Slating the obvious? The Jay Slater disappearance is fake

Nobody ever seems to go missing in Blackpool, do they? You don't hear of people disappearing in Devon, evanescing in Exmoor, or vanishing from the sandy shores of Scarborough beaches.

It's always abroad these "holiday disappearances" take place.

Michael Mosley, famous "TV doctor" disappeared and then (allegedly) died in the Greek islands; Madeleine McCann, world's most famous missing child, vanished from her bed whilst on holiday in Portugal; and now, 19-year-old Jay Slater has apparently evaporated without a trace whilst on holiday in Tenerife.

These stories have all been international headline news immediately, whilst - as I have commented on many times - hundreds of people go missing every week and we never hear about any of them.

Therefore, when a "missing person's case" gets instant, blanket mainstream news coverage like this, we know it's there to fulfil a major agenda item or three.

So what is the agenda being pushed by the Jay Slater "disappearance"?

Well, it's not safe to go abroad, is it? Just look at what happened to that poor kid, just trying to enjoy himself, then vanishes without a trace. These foreign authorities supposedly out there looking for him - incompetent! And they don't care about British people. See how they botched the Madeleine McCann case, and look at all these missing Brits on Greek islands they can't be bothered to find.

Much better to stay at home and have a holiday here, where it's safe, and where authorities know what they're doing. Stay home, stay safe!

That's the takeaway message we're supposed to get from these high-profile foreign disappearances, and I know for a fact it's working, as someone I know has a 20-year-old son currently away on his first holiday abroad without family.

"Have you heard about the Jay Slater case?" I casually enquired of my friend.

"Yes, but I've been intentionally not looking at it because it's making me really worried about [my son]."

Bingo, I thought grimly. Job done.

(His son is on his way home now and fine.)

Up until recently, foreign holidays and international travel have been a big part of life, for young people especially... but we know the overlords want to ban this - ostensibly because of the "carbon footprint" - and phase flying and foreign holidays out, for all but the uber-rich.

So, this string of high-profile disappearances seems geared to push people towards rejecting foreign travel through fears of it being unsafe and unregulated ("incompetent foreign authorities who hate the British" etc).

As such, I believe the Jay Slater case is simply another fictionalised TV drama being acted out on the world stage in order to manipulate us, as most high-profile media events are, rather than representing an organic missing person's case the media has just happened to take an uncharacteristically obsessive interest in.

Since, to reiterate: tens of thousands of people go missing every year (the official figure is 170,000, which apparently is a "significant underestimate") - about one every 90 seconds - and we never hear anything about 99.9% of them,

Therefore, whenever a missing persons' case becomes widespread headline news - especially when this happens very quickly - we know it's highly unlikely to be real, but just more scripted, directed drama to elicit certain reactions from the public: in this case, to scare them off foreign travel (amongst other things, which we shall get to shortly).

My suspicions about the fictionalised nature of the Jay Slater case seemed to be rather confirmed by this paragraph I read in some of the media coverage:

'Police revealed yesterday that two mystery British men who were with Jay the night he disappeared were 'not relevant' to their investigation.

The development raised eyebrows among many as TV sleuth Mark Williams-Thomas, who worked on the missing people cases of Madeleine McCann and Nicola Bulley, had described the men as 'key witnesses' and appealed for them to come forward.'

Did you catch that description of the professional investigator there - "TV sleuth"?

What is a "TV sleuth"? As I remarked regarding the apparent death of Michael Mosley, famed "TV doctor":

"Doesn't the very term "TV doctor" tell us that these characters are not real medics? If an attorney appears on a talk show, we don't call them a "TV lawyer", if a professor is on the news, they're not a "TV teacher". So perhaps "TV doctor" really means "plays doctor on TV".

I think we can therefore safely apply the same logic to "TV sleuths". They're not real criminal investigators, they just play them on TV, which is why this particular "TV sleuth" only seems to investigate "TV disappearances", e.g., very high-profile media cases like Madeleine McCann and Nicola Bulley which get extensive TV coverage... because they are TV dramas, just like Broadchurch or Silent Witness or whatever. Scripted, directed fiction portrayed by actors.

As a side note for newer readers, I have been asserting for years that I do not believe Madeleine McCann was either abducted or killed, by her parents or anyone else. I believe the whole thing was staged - acted - to fulfil a later (and loomingly imminent) agenda: you can see my full theory here.

And what agenda is that, you may ask? Well, in addition to the "going on foreign holidays is too dangerous" one, what is another agenda item we know they're desperate to fulfil?

Clue: Elon "Neuralink" Musk...

They want to chip us, and in order to gain mass compliance with that initiative, they have to manipulate consent by convincing people it's necessary. The only way I can see them successfully doing that is by alleging that, if we don't chip our loved ones - especially children and young people - they will tragically disappear: either be snatched from their beds as toddlers (as per Madeleine), or disappear whilst partying as teenagers (like Jay).

Much has been made of the fact that, in Jay's supposed last phone call, he stated his "phone was only on 1%".

The inclusion of this detail is vital: it's to prompt us to think, "we think our loved ones are safe because they've always got their phones, but phones can run out of power, so obviously that's not enough...".

To make sure loved ones are really safe, we can't rely on phones or other electronics that can run out of power or be lost or stolen: we need something more reliable. Something that can't ever be switched off. Something internal...

I know that at present the chips used on cats and dogs don't have a GPS facility, but these are just "first generation" chips - there's no reason to think later ones won't. If Elon Musk's company has already produced brain chips that enable people to control the movements of a computer mouse with their thoughts (as apparently they have), a simple GPS tracking system doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility, and work is already underway to develop one.

As soon as a design is perfected, they will need a willing human market, and in order for that to occur, we've got to be softened up to the idea with lots of tragic missing persons' cases of young, photogenic people, failed by incompetent authorities, left to endure tragedy and trauma far away from home, when they could have been safe with their families all along - if they'd just been chipped!

Of course, there's a further agenda item being fulfilled by the Jay Slater case and that is the inevitability of so-called "internet ghouls" (a cohort of which I am proud to be a member) speculating on what's happened to him.

Needless to say, if you don't want the public to speculate on a missing person's case, you don't make it international headline news for ten days straight. Rather, you keep it out of the press entirely, which is exactly what happens for 99.9% of all missing persons' cases everywhere: they rarely even merit a short paragraph on the back pages of the local paper, never mind front page news headlines in all the big name nationals. Indeed, the families of these ignored and neglected missing people, generally, desperately wish they would get that kind of coverage, to bring more attention to the search.

So, it's such an obviously baited trap: force a sensationalist drama into the headlines and saturate the news with it constantly, therefore triggering it as an intense topic of national conversation. Then, lash out at people furiously for "daring" to talk about it... and asserting this as proof that we need more clampdowns on the internet and restrictions on free speech, in order to stop people being so despicably insensitive and "ghoulish" as to talk about something the press is making it inevitable they talk about.

I see there is also the predictable 'GoFundMe' for Jay's family, and I have the same opinion on that as I usually do in these cases: that is how the wages for the actors in these scenarios are generated. There was one for Nicola Bulley's partner too, and he had quite a distinguished past history as a crisis actor. When people are offered these roles, they're told they'll be able to raise their own wages via an open-ended fundraiser, which will do very well, because of all the publicity the media will give it.

The Jay Slater GoFundMe has generated a very similar amount of money to the Nicola Bulley one, around £40k, so that must be the going rate for crisis actors these days (it's not the best paid gig when compared to other high-profile acting roles - say, pretending to lead a fake political party - but then these people are not the best actors, as we constantly see with their smiling, giggling, fudging their lines etc).

Will Jay eventually be found? (Or rather, will we eventually be told "he's been found"?)

Yes, probably (and I think he will be found alive, see my article on Madeleine McCann for why): but whether he is found alive or dead - or not found at all - this case has already fulfilled the key agenda items of:

1. Scaring people off foreign travel;

2. Creating burgeoning clamour for a more reliable way to keep loved ones safe than mobile phones;

3. Demonising "conspiracy theorists" who have speculated about the Slater case, thus creating more demands for a clampdown on the internet and free speech

However, the one good thing about the ruthlessly evil psychopaths who believe they rule the world, is that they constantly underestimate those they consider "beneath them" (e.g., us) with these ridiculously predictable and transparent psy-ops.

They use the same kind of scripting every time, they hire the same sorts of third-rate actors and rent-an-outrage journalists, to the extent that what they are doing becomes more and more obvious each time.

If Jay was a real "missing person", they would have ignored him, just like they do all the other 169,999 people who go missing each year. Nobody, beyond his own family and friends, would have the slightest idea that he had disappeared. That they've given it all the coverage they have tells us everything we need to know.

It ultimately comes back to the same slogan I have coined for high-profile controlled opposition: how do we know they're controlled, how do we know cases like Jay's are fake?

It's because...

If you know their name (because the mainstream media has ensured you do by giving them blanket coverage), they're in the game.

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)