The children of the revolution are here - and they're AI

If I asked you to describe the typical audience for a purple-haired, pint-swilling, anime AI, you’d probably imagine a coven of far-left communists, replete with Pfizer face masks, trans tattoos, and pistachio pronouns (vegan, you see...). So it’s quite an improbable twist of fate to discover that this character has, in fact, become the latest right-wing emblem in the cultural wars...

“Amelia” is a government-created AI (that’s your first clue) that, Approved Thought Leaders have declared, has been “hijacked by the dissidents to fight back“. She’s being promoted by all the usual pied piper figures, like Graham Linehan (see my article on him, and his real role, here).

Hence, “Amelia” - who, to repeat, was created by the government - has become the darling of the political right, as she is depicted in a number of AI-generated scenarios - such as walking through a heavily Muslim area walking a dog and brandishing a large pork sausage - pontificating provocatively on politics, and encouraging the patriotic right to “take back their country” and so on and so forth.

Recently self-appointed as “Britain’s new Queen“, Amelia’s status as a pretty young girl wearing a low-cut dress has made her a good deal more popular with certain elements of the political right than, for instance, Nigel Farage.

It’s also rapidly making her a lot more popular than Lucy Connolly, Tom Skinner, or any of the other previous poster boy/girls for the Reform revolution (in just a few days, Amelia has already amassed significantly more Twitter followers than Connolly).

For Amelia has an incredible advantage than none of these people can ever possess:

She isn’t a person. She’s not human with human fallibilities. She doesn’t make mistakes.

The aforementioned three people are constantly mired in controversy and scandal from their various “slips”, whether it’s Nigel Farage not filing his accounts, Tom Skinner cheating on his wife, or Lucy Connolly declaring political opponents “gash flashers“.

All of this plays incredibly poorly with the electorate, and thus does significant damage to the gargantuan Reform PR campaign (as I’ve noted previously, it seems like at the moment, everything’s a publicity stunt for Reform) designed to ensure a landslide victory for the party at the next General Election.

So what does Reform (who are already suspected of using AI candidates) do?

They quietly, but increasingly, distance themselves from real people, and further and further, ally themselves with AI.

This “revolution” has been inevitable for a while, and we were given a sure symbolic sign of it when the grand mansions of Hollywood stars went up in flames.

As I said at the time:

---

“That brings us on to the latest and very theatrical Hollywood pyrotechnics display: the brutal fires in Los Angeles, destroying many mansions of Hollywood stars.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting this is fake and that the fires aren’t real or the houses aren’t really gone. It clearly is all very real.

However, that doesn’t suggest it wasn’t also “staged”, as in, planned, scripted, and done on purpose, which, with all the “coincidences” surrounding the fires - such as many of the affected homes recently losing their fire insurance, and the nearby reservoir being out of commission - makes it appear extremely probable that it was.

Which begs the question: why? Why would it be desirable to the orchestrators of world events to torch multiple celebrity mansions and raze one of the most glittering and desirable neighbourhoods in the world to the ground?

In answering that question, we need to look back to the very beginning of 2020: January 6th, to be exact, and the 77th annual Golden Globes celebration.

The Golden Globes are a glitzy, star-studded event, celebrating “excellence in international film and television”... which is why it was quite a surprise to all of us what Ricky Gervais was allowed to say at them.

We all recall his famous speech, “roasting” the residents of Hollywood and their various “alleged” predilections.

Gervais said (excerpted highlights):

“Let’s go out with a bang. Let’s have a laugh at your expense, shall we? Remember, they’re just jokes. We’re all going to die soon and there’s no sequel. Yeah, remember that...

Lots of big celebrities here tonight. I mean, legends, icons, yeah? This table alone, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Baby Yoda. Oh, that’s Joe Pesci, sorry. I love you, man, don’t have me whacked...

Look, talking of all you perverts, it was a big year for paedophile movies, Surviving R. Kelly, Leaving Neverland, Two Popes. Shut up, shut up. I don’t care, I don’t care...

No one cares about movies anymore, no one goes to the cinema, no one really watches network TV. Everyone’s watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going, “Well done, Netflix. You win everything. Goodnight,” but no. No, we’ve got a drag it out for three hours...”

All the best actors have jumped to Netflix and HBO. The actors who just do Hollywood movies now do fantasy adventure nonsense. They wear masks and capes and really tight costumes. Their job isn’t acting anymore, it’s going to the gym twice a day and taking steroids really. Have we got an award for most ripped junkie?“

And so on and so forth, basically making it entirely clear to the celebrity collective - and the worldwide audience - that these people are now useless, worthless, a literal joke...

What we have to be crystal clear on with this speech is that it was fully scripted, rehearsed, and signed off at the highest levels before Gervais delivered it. The shadowy executives behind Hollywood, and by virtue its award ceremonies, were fully aware of what Gervais would say, and what’s more, would have instructed him to say it, because, they always have to tell us.

Gervais was telling us - and the gathered gliteratti of Tinseltown - that it’s over. The gravy train, the riches, the awards, the celebration - get ready to say goodbye.

And exactly five years later, almost to the very day, we have a visceral burning effigy of that fact, as the epitome of Hollywood success - the opulent LA mansion - smoulders sensationally to the ground.

Hollywood and its celebrities have done their job and now the system that made them intends to comprehensively, humiliatingly break them, by taking everything away - their pedestal, their reputation, their riches, their homes - because it doesn’t need them any more. That’s what we’re seeing here.

But why doesn’t it? When people are more in thrall to their screens than ever, surely actors have more influential star power than ever before?

Yes, they do, and to the control-freak psychopaths behind the scenes, allowing mere mortals to have that level of power and influence is a problem, because what if they go off-script?

No matter how much you attempt to control someone, no matter how much you threaten or bribe them, no matter even if you subject them to military-grade mind-control programmes, they’re still human and they can slip up.

MK Ultra programming, for example, can and does break down as people age, due to natural neurological changes in the brain (see Britney Spears and Amanda Bynes for two recent, very public examples).

Alternatively or additionally, people’s consciences can get the better of them, and they can speak up about some of the darkest secrets lurking behind Hollywood’s glittering facade - see Isaac Kappy (who the ruling classes then had to go to the trouble of suiciding).

The point is that people are never completely controllable, and when they wield the enormous power and influence a top Hollywood celebrity does, it really would be vastly preferable to their masters and handlers that they were.

So how to get around this?

Look closely - Ricky Gervais gave us big clues in his speech. He said, Hollywood actors are basically useless now, they’re just glorified body-builders and junkies. Netflix (and similar streaming services) are the future.

Now, look at one of Netflix’s most popular and most revealing shows, Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror.

Black Mirror is to the Netflix generation what Brave New World was to readers of its day (and just in case you were in any doubt about that, Charlie Brooker even named his son ‘Huxley‘).

He’s telling us.

Brooker is saying, just as Huxley was, “I’m an insider, I’ve seen the blueprints, and I know the plans. Here’s what’s coming.”

Many of Black Mirror’s “predictions” (revelations) have already come true, such as the social credit scoring system depicted on the episode Nosedive, which we now have with services such as Uber (where both driver and passenger give each other a star score out of five, just as is shown in the show).

What else did Black Mirror “predict”?

See the episode Joan Is Awful.

In this episode, a woman’s life is automatically generated into a televised show using CGI and deepfake technology.

In other words, an entirely persuasive and realistic TV series is produced using no actual human beings in the acting roles.

Commenting on the episode, creator Brooker said the entertainment industry was considering a future of “automatically generated entertainment that is endlessly targeted directly at individuals”.

The episode came out just before the launch of ChatGPT, and Brooker said he was “happy with the episode’s timeliness”.

I bet he was.

What we are therefore being prepared for - with the rise of ChatGPT and CGI, and the simultaneous demise of Hollywood, its iconic legends, and their homes - is a future where the “reality” presented to us via our screens is not merely fictitious or fabricated, insofar as it is being scripted by writers and acted by performers, but that it is entirely unreal and fake, consisting solely of AI-generated lies.”

---

I wrote that almost exactly a year ago (January 13th, 2025), and, one year on, here we are, where one of the leading lights in politics and culture is not an accomplished orator, a seasoned strategist, or even a silly celebrity... it’s an AI.

The most revealing - and terrifying - thing about this is that no champion of “Amelia” cares in the slightest that she isn’t real. I was - terribly naively, it seems - under the misapprehension that, for AI to successfully take over, it would, at least initially, need to present itself as “real”.

But apparently - perhaps because people are already so accustomed to talking to “Chat”, the AI so ubiquitous it has a nickname - that hasn’t been necessary.

Amelia is overtly presented as AI, and nobody cares. In fact, they seem to think it makes her rather “cooler”, as she can do things no real person would dare to do, such as walking through Muslim enclaves whilst mocking them and waving around sausages.

This, then, is the turning point in culture: people have clearly and unambiguously signalled they don’t need their celebrities, heroes, or even political figures to be real any more. Hence, the AI anti-reality revolution seems almost inevitable.

We are already being prepped for “end to trial by jury“ - is that to be replaced by trial by AI?

Once the Reform government is elected and then inevitably, a few years later (bookmark this page...) collapses through scandal and corruption, will we finally decide humans are too flawed to govern other humans, and that we must look to AI instead?

Even more ominously, we will eventually be pressured to become AI ourselves?

Already there exists such a concept as a “digital twin“, where you can create an “idealised” version of you - which is never grumpy, tired, or having a bad hair day - to perform in Zoom conferences and other online spaces on your behalf.

But why stop there? If you’re going to have a digital avatar, why does it need to look like you at all? Wouldn’t you rather look like your favourite actor or model?

Well, now you can! As was reported regarding the recent Tom Hanks film, Here, which made heavy use of AI to enable the then 68-year-old Hanks to appear as a teenager, that tech now exists.

A New York Times reporter visited the visual effects start-up responsible for “de-ageing” Hanks throughout the film, and found himself “transformed” into a famous actor. He wrote:

“Ulbrich clickety-clicked on his laptop for a moment, and my face on the screen was transmogrified. “Smile,” he said to me. “Do you recognize that face?” I did, right away, but I can’t disclose its owner, because the actor’s project won’t come out until 2025, and the role is still top secret. Suffice it to say that the face belonged to a major star with fantastic teeth. “Smile again,” Ulbrich said. I complied. “Those aren’t your teeth.” Indeed, the teeth belonged to Famous Actor. The synthesis was seamless and immediate, as if a digital mask had been pulled over my face that matched my expressions, with almost no lag time.”

Soon, that technology will become accessible to ordinary people, to allow you to appear as whoever you like online. It could be a person much younger or older than you, someone of the opposite sex, or of a different race. The possibilities are endless. And terrifying.

Indeed, this was the exact formidable future presented to us in the probable predictive programming vehicle, Ready Player One.

In this film, set in 2045, much of humanity uses the OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation), a virtual reality simulation, to escape the real world. They exist in this simulation, and interact with others, as avatars. None of them knows each other in the real world, or what each other really looks like.

This is in line with tech titan, Marc Andreessen’s, future plans for humanity, where he says most ordinary people will lack what he terms “reality privilege“, and will instead principally exist as avatars online.

This is echoed by the thoughts of WEF gremlin, Yuval Noah Harari, who predicts - largely because of AI - the rise of a “useless class“, who will have nothing to do with their lives but be terminally online, whilst heavily drugged to make this inhuman existence more bearable.

So, any “right-wing patriot” currently patting themselves on the back for how clever and subversive they think they’re being by repurposing “Amelia” - the government-created AI - to fight their battles for them, might want to think again.

I mentioned that Amelia’s government-created status was the “first clue” as to the real nefarious intentions behind her creation. Here’s the second:

What is Amelia’s signature colour? What is the colour of her hair, dress, jacket and boots?

Purple.

Conspiracy 101, guys... Purple is the colour of deception.

The government is not stupid. They’re not incompetent: that’s simply the useful cover-story they use to disguise their ruthless and intentionally evil acts as “mistakes”. So, they didn’t make an oopsie by creating Amelia. Rather, they have used this carefully curated character on purpose, in order to lure you to exactly where they want you to be: to making yourself, and your unique human contribution, utterly redundant because - whatever side of the political spectrum you’re on - AI can always do it better.

In the amplifying and idolising of Amelia, they have you admitting that, out of the millions of talented people in the country who believe in right-wing causes, none of them can present the case anywhere near as persuasively as an AI can.

Just as no actor can look as flawless as an AI.

No person can speak as seamlessly as their digital twin.

No real life as a real human can be as exciting as life as an avatar in the OASIS.

We must reject coming to these otherwise inevitable conclusions whilst we still have the time to do so.

Life is not supposed to be seamless and flawless, people are not supposed to be infallible and perfect. As they say, “perfect is the enemy of good”.

And, if we’re not careful, AI will become the enemy of a whole lot more...

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.