Propagandist Paper Tigers

Yesterday in England and Wales, there were approximately 138 police-recorded offences involving a knife.

As a result of these offences - and as happens every day - on average ten people were hospitalised, four of them under 24.

Yet... we only hear about one of them.

I know that "fabrication fatigue" is setting in amongst some esteemed explorers of the conspiraverse, whereby everything in the news instantly gets labelled a hoax / a fake / a psy-op, and while I think that remains a crucial debate to have about every major media event (as Naomi Wolf said, "we have entered an era in which it's not crazy to assess news events to see if they're real or not real; in fact, it's kind of crazy not to"), it isn't the most important one.

The most important question to ask is, why is the media bringing this so sensationally to our attention? Or as I like to ask about everything deemed "newsworthy" by the legacy press - why this, why now?

As I said, there are hundreds of knife offences in the UK daily, and sadly, it's not at all uncommon for people - including young people - to be hospitalised because of them.

Yet these events very rarely make front page, headline news in all the national newspapers.

In fact, in the 12 months leading up to March 2024 in England and Wales, 233 people were murdered with a knife or sharp instrument, but - even with the assistance of Google - we'd still probably only be able to name a handful of them.

However, the whole nation now knows about the 11-year old girl (non-fatally) stabbed in London's Leicester Square yesterday, and the name of the hero security guard - Abdullah - who intervened to paralyse her attacker until the police arrived.

So today, I'm not going to ask you to contemplate whether this event is real or staged, but rather to consider, why it is receiving such blanket, sensationalist news coverage when the hundreds of other stabbings that happen every year - including ones involving young people and that result in hospitalisations and even deaths - get a fraction of this coverage, if any?

What we have to remember is that the mainstream media does not exist to report "the news", as millions of newsworthy things happen every day that are never reported.

Rather, it exists to propagandise the public, and to inculcate them into certain worldviews, which then drive their attitudes and behaviour (including voting behaviour).

To put it another way, the media exists as a fundamental tool in the manipulative political manoeuvring known as "the manufacture of consent". First coined by political scientist Walter Lippmann in 1922, this concept has been widely applied in Western democracies since, with author Noam Chomsky explaining in his eponymous 1988 book that the US's mainstream media vehicles:

"are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion".

In other words, the purpose of the mainstream media is to indoctrinate the public with the views the establishment would like them to hold, without them realising they're being so-indoctrinated, and instead believing they've reached their views and opinions themselves. They then do exactly what the establishment wants them to do, believing they have freely chosen this - and this is simply a far more effective way of governing a population that controlling their behaviour by force.

So, whenever an event is highly reported by all mainstream media vehicles, dominating the headlines and attracting widespread national discussion, you can be absolutely sure this event is being used to propagandise you in some way.

You can therefore be quite certain the "Leicester Square stabbing" is being used to propagandise you, because if it wasn't, you'd hear virtually nothing about it, just like the hundreds of other knife attacks that have happened this week.

That leads us to the question of, what is the propagandist purpose of this event?

It's so obvious that it has been literally declared by the establishment for us: to further vilify "the far right" and to accept that non-white persons of an immigrant background are society's real heroes. As BBC commentator Bushra Shaikh bluntly put it:

"A courageous Brown Muslim young man puts himself in danger to help stabbing victims in London. Still want to riot?"

While I'm all for recognising the bravery of anyone who intervenes to protect people, especially children, in a violent situation, is their race and religion really the first thing you'd mention?

Of course it's not (it's his character that compelled him to intervene, not his race): but it is if you're attempting to use divisive and manipulative propagandist techniques against a population.

The attacker was white: the saviour was non-white. That is the message you are meant to take from this situation.

Conversely, in another recent high-profile alleged stabbing involving children, the attacker was not white, and the adults who attempted to intervene were.

But here's the thing: they weren't successful. Three children (allegedly) died.

There's a very powerful propagandist message there and I'm sure we can all see it.

That does bring me to one of many strange anomalies about the alleged Southport stabbings. The teenager who supposedly carried them out was absolutely whippet thin and looked like he weighed about eight stone.

Meanwhile, the average adult man weighs nearly 13. How was it therefore not possible that the men on the scene couldn't easily overpower him, but rather, this tiny slip of a boy with no kind of specialist or military training was able to carry out such a catastrophic rampage? Not only murdering three people, but leaving countless others wounded, and no adult could overpower and stop him, as Abdullah seems to have quite easily done with a (much bigger and stronger) attacker in London?

There's another very bizarre anomaly about the Southport attacks, but in this case it's one shared with the London stabbing - motive. Or rather, the lack thereof.

In both cases, we are meant to believe that the perpetrators had absolutely no links to the child victims they assaulted. They just randomly attacked them for - apparently - no reason at all. It's been two weeks now since the Southport events and nothing remotely resembling a "motive" has been proposed for the supposed killer.

Equally, the London assailant apparently had no link to the schoolgirl he tried to kill.

So what we are expected to believe is that there are crazed males roaming our streets armed with knives who simply viciously attack female children for no reason.

And what is the propagandist effect on the public of that going to be?

Fear. Terror. Our streets aren't safe. We need more laws and restrictions to protect us (and we should probably stay at home more).

Just what the ruling classes want.

As I emphasised in my article on the Southport attacks, people murdering or seriously assaulting complete strangers is extremely rare, and where it comes to young children, almost unheard of. If a child has been seriously injured or killed, the perpetrator is, in the large majority of cases, a parent or step-parent.

When teenagers attack and kill each other with knives, then it's often linked to robbery, drugs, or gang "turf wars".

Yet even your most hardened gangland knife-wielding maniac would draw the line at murdering random little girls for no reason.

This is what the media is expecting us to suspend in our response to alleged knife attacks on little girls: our ability to reason, and discern that violent knife crime perpetrated on young children by complete strangers is so vanishingly rare as a phenomenon that it is almost statistically non-existent.

So what are the chances of two extraordinarily high-profile such events happening just two weeks apart and drawing blanket media coverage everywhere?

First of all, we have to be aware that your statistical chances of dying via murder are 0.00099%.

And your chances of being murdered by a knife-wielding stranger, especially if you are a child, are substantially lower than that.

So such phenomena are not in any way representative of a real, significant threat on the nation's streets. You're far more likely to die in a car crash than to be murdered by anybody - let alone a stranger - and yet the media does not engage in sensationalist, front-page fear-mongering about the dangers of getting in a car.

So, "Leicester Square stabbing", real or not real?

Who knows?

What we do know is that this event is being heavily weaponised and exploited to inculcate into the ever-more fearful public a certain set of beliefs about the safety of our streets, and the value and heroism of certain demographics over others.

White men failed to protect the three Southport girls from being killed.

But Abdullah was successful in his attempts to save the Leicester Square child.

That's why the very first thing the BBC correspondent Bushra pointed out was - not Abdullah's sterling characteristics as a person - but his race and religion.

The perpetrator, of course, was white. No doubt we will subsequently be told, a "far-right extremist".

As the actual far-right (as opposed simply to people who have political differences with metropolitan middle-class liberals) does not exist as any kind of organised or impactful movement in this country, the establishment has to keep manufacturing events and ascribing them to a fictitious "far-right".

I told the story of the riot that wasn't in my home town of Huddersfield - how we were zealously fear-mongered by the local council and press about a supposed far-right group coming to town to riot. As a result, businesses shut their doors and people barricaded themselves in their homes in terror... for a "riot" that never materialised. There wasn't even a protest, and, in fact, not a single "extremist" of any description turned up.

Then we were terrorised by the press again last Wednesday regarding "100 far-right riots" scheduled for up and down the country.

None of these materialised and prominent anti-racist group 'Hope Not Hate' admitted the list that had been circulated advertising them was a hoax.

"But that doesn't matter because it helps our cause," Hope Not Hate unashamedly said.

To repeat, there is no organised "far-right" in this country - e.g., a sizeable collective of violently racist thugs who have the resources and ability to organise wide scale national events - so the establishment has to keep manufacturing fake events and ascribing them to this non-existent movement.

"The Emperor's New Extremists", as I have begun calling them.

Yet it's key to establishment goals that the public believes in a widespread violent threat from "the far-right", and so all these 'kids being stabbed by strangers' stories - whether they are 100% real, somewhat embellished, or completely fake - are all ultimately about feeding that narrative and creating deep divisions and hostilities amongst communities: divisions that in reality are not there.

The reason for this is the good old divide and conquer (ordinary people blaming their "far-right" or "immigrant" neighbour for all social woes stops them allocating blame to the real orchestrators of destruction), and to manufacture people's consent for a future which consists of far more surveillance and far less privacy (facial recognition, digital ID, etc), and far more time spent at home, because that's the only place you can really be sure a knife-wielding stranger won't try to murder your children.

Please bear in mind that neither you nor your children are any more endangered from knife crime today than you were this time last month, when this was not something anybody was worried about before sending their kids off to dance class or taking a summer day trip into town.

The only thing that's changed since last month is the amount of attention the media is paying to extraordinarily unlikely events.

In assessing if or how you should modify your behaviour in response to these events, it comes down to one basic rule of thumb: the more the media tells you to fear something, the more it attempts to sensationally scare-monger you about it, the more you can be sure it's a propagandist paper tiger that you needn't fear at all.

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

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)