Reforming the Right at the Gaylord Texan Resort

Believe it or not, unlike my previous article, the title of this one is not actually clickbait... It refers to the very real Reform sweep at last week’s local elections, and a major US conservative conference (shortly to debut in the UK) that was held this year at the ‘Gaylord Texan Resort‘.

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was founded in 1964, and is described as “the nation’s oldest conservative grassroots organization and seeks to preserve and protect the values of life, liberty, and property for every American“.

CPAC has been associated with all the biggest, starriest names in conservatism over the years, including Ronald Reagan, who gave the organisation’s inaugural keynote speech in 1974, and who we will return to later.

More recently, CPAC has platformed such high-profile characters as Donald Trump (it is credited with helping kick-start his political career in the Republican Party), Hungarian Prime Minister, the Christian nationalist Viktor Orban, and UK PM hopeful - whose Reform party has just swept the board at the recent local elections - Nigel Farage.

So, of course it stands to perfect reason that the UK version of this conference, to debut later this year, is platforming that towering political virtuoso, er, Lucy Connolly

Famous for a profanity-laden Tweet endorsing the idea of burning migrants to death, that supposedly landed her a prison sentence, Ms Connolly is currently most renowned for her “bare feet and wine“ pictures on social media, whilst the c-word she is most associated with is - let’s put it this way - not exactly ‘conservatism’.

A foul-mouthed, perennially sloshed ex-con, who recently publicly ‘joked’ about punching her child in the face, headlining a serious conservative political conference?

Something’s not quite stacking up here, is it?

Let’s look back a bit more at the history of CPAC, and more specifically, it’s first keynote speaker.

Ronald Reagan.

An actor.

Mr Reagan enjoyed a long and distinguished career in Hollywood before taking on the role of president, to the extent this rather unlikely trajectory has been lampooned by Hollywood itself.

In a famous scene from 1985’s Back To The Future (a movie Reagan is reported to have loved), 1955’s Doc Brown asks Marty McFly who the president is in 1985.

“Ronald Reagan,” replies Marty.

“Ronald Reagan?! The actor?!” Doc throws his eyes to heaven in incredulous mockery. “Then who’s vice-president? Jerry Lewis?”

Jerry Lewis was a renowned comic actor at the time, known as the “King of Comedy”, and so by making this comparison to Reagan, Doc is explicitly informing the audience that a Reagan presidency would be as ludicrous and non-serious as a Lewis one.

To reiterate, Reagan himself loved the Back To The Future movie, and this scene in particular, which he ordered the White House theatre projectionist to rewind and replay.

Okay, maybe the guy just had a great sense of humour, but that’s not the only revealing Hollywood detail of note. As everyone who isn’t a “spaceman from Pluto” (Back To The Future in-joke) knows, the breakout star of Back To The Future was Michael J. Fox.

Back To The Future made Fox a movie star, but he had already made his name in TV, as the beloved Alex P. Keaton, of NBC’s hit sitcom, Family Ties.

The show’s signature joke, that all seven series centred around (the show ran from 1982-1989) is that the parents, Steven and Elyse, are 1960s liberals, whilst the children, teenagers Mallory, and in particular, her brother Alex (Fox), are 1980s conservatives - and Alex’s big hero is none other than Ronald Reagan.

In return - and mirroring his sentiments regarding Fox’s Back To The Future - Reagan declared Family Ties his favourite show.

Now, as eagle-eyed readers may recall, a few months ago I wrote an article (my most-read ever, in fact) comparing Family Ties‘ Alex P. Keaton to the supposedly “assassinated” young conservative activist, Charlie Kirk.

I said:

“Depicted as a “young fogey”, aged just 17, Alex - by far the most popular character in the show, launching actor Michael J. Fox to superstardom - involved himself deeply in conservative politics, and would scold the adults around him for their liberal, permissive ways, whilst praising the work of his heroes, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.

Alex’s mother worked as an architect.

You can imagine, then, that something felt a bit... familiar when I read the following about the allegedly assassinated young conservative activist, Charlie Kirk...

Describing Kirk’s background and teenage years, the Guardian reports:

“Kirk was raised in a politically moderate household... in high school he emerged as a vocal conservative... [he] clashed with teachers he accused of “neo-Marxist” bias, drawing on influences that included Ronald Reagan’s economics and Milton Friedman’s free-market ideas... He made his first media appearance on the Fox Business channel at the age of 17... His father was an architect.”

Hm. A crazy conspiracy theorist, of the type who believes we live in an actor-based simulacrum, and that the world stage of politics is just an offshoot of Hollywood (hence all the relentless crossover between the theatrical and political arts), might suggest that ‘Charlie Kirk’ is simply a fictional scripted creation based on the hugely successful and enduring ‘Alex P. Keaton’ archetype - even down to the signature nudge-wink of the scriptwriters giving the respective parents of the two young activists the same career.“

To underline the veracity of this analysis, we can now bring it full circle, and note that Charlie Kirk - clearly based on the Alex Keaton character who starred in Ronald Reagan’s favourite show - also spoke at the CPAC conference (CPAC branded Kirk ‘the single most influential political figure of our time’) that we opened this article with, and at which Ronald Reagan was the inaugural - i.e., first ever - keynote speaker.

The Ronald Reagan who laughed so heartily along with the Back To The Future inference that his presidency was a joke.

The Ronald Reagan who headed a ‘conservative’ conference that has (on more than one occasion) hosted itself at a resort named ‘Gaylord’.

A ‘conservative’ conference that is, in the UK, headlining with a lairy, sweary (alleged) ex-convict, who wants to burn people to death in the name of free speech.

The point is that this is all one big, cynical, long-running lampooning joke.

These people are not really conservatives. These events are not platforming real conservative values or real conservative activists. Rather, they are aiming to undermine and unravel conservatism as much as they can, with the ultimate goal of destroying it altogether.

They intentionally make famous banal cartoon characters like Lucy Connolly so that real conservatives will undermine themselves and make themselves look ludicrous by supporting her, as Alistair Williams astutely explained in this short video.

Equally, other high-profile champions of “the right”, like Donald Trump, aren’t real conservatives, and this has been known for decades. Donald Trump - as another comic actor with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame - is just playing the part of crazy, right-wing demagogue, specifically in order to embody all the worst caricaturist features of what left-wingers have always said right-wingers are.

Ditto his deputy, JD Vance. A left-wing atheist until about yesterday, Vance suddenly and dramatically claimed to have swung to the right and converted to Catholicism just in time to head America’s “conservative revival”.

Vance is another one with very strong ties to Hollywood, with his childhood memoir made into a Hollywood blockbuster by (famously left-wing) director, Ron Howard.

Equally, the actor Michael J. Fox, who played the lead role in Ronald Reagan’s favourite TV show, and his favourite film, is also renowned for being left-wing and opposing Donald Trump.

Furthermore, the voluminous villain of the Back To The Future movies, the violent sadist Biff Tannen, is openly modelled on Donald Trump.

The actors, producers, and scriptwriters behind both Hollywood and high-level “politics” are telling us quite clearly what their views really are, and that they are merely lampooning and cosplaying ‘conservatism’ with their high-profile “conferences”, the same way they lampooned Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan in the Back To The Future movies.

This is because the ultimate agenda aims are to make conservatism - and its close cousin, Christianity - appear so completely and utterly repulsive, that we finally reject them for good, and are inducted into the worldwide communist dystopia as laid out in change agent John Lennon’s ‘Imagine‘ (no countries, no religions, no possessions).

The exact trajectory, at least as it unfolds in the UK, is laid out pretty clearly in the BBC predictive programming, ‘Years and Years‘, which charts a “fictional” UK from 2019-2034. Many of its predictions have already come true, and it forecasts the 2027 victory of a “populist right-wing leader” (openly modelled on Nigel Farage) who reveals herself as a villainous crook after putting immigrants in “detainment” (concentration) camps, as Nigel Farage has already promised to do.

So the point of all this cosplaying ‘conservatism’ from people who are really liberal atheists is simply to destroy the conservative Christian ideology for good, by driving it to its most twisted, unpalatable extremes, as laid out in additional predictive programming vehicle, the Handmaid’s Tale.

In this high-profile, big-budget offering, a cadre of cool young conservatives tour American college campuses, trying to convince the youth of the merits of a return to moderate, traditional values. The movement gains traction, but when this faction actually comes to power, they reveal themselves as psychopathic sadists who oppress women and minorities in the most brutal ways imaginable, including punishing homosexuality with death.

Currently, in the press, we have some very high-profile stories about hideous abuse carried out by high-profile homosexuals, and several notable figures such as Rupert Lowe have called for a return to the death penalty.

So, that’s where we’re going: we’re ramping up towards an “arch-conservative” hellscape of a future in the UK and USA, headed by JD Vance and Nigel Farage respectively, where all the worst, most twisted extremes of the conservative position are pushed, until we reach complete catastrophe, the whole thing collapses, and conservatism is abolished for good.

One of the big vehicles they’re using to manipulate perception and to ensure this occurs, and to ensure the electorate vote as desired at the next General Election (as they have just successfully done at the local elections) is all these manufactured, fake “free speech arrests” - the idea that “you can’t say anything” (on Twitter, on a train, wherever) without immediately being apprehended by the local constabulary.

Of course, this is complete nonsense, but “they” need you to believe it, and blame Keir Starmer for it, so you’ll vote for “free speech warrior” Farage - who had Lucy Connolly as the guest of honour at the recent Reform conference - at the next General Election (which I speculate will occur much sooner than summer 2029).

It’s all nonsense. It’s all a show, scripted by the intelligence agencies and performed by actors (quite often literally professional actors) to manipulate us and manufacture our consent. Just as with ‘covid’, the devious social puppet masters never use brute force to ensure compliance, they simply use the might of mass media (including high-profile social media) propaganda, instead - a far more formidable weapon, as the overlords worked out many decades ago.

However, as in keeping with their ‘code’, they always have to tell us what they’re doing (as per predictive programming like Years and Years and The Handmaid’s Tale) and they’re not always subtle...

To refer back to this year’s CPAC conference venue, and previous years’ venues, they are literally telling us that - far from being visionary, pioneering conservative warriors - they’re basically just a bunch of Gaylords...

And, just in case you’re not up to speed with the precise definition of modern-day internet slurs, please allow me to clarify:

“Gaylord” is primarily used as a slang term for a foolish, incompetent, or uncool person. Colloquially, it acts as a derogatory term... often intended to describe someone as effeminate, weak, or generally “lame”.

So, just like they tell us with the Hanta-Pantovirus (’Hanta’ being a Hungarian word meaning ‘nonsense’ or ‘balderdash’), they’re telling us with politics, too.

The question as ever remains, when they tell us who they really are, will we believe them?

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.