Putting the "ick" in dictatorship

In what should have been one of major scoops of the century, Alex Kriel from the Thinking Coalition exposed a few days ago that the UK has become a de facto dictatorship.

Very quietly, and with no pomp, ceremony, or even the briefest of mentions on page 37 of the Swindon Observer, the UK government declared that elected Members of Parliament no longer represent the interests of the people of the UK.

The page on the government's website, 'What do MPs do?", used to read:

"The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs can consider and propose new laws as well as raising issues that matter to you in the House. This includes asking government ministers questions about current issues including those which affect local constituents."

Yet by July 2nd this year, this text had been changed to read:

"MPs work both at the UK Parliament and in their local constituencies. How and where they work is largely up to them to decide. There is no job description or contract of employment for MPs, nor any rules on how they should balance the competing demands of these two roles. However, MPs must abide by standards of conduct, rules and conventions. For more information see Accountability and Standards."

All reference to MPs representing their constituents had been removed.

Although this text has since been changed again, to now include a cursory nod to "represent[ing] local people", the fact that the description was so dramatically altered in the first place sets a sinister precedent, and gives us a great deal of insight into what might be to come.

Concurrently to this change, the news has been saturated with coverage of a potential end to trial by jury - something that I predicted a year ago. I tied this agenda to the Lucy Letby case, writing in July 2024:

"Of course the establishment doesn't like trials by jury, as these are the exact antithesis of the authoritarian technocracy the overlords are working so hard to implement, and that we got a clear preview of throughout "Covid".

Trial by jury supposes that ordinary people matter, and that their ability to think, to assess evidence and come to an informed view, is as important and as valid as the views of so-called "experts".

This is a concept that the ruling classes wish to entirely annihilate. What they want to "prove" - and what I strongly suspect they are using the Lucy Letby case to prove - is that ordinary people are idiots. They can't think properly, they can't assess evidence reliably, and they certainly can't be trusted to come to the right view.

Because just look what happens when we entrust them with that kind of responsibility - they put innocent angels like girl-next-door, salsa-dancing, cat loving Nurse Lucy in prison for life!

(A detail cleverly included in all the publicity on the Letby trial was that her two beloved cats, Tigger and Smudge, had to be rehomed. Every cat lover out there - and Britain is nothing if not a nation of cat lovers - shuddered at the thought of those poor confused fur babies losing their home and missing their "mum"...)

The desired social model for the future is something far more authoritarian and less egalitarian than we currently have, and something far more resembling the medieval feudal system, where a small class of powerful rich people tell the rest of us what to do.

Therefore, any existing social structures that support the idea of equality, and ordinary people being as worthwhile and important as "experts", has to go.

That means no trial by jury, only trial by "experts".

It also means no democracy - the idea of ordinary people having a say in politics is incredibly new historically speaking, and that too is earmarked for abolition."

So, you see, it is not incidental that MP's democratic accountability is being quietly removed from the government's website, whilst trial by jury is also on the verge of being eliminated.

These things are part of a coordinated and long-planned lockstep agenda to transform Western countries from democracies into dictatorships.

Much of the dissident class has been cleverly manipulated by slick controlled opposition to shrug, "well, so what? Democracy is a sham anyway. Dictatorship will be no different."

That means many of the naturally rebellious in the population will put up no fight as the state apparatus changes from democratic to autocratic, naively believing "it won't be any different", as they have been trained to believe that all "democracy" means is putting an X in a box once every four years for a vote that is rigged anyway.

Dissidents don't value that: they largely don't even do it (as increasingly few of the population do, the turnout for the 2024 General Election being the lowest since 1928).

So, they think scrapping democracy doesn't matter.

They think this because they have failed to link democracy to things they do very much value, including the option for a trial by jury; the right to protest and challenge the state; and the right to free speech. That we live in a democratic country is why I'm able to write this article, and you're able to read it, without either of us being hauled off in the middle of the night to the gulag. It's why we were able to protest against lockdown without being executed, able to reject mask-wearing without being arrested, and why we possess a whole host of other rather important human rights, as relate to consent, bodily autonomy, and individual sovereignty.

Do corrupt authorities transgress on these rights sometimes? Yes, of course, but nevertheless, the fact remains that all these rights exist, and are powerfully legally protected in a democracy. That means you have options and recourse available to you should these rights be breached, and that's regardless of whether you vote, or which particular party is in government.

None of this is true in a dictatorship.

Dictatorships typically crush dissent, penalise dissenters - often brutally - and undermine or dispense with altogether a wide range of critically important human rights.

Nevertheless, the agenda to normalise - even idolise - the idea of a dictatorship coming to power is rapidly gaining traction amongst certain political commentators, with suspiciously visible Twitter accounts (no shadow banning here) openly calling for it.

Generally describing it as a "benevolent" dictatorship, the idea swiftly gaining momentum in certain right-wing and "conspiratorial" circles is that we need a "strong pair of hands" to simply come in and fix what's broken, without being waylaid and bogged down with the pesky distractions of democratic accountability and public choice.

The people are stupid, you see. They don't know what's best for them. They need someone smart and capable to make decisions for them, without wasting time actually consulting them first.

This elitist concept of managing the masses is as old as time, and goes as far back as at least Plato (who felt society should be governed by a small cabal of "Philosopher Kings" who told everyone else what to do).

The idea of equal social, civic, and legal rights for all adults, regardless of age, sex, race, wealth, or any other classification, is a bit of an anomaly historically speaking, and has rarely existed throughout world history. For most of human history, various forms of monarchy, aristocracy, and authoritarian rule were the dominant forms of governance - and it looks very much like we are set to return to a manifestation of this kind of autocratic rule once again.

As "they always have to tell us what they're doing", we can see where "they" intend to take us next by looking at particularly prominent examples of predictive programming.

The vast majority of big-budget, big-name TV and film exist to fulfil this function - to prepare the mass mind for what the ruling classes want to do next - and it was viewing the 2011 Hollywood movie 'Contagion' in April 2019 that enabled me to predict the imminent debut of a fake plague that would be manufactured to manipulate people into taking a toxic vaccine. To be honest, it wasn't that hard to predict, since the makers of the film literally declared in the DVD 'extras' that the film was not fiction, but foreshadowing a future event, and it was a matter of "when, not if" this happened for real.

And, sure enough, once said fake plague had debuted in the shape of "Covid", Matt Hancock, the then-UK health secretary, confirmed the UK's pandemic response had been based on the film.

So, the fact that social scriptwriters seed planned future events into TV and film to predictively programme the masses to expect them is no "conspiracy theory", but documented fact.

As such, we should pay rather close attention to the 2019 BBC drama (also available on Netflix), Years and Years.

Charting the life of the fictional, yet ultra-modern, Lyons family, from 2019 (when the series was made) up until 2034, the star-studded production - featuring such beloved household names as Emma Thompson and Anne Reid - managed to accurately "predict" the re-election of Trump, the Ukraine war, the Queen's death, and many other social and political events.

Of course, it didn't really "predict" them, any more than a Neighbours screenwriter "predicts" the death of Jim Robinson by writing it into the show: rather, Years and Years - or, should we say, the people ultimately behind it - planned them.

Just like Charlie Brooker and Aldous Huxley, who wrote eerily "prophetic" screeds in the shape of Black Mirror and Brave New World, the creators of high-level social propaganda Years and Years have been able to so accurately depict the future because they're insiders who have been 'deployed' to pedal the blueprints.

Oxford graduate Russell T. Davies, the credited creator of Years and Years, is almost certainly an intelligence asset (Oxford being prime spook recruitment ground), and he therefore knew exactly what was on the world agenda for the next few years when he wrote the show. That's why he was able to portray it so accurately.

As I say, Years and Years covers the years 2019-2034, so - having proved so accurate in its depictions for the first half of that time period - watching it is a very valuable education in what "they" likely have planned next.

First of all, the clear agenda to scrap democracy is laid bare for all to see, with the "populist right-wing politician", Vivienne Rook (unashamedly modelled on Nigel Farage), ultimately becoming a fascist dictator. Rook gains support for her autocracy by trotting out the old "lots of people are too stupid to vote" line, and suggesting an IQ test as a prerequisite for full democratic rights.

It is of note that Years and Years, like all state propaganda, completely demonises "conspiracy theorists", with one such character in the series presented as a flat earther who hates immigrants, and reports one - who is gay - to the authorities for working illegally. This results in the young man's deportation, to a country which does not tolerate homosexuality and where he has previously been tortured.

The other conspiracy theorist, Woody (so-named, as the show bluntly informs us, because the character is reminiscent of male genitalia), is depicted as a literal genocidal psychopath, running concentration camps - they are actually called this - for illegal immigrants. This character is presented to us as being especially evil since he questions the veracity of news events.

In short, the message of Years and Years couldn't be clearer: that we are heading towards a "populist" - right-wing with shades of conspiracy theory - dictatorship, run by Nigel Farage (God help us...), which will initially draw mass support because it will promise to deal robustly with the illegal immigrant crisis... Just, indeed, as Farage is currently gaining wide prominence for promising to do.

You may ask, therefore, why this is desirable for the ruling classes to promote - after all, aren't they the orchestrators of all this immigration? Of replacement migration and the Kalergi Plan and so on and so forth? So why are Farage and his anti-immigration agenda being permitted to become so popular?

This is spelled out clearly in Years and Years: it's to ultimately destroy the right-wing (and its "offshoot" of conspiracy theory), by driving it, eventually, to such repulsive extremes that people ferociously kick back and tear it down.

In the show, right-wing leader "Vivienne Rook" is initially immensely popular for the hard line she takes on immigration and other social issues... until she is exposed for what she really is (a crook and a killer), and the public violently turns against her - and, by association, everything she stands for.

This is all very strategic social manipulation to bring us to the ultimate end goal. The ruling classes have been explicit for many decades that their ultimate goal is an 'Imagine' style left-wing dystopia - no countries, no religions, no possessions - but before they can get there, they have a rather large right-wing obstacle in the way.

They need to get rid of it.

Hence, they have purposely installed a "populist far-right" government in the USA under Trump, and we are on the precipice of having one here, too (Years and Years predicts a General Election in 2026), when Reform will inevitably storm to power.

Then we will have to endure both of these regimes becoming increasingly extreme and oppressive, in order to "prove" to us all just how evil and intolerable right-wingers (including and especially conspiracy theorists) really are, in order that they can ultimately be abolished for good.

That's the plan.

The problem with this - well, obviously there are a lot of problems with it, but - the problem is that rights, once taken away, tend not to come back. So many "temporary crisis measures" end up being permanent (see: income tax).

So, even if one were to initially feel that one would be fairly happy with a "temporary" benevolent right-wing dictatorship under the guidance of Nigel Farage (and yes, astonishingly, there are large numbers of people who actually feel this way...), it's critical to bear in mind that once that regime inevitably falls, and the left reclaims power, they would then also reclaim the right to run the country as a dictatorship.

This is why it's crucial we campaign to retain democratic rights - and I'm not simply talking about voting - regardless of who is in power and whether we like them or not. That is to say, Reform would probably do some things we would like, especially around immigration. But that makes them even more dangerous, because once politicians are perceived to be acting in our interests, vigilance slips and they are not held to the same standards of scrutiny and accountability that they should be held to constantly…

… And that the UK government is currently trying to excuse them from being held to by changing the wording on their website.

It's also why they're aiming to abolish district councils, a level of politics where ordinary people really can have some power and sway, in favour of more metro mayors, a political position that is effectively closed off to average people - I mean, have you got a spare £5,000 for the deposit? Standing for the council, on the other hand, costs nothing.

Overall, it really does seem that the writing's on the wall - or rather, on the UK government's website - regarding where they intend us to go next, but as always (and this is why they spend such a gargantuan fortune trying to manufacture it), they need our consent.

This is spelled out rather excruciatingly explicitly in Years and Years, where the imperious family matriarch (Anne Reid) declares to her gathered clan that the awful way the world is now (2034) is our fault... we let it happen.

She gives examples of various destructive social and cultural phenomena that, whilst introduced by the ruling elites, would have collapsed fairly instantaneously without the support of the masses.

It is our support, she correctly declares, upon which any elite agenda lives or dies.

So, the more aware we are of their agenda - an agenda which is very often depicted in high-profile TV and film - the more empowered we become to not give it (at least, that's my excuse for still having a Netflix subscription...).

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.