Things can only get better?

Those of a certain age will no doubt remember D:ream's irritatingly catchy titular ditty that became the official anthem of Tony Blair's 1997 Labour landslide victory (I was still at school at the time, but vividly remember the visceral excitement in the air, even amongst those several years too young to vote - and that I enjoyed a brief flash of scholastic stardom for my apparently uncanny impression of John Major's campaign slogan, "sorry Tony. Job's taken").

Unfortunately, we all also remember how quickly that excitement and optimism faded into despair, as Blair rapidly revealed himself as just another psychopathic warmonger. In his first six years in office, he ordered British troops into combat five times, more than any other Prime Minister in British history.

The national mood has changed radically since 1997, and faith in politicians as a class, regardless of their specific allegiance, has torpedoed, with voter turnouts now at historically low levels.

“The message on the doorstep was the same everywhere I went,” said one Labour activist. “Voters hate all of us.”

So - although I do predict a Labour landslide in May comparable to 1997's - I'm certainly not anticipating a repeat of 1997's enthusiasm in the lead up to the election. People on the whole are far less naive, and far more cynical, than they were in the 1990s, and no amount of honeyed words from puffed-up politicians is going to convince them that "it really will be different this time".

Even Andrew Bridgen, the self-styled people's politician ("controlled by nobody, representing everybody", as his campaign slogan rather grandiosely claims), was only able to muster up a patchily small crowd of support for his so-called "Andrew's Army".

That's because empty promises and elaborate grandstanding - the politician's stock in trade - don't work anymore, and the establishment will never again be able to convince the people to invest their hopes in a government, unless that government is actually visibly seen to do something different, not merely promise to do so in the lead up to an election.

For this reason, which I will subsequently elaborate on, I have just started re-reading the tremendous Sue Townsend satire, 'The Queen and I', depicting a world where a Republican government evicts the Royal Family and sends them to live on a council estate.

It has not escaped the attention of any consummate conspiracist that some very strange things appear to be going on in the British monarchy - King Charles pretending to have cancer, multiple Royals stepping down from their official appointments, and, of course, the curious case of Kate Middleton.

Where is she? Is she dead? Did Thomas Kingston know something, is that why he killed himself?

Rumours and theories abound, and a very obviously photoshopped image of Kate and kids released to the public to "reassure" us of her wellbeing has done nothing but fuel further speculation and doubt, given all the anomalies in the image (Charlotte's missing sleeve, a full flowering tree in March, Louis' weird hand).

It is my contention that all these apparent ructions in the Royal Family are being strategically stage-managed for a reason, and that they are not happening by accident: the Royal PR machine is one of the most sophisticated in the world, with centuries of experience, and they don't do things by accident.

Thus, we can be sure that they want us suspicious and speculating, they want us questioning the health and viability of key high-profile Royals, and they want our faith in the monarchic institution to exponentially decline.

Why?

To lay the foundations for their final dismantling, when a Republican government comes to power and throws them out.

I think it very likely and plausible that when Keir Starmer's Labour Party takes office, they will preside over a controlled demolition of the monarchy, which the stage is being set for now. Starmer is already on record as being an anti-monarchist, and has been heavily criticised by the Tories on that basis, with senior ministers alleging it makes him unfit to be PM - all part of the pantomime to prepare us for when he "turns on" the Royals once elected (enabling the Tories to crow, "we told you so!" and thus the political vaudeville continues).

Well, can you imagine the stunned national mood if that happened?

Finally, a politician who doesn't just talk, but actually delivers! The Royals are no more, woohoo! A true victory for the people!

Which of course it wouldn't be at all. Whilst I'm certainly no monarchist, the fact remains that scrapping the Royal Family would not make one iota of difference to anybody's life in this country. It's not as if their money and property portfolio would be divvied out between us all, their wealth would simply be absorbed back into the establishment.

However, although ultimately just token, this event would nevertheless have the effect of galvanising a huge shift in public mood and receptivity to government.

"I thought that Starmer was just like the rest of them," you can hear people saying to their mates in the office and the pub. "But he's actually different. He's finally got rid of those good-for-nothing parasites. I mean, I liked Diana, but all the others are wrong-uns. You've got that nonce Andrew, and racist Charles, and there's definitely something not right about how that William is with Kate. Good riddance to the lot of them, and good on Sir Keir!"

The papers would be talking about nothing else, the talk shows would be constantly abuzz with Royalists versus Republicans, and the cynical distrust people have in politicians would start to ebb away.

The anti-monarchy movement has grown much stronger since the death of Queen Elizabeth, and has been given plenty of press attention as it does so (and as we've discussed here on many occasions, when the press doesn't want a movement to grow, it ignores it: attention, even negative attention, means publicity, and publicity is what enables a movement to grow).

Now, with the rumour-mill in overdrive about what is happening in the Royal Family, preceded by the disgraced Prince Andrew's seedy shenanigans, it does seem that the stage is being set for some sort of dramatic season finale...

If Starmer scraps the monarchy, it will legitimise him as "different" in the eyes of many, a reputation that could be further solidified if he addresses a number of other very fractious issues that dominate political and cultural debate.

What if Starmer also called for a ceasefire in Gaza, freed Julian Assange, and exposed the Covid vaccines as harmful?

That triumvirate of issues are probably the three top concerns to those who are politically aware - but note that none of these are 'organic', natural developments, they have all been deftly manufactured.

The current situation in Gaza was provoked by the Hamas attacks in Israel on October 7th last year. Hamas is an Israeli-created and funded operation, and those with ties to Israeli military and intelligence have long since confirmed it would be absolutely impossible for Hamas to carry out those attacks undetected. At best, they were allowed to happen, but far more likely, they were planned and coordinated by Israel.

Julian Assange, meanwhile, is a very curious creature and many sceptics have credibly argued he is effectively undertaking an elaborate form of performance art - playing the part of persecuted hero upon the orders of the establishment, to fulfil certain agendas. Essentially, that he is a psy-op.

And the vaccine harms, of course, were all entirely predictable and avoidable as thousands of whistleblowers warned from before they came to market how dangerous they would be.

So the point is that all of these problems have been intentionally engineered, have captured the attentions of the world, and people are now very, very angry about them.

So imagine how much faith and trust many of these outraged individuals would invest in a person or government who came along and fixed all these terrible injustices?

The national mood is being stoked up to boiling point with ever-more volatile Palestine protests; with Julian Assange's latest edge-of-our-seats hearing (which, interestingly, he did not attend, and was alleged to be "too unwell" to even watch remotely), and of course the ever-increasing number of severe vaccine injuries and deaths.

The establishment didn't meticulously create all of these problems, and allow them to become such explosive national talking points, for no reason.

It created them to use them: to capitalise on the time-honoured political strategy of 'problem-reaction-solution'.

The social engineers who run the world stage show are past masters at understanding human psychology, and they study us forensically. They know how to win our trust, and then how to ruthlessly exploit it.

They're also veteran champions at playing the long-game, and will set up scenarios years, decades, and even centuries in advance, in order to capitalise on them later, knowing that that kind of strategy, to average people who are taught to plan only in days, weeks, and months, is inconceivable.

If I were to say, for example (as indeed, I have), that the establishment staged the "Madeleine McCann disappearance" in 2007 in order to push a microchip agenda years later when she is "found", people reject this as ludicrous, too far-fetched - that's not how life happens, things aren't organised like that, certainly not so far in advance - the government just incoherently lurches from one crisis to another!

That's what they want you to believe, but nothing could be further from the truth. Significant national and international events are generally decades in the making (we can chart the 'Covid' chapter back to at least 1992), meticulously planned to provoke certain public reactions, in order that the establishment can bring in the "solution" they want to implement - but couldn't have without first creating the problem to get the public clamouring for said solution.

This tactic is known more broadly as the "manufacture of consent", a term that was coined more than 100 years ago and has been used ever since by governments to control populations. In effect, they need you to consent to what they want to do to you, rather than apply it by force (as this is both harder and less effective). For you to consent, you need to trust them.

At a time in history when trust in government is at an all-time low, they therefore need to do something radically different to recapture that trust, and thus their power over populations.

Hence, I think the Starmer administration will look very different to ones we have seen before and will be seen to take decisive action on some key issues in a way that is designed to elicit approval.

Note that it was always in the modelling documents that "Covid" was based on that some of the vaccine harms would be officially revealed, whilst Starmer is now making the right noises about a Gaza ceasefire, and Julian Assange's fate has been postponed by judges for an indefinite period.

Meanwhile, the Royal Family seems to quite clearly be collapsing in front of us, in a way that is designed to undermine faith in the institution in even the most diehard Royalist.

So, are the world class scriptwriters and producers who coordinate world stage events preparing us for a brave new administration (along with Trump / Kennedy in the USA) who will be seen to "solve" all our problems and thus inspire trust that "it really is different this time"?

It looks very much like it to me, and the reason they would do this is to inspire enough trust that, when they bring in the next round of tyranny - the next "pandemic", that we have been promised so many times, and of course, the encroaching green tyranny - the dominant public mood is to trust and support them, as "they're obviously on our side, look at all these amazing things they've done for us so far!".

Remember how highly politicised the propagandist polemic, 'Breathtaking', was - based on the memoirs of a hard-left activist who blames the Tories for not being "strict" enough during Covid... therefore setting the stage for a Labour government to be far stricter next time.

Equally, RFK Jr may be vocally vaccine sceptic... but he has always emphasised he is not anti-vax and merely wants "safe vaccines" (a contradiction in terms), as well as having been very much in favour of various policies to combat "climate change".

So this all looks to me like one big, elaborate bait and switch. The new controllers will attempt to reel us in by appearing to solve a few problems (that they created in the first place), in order to win public trust for the next round of tyranny.

To tie this back to the title, it just so happens that the keyboard player in D:ream, the nineties band who so melodically assured us that "things could only get better". was one Brian Cox, musician turned celebrity scientist who has spent most of the last decade informing us we're all going to die from climate change.

It really is one big club... and the same old con, repackaged and repurposed over and over again.

But this time really is different in one crucial way - this time, we're not going to fall for 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 here or via Patreon

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)