So, who had "bring back the death penalty" on their 2025 bingo card?

2025 is not yet one month old, and already, the architects of evil who rule our societies have found yet another way to bump us off prematurely: reinstating the death penalty.

Exploiting the public outrage over the "Southport stabbings" - blamed on a star alumni of Pauline Quirke's drama school, with BBC acting credits to his name (and a ludicrously comic-book villain appearance) - the media and the latest political saviours, Reform, are heavily pushing for the reintroduction of the death penalty for society's most heinous crimes.

Even more ominously, ARC spokesperson and change agent, Louise Perry (who I have written in detail about before), is even promoting the idea that the death penalty should be reintroduced by referendum. That the UK public - whipped up into a frothing, spitting, vengeful rage by the UK press - should be given the decisive say on whether or not the state can legally execute its citizens.

We obviously do not need to go into a lengthy polemic about how terrifyingly dangerous this idea is, but suffice to say, you really shouldn't trust the motives of a state that is pushing assisted dying and reintroducing the death penalty at the same time...

Are some criminals so dangerous we would be better off if they were dead? Yes, of course, but that is not an argument for giving the psychopathic, ruthless, depopulation-obsessed state the power to legally murder people. It is not possible for enough safeguards to be put in place for it ever to be a good idea to give the state - any state - the power to kill people, whether it is via assisted dying or the death penalty.

I also do not need to explain why, if you are a state dissident, living in a country that has the death penalty is an especially threatening situation.

How easy would it be - especially in the age of AI - for the state to frame dissidents of being guilty of despicable crimes, and have them put to death?

After all, almost everyone has uncritically accepted Axel Rudakubana is guilty of murdering three children, when we've never seen any actual hard evidence of this. All we've seen are media reports, and the comic-book villain photo of Axel I alluded to earlier. Yet that is enough in the minds of most to brand him guilty and deserving of the most severe punishment.

You know that, in theory, the state could do this exact same thing to you? Use the media to declare you've murdered a load of innocent children - even using AI to show "evidence" of you doing this - and then, in the event that the death penalty is re-legalised, have you put to death, to roars of approval from the baying mob public. Just as we see them baying to have Rudakubana put to death now.

This is why, needless to say, we must oppose this proposed move with everything in our power - including and especially the idea of it going to a referendum.

A referendum on this subject is one of the most sinister and dangerous ideas I have ever heard for this reason: what do you think the result would have been if, at the height of Covid hysteria, a referendum was called with the question, "should the Covid vaccine be mandated for everyone?"

Whilst millions would have voted no, the majority would almost certainly have voted yes. Then the state would have had a mandate to vaccinate us all by force.

This is why I am against direct democracy (i.e., the public voting on every important political issue by referendum): because the mainstream media is too powerful, and can too easily manipulate people into voting as it desires.

Whilst the system we currently have, representative democracy - where our "representatives in parliament" vote on important issues on our behalf - is far from perfect, at least there is some accountability, because MP voting records are public. That means MPs can be scrutinised and held to account on what they have voted for.

There is no such transparency or accountability in direct democracy, which would - based on what we saw throughout the Covid episode - enable people's worst authoritarian tendencies.

We were given a big clue that a formal referendum on the subject of state-enforced death is soon coming, by Reform MP, Rupert Lowe, who - when making up his mind how to vote on assisted dying - put the question to his constituents in an informal referendum.

He was heavily criticised for this, being reminded by many that we in the UK have representative democracy, not direct democracy, and as such, the decision is down to him, not his constituents.

Nevertheless, Lowe accepted the result of his referendum - and voted for assisted dying.

Critics pointed out, correctly, that Lowe's constituents (only a small minority of whom actually voted in this poll) are unlikely to fully understand all the issues involved in this gargantuan subject, and had simply been manipulated into assent by the media.

Obviously, the exact same thing will be true, but on steroids, for the death penalty.

If this goes to a referendum, we can confidently predict that, shortly before the polls open, a high-profile, ultra-theatrical "crime" will take place, almost certainly involving children. Possibly a "school shooting", which would help to agenda-push in other ways, namely that children aren't safe leaving the house and must be educated at home online.

Please also note that, concurrently to promoting the death penalty and assisted dying, the media is also giving more and more attention to the idea of scrapping democracy altogether and replacing it with abject authoritarianism.

Anybody who thinks "well, so what, it wouldn't be any worse than what we have now", would, I'm afraid, be in for a very nasty shock.

I did warn those who abstain from voting, because they believe it doesn't make a difference or is rigged or whatever, that the establishment would use the large number of non-voters as "evidence" that democracy isn't working and needs to be replaced with authoritarianism.

I said:

"If and when voter turnout becomes low enough (and remember, they have just implemented a further step, voter ID, to ensure it continues to decline), they will simply use this as an excuse to scrap democracy entirely and replace it with a more explicit form of tyranny, where there is no suggestion you have any choice." (Read full piece here - and please do actually do that before fulminating on Twitter and totally misrepresenting my views, you know who you are - where I also accurately predicted that Starmer would bring in assisted dying).

Flawed and corrupted as it certainly is, the fact is that we do at the moment have a democratic system, which protects certain rights, such as free speech. Free speech is a fundamental foundation in a democracy, and there must be laws to protect it, as there are. That is precisely why I am able to write this article, and all my articles, without incurring any state sanctions.

Please note that, contrary to popular belief, 'free speech' does not mean private businesses such as Facebook are obliged to platform your views - rather, it means that you are protected by law from the government censoring or penalising you for your views. So, you might get a social media ban for wrongthink under the current system, but you wouldn't typically get a prison sentence for it.

This is not the case in an authoritarian dictatorship. A dictator can and will ban certain forms of speech - such as criticising the government, especially during, for instance, "a pandemic" - and those who break this law can be severely punished. A pretty sinister threat in a country that has the death penalty.

We can already see what types of speech would be specifically targeted in such a political climate, with the proposed introduction of 'Eve's Law'. Resulting from Richard D. Hall's high-profile court case, where he was sued by two alleged victims of the Manchester "bombing" for harassment, Eve's Law would be the UK's first specifically anti-conspiracy theory law.

Such a law is not compatible with a democratic system. But it is with an authoritarian one.

As we have discussed at this site many times, we as a society have been pushed to "peak liberalism" to prime us to push back in the other direction, and we are on the precipice of a huge political pendulum swing. Not just back to something more resembling 1950s conservatism, as some may imagine - but to out-and-out tyrannical authoritarianism.

Less Happy Days, more Handmaid's Tale.

Even though the increasing move towards the political hard right (the real hard right, that is, rather than the fake one we've all been accused of being part of since 2020) has been clear for some time, I seriously never imagined that I would have to campaign against the death penalty in my lifetime.

But campaign I will, vigorously, and - just as we were triumphant in defeating vaccine mandates and resisting all attendant forms of tyranny - we can defeat this too.

Remember, we live in a consent-based system. The mainstream media is constantly engaged in "manufacturing our consent" for whatever piece of hideous social engineering it wants to push through next.

So all we have to do is stand together, and not give it.

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.