then I don't care". They will never rouse the fighting spirit of the nations men by imposing martial law. It will be death by a thousand digital cuts.
To borrow from the late Bruce Forsythe:
'Good game, good game!'
The psyop extends into all sorts of things. Last week Stellantis did a pan-European recall for 72000 vehicles due to a potential fuel system leak on the engine. It was punted via social media, poorly detailed by the recall systems (72000 vehicles over a total of 2 years out of 350000... makes no sense) and disappeared.
Its a good example of real news being buried. It's done with energy, air travel, water companies and more.
The tell-tale is the uniformity of reportage across MSM and complete lack of detail. Which makes me think, why now? Who gains?
On this subject, but admittedly perhaps tangentially related, I would be very grateful to hear your views on the St George's Cross and Union Jack current campaign. My husband is super keen on it and says it's about being proud to be English (and no, I do not understand what exactly he means by that) and I cannot look at a flag and see it as about anything bar state violence, unless it's an international sports game, in which case I associate it with domestic violence (but that might be because I lived in NZ for 12 years and EVERYONE knows when NZ looses at Rugby, lots of women get beaten-up).
So, that's my view, I would be SO grateful to hear yours!
I think it's about further demonising white, right-wing Britons as "flag shaggers", "gammons" and all the other pejoratives, in a bid to ultimately destroy the right wing. If you look at any of the predictive programming (the film 'Civil War', the TV show 'Years and Years'), white, right-wing patriots are always depicted as low IQ vicious brutes, whilst immigrants, POCs, gays and so on are shows as intelligent, sensitive, moral, etc. The aim of the ruling classes is to conflate "white right wing" so entirely in people's minds with "thick lawless thug" (think Tommy Robinson) that people ultimately call for this faction of people and these type of beliefs to be destroyed. It's also part of the agenda to destroy countries (as per John Lennon's Imagine) because "look what awful violence erupts in the name of people being loyal to their country's flag". The NWO wants no countries, no religions, no possessions, and the way it intends to get this is to show all these things as being the cause of all the hostility, division, violence and hate in the world - just as Imagine says.
TLDR:
While I think, given the current state humanity is in, you are right that destroying things like countries, religion and possessions would be harmful, I am looking forward to the point that everyone takes responsibility for themselves, sees themselves as guardians rather than owners of their property and we can do away with large bodies that try and control adults.
The long bit:
That seems probable. I am slightly conflicted on the issue of nation states and flags as I have been learning more about how countries protect us - not from innate issues with humanity, but from other forms of exploitation (e.g. other countries, corporations and NGOs). However, this reminds me of a friend who was brought up by a very violent alcoholic father who was also warm and loving to her and a cold, unaffectionate mother who never was. When she was older she got into a relationship with a man who was violent to her and, when her mother came calling and saw she had a black eye, she left without saying anything. Her father then kidnapped the boyfriend and buried him in the sand up to his neck at lowtide at a remote beach. Fortunately, a dogwalker found him and helped him escaped after which he quickly ended the relationship with her. I found this all very strange because I thought "if he's happy to beat you up when you are a child, why does he object so much to your boyfriend doing the same to you as an adult?". But he clearly did and, while I don't understand why, he was clearly keen to prevent anyone else from beating her up. That's a little what I feel like being a citizen of a country is.
At the same time, I think they are too big, largely infantilise the population and, clearly, create perverse incentives for behaviour with ridiculous legislation (not to mention war - I just don't like that aspect of flags and nationalism AT ALL!).
However, if you move quickly enough, you can generally not only do what you want to do, but be supported in doing it. Governments are very slow to respond - their timeframe tends to be months to years, if not decades. A small group of committed individuals' timeframes can be days to weeks; they have a massive agility advantage.
A lot of the time when people are suffering within a government-created situation, I think "the rules have changed, you need to change/adapt/evolve". And, if you do that, they can be more of a help than a hinderance.
I am still very much more drawn to situations in which everyone is negotiating their own relationships with each other and, while considering the perspectives of others, honouring their own experience of and relationship with the person.
For example, at work, there is a guy who is gay and just feels totally at liberty to be an arsehole to certain women. It's something he turns on and off - super friendly one minute, total bitch the next and he hides his total bitchiness from anyone he doesn't want to see it (like the lovely gay programme manager who signs off his timesheets/decides whether his contract is extended). I knew there was no one at work I could have this conversations with, but I called a male friend of mine whose partners have mainly been men and discussed it with him and he *immediately* knew what I meant. I then spoke to another woman who has has the same sort of experience with him but (as it's massively to her financial advantage that I get on with him) she basically said "come on, play the game" (I can be a bit like "Honey Bunny" at the beginning of Pulp Fiction at times and, if you meet me, this is easy to discern).
So, I decided to reflect on the situation and thought about it from his perspective. I know this behaviour is driven out of jealousy. I know jealousy can be such a corrosive and dehimanising force. I know he'd love to have some of the things this other woman and I have. I also know that I haven't been jealous of people that much since I was a teenager, but that when I was a teenager, I was jealous of almost everyone (I had very bad acne for a girl and I was jealous of everyone with better skin, which was about 99% of the girls - and I REALLY felt for that other 1%!).
So I get it. And I get that being jealous as an adult is a very occassional experience for me and I realise, as a Hare Krishna person once said to me "once you accept it, jealousy becomes love". So, I am grateful I am not currently being debilitated by that issue. However, it's still zero fun having someone be an arsehole to y
Anyway, I started to think about how I could effectively engage with this guy. He's like a plant that needs small and regular watering. So, as long as I do that, he's fine. Also, he is quite funny and I can have a laugh with him, so it's not like engagement with him is dull and painful, he's just someone with whom I can't be that open/vulnerable.
Then I was thinking about what this means in the context of friendship. I had this conversation with my brother when we were teenagers and his view was "a friend is just someone you like". I knew what he meant, but I knew that wasn't right for me. For me, a friend is someone who wants the best for me and whom I want the best for. I can enjoy a lot of other people's company and collaborate with people on projects, but they are not friends.
Ideally, I'd like all my relationships to be managed within this sort of autonomy and boundaries. I might well want this colleague to change if I open myself up to him, but, if I don't and remember he's not my friend, his behaviour really isn't my problem. And I'd really like it if everyone was doing this. I understand that children need a framework to grow-up in so they can operate in the world prior to being fully-formed human beings capable of this sort of autonomy, but I think parents can do that without civil servants, priests or politicians. Yes, we need relationships and we need a tribe, but we can all shape that using our own discernment. I get that it's easy to connect with someone when you are working from a place of "we are both x" (where x can be a woman, or a Christian or English) but, really, I find the most important thing is my direct experience of connecting with them and what boundaries I need. So, helpful as national boundaries probably right now, I think (as my parents like/liked - only one is alive saying) when it comes to all people "there is more that unites than divides".
Phew. There's a lot there Rosie. Lets go over that when I see you. Miri, you need to know that Rosie and I have met IRL as a result of being your subscribers. Substack platonic dating! Turns out that Rosie and I work 100m from each other. What wonderful serendipity.
It feels just a little too co-ordinated to me - just my hunch. When things are organic, it all looks a bit messier/homemade.
That is a good point. I was at the protests in NZ and they were very messy in terms of placards and people - I quite liked it!
I am currently reading "The Hare with the Amber Eyes" and I am at the point where there's overt anti-Sematism and nationalism. It definitely feels similarly unhealthy!
Many thanks, Farleyboy!