Uncivil War

As I detailed in my last article, I like to try and keep on top of various prominent pieces of predictive programming (I watch it so you don't have to), as it reliably gives us a good deal of insight into what the social scriptwriters have planned next.

They told us about "Covid" with 2011's Contagion, they told us about Agenda 2030 with 2019's Years and Years, and they're telling us about imminent civil war with, well, Civil War. This 2024 star-studded production, featuring Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons, was directed by prominent author and screenwriter, Alex Garland, who has previously written a film about organ harvesting, a subject which his Nobel-prize winning grandfather was an expert in. So, anything produced by Mr. Garland has "intergenerational ruling elite agenda" stamped all over it

The basic plot of Civil War is that an authoritarian government has sparked a brutal conflict across the country, with various factions vying for victory, and where the main tensions centre around race and immigration.

The signature scene features a solider (Plemons) digging a mass grave for a large truckload of mainly non-white people he has already executed, and, when confronted with our heroes (brave photo journalists traversing the country to capture the war on film), he asks all of them where they are from. Anyone who delivers an answer other than an American state is immediately killed.

This messaging is not exactly... subtle. Indeed, it precisely mirrors the messaging given to us by Years and Years, which is that those who harbour immigration concerns are all deranged genocidal psychopaths who wish to brutally murder everyone who is not an indigenous member of the population.

Hence, we are approaching a planned and scripted crescendo, where immigration tensions - which have been intentionally facilitated and provoked by the ruling classes - reach boiling point, and explode into a brutal clash.

Yet we need an event to trigger this. At the moment, people who are angered by immigration issues generally do little more than vent their frustrations on Twitter.

What might compel them to finally snap and take to the streets?

Briefly, they did so when three little girls were supposedly murdered in Southport last year.

But that soon fizzled out, and those "riots" were mostly exaggerated or entirely faked anyway.

That's probably because, as outraged as people initially were about three children allegedly being killed, they didn't actually know these children, and so their ire only had a very limited shelf-life. I mean, these children weren't famous celebrities, the assassinations of whom people take very seriously and personally. Just look at what happened when Donald Trump was "nearly assassinated". That probably won him the election, because, due to Trump's extensive celebrity, people feel they know him and so felt a deep personal investment at his "near-death experience".

Assassinations - whether real or faked - are well-known triggers for wider scale political conflict (see World War I), but these can't just be assassinations of random people, not even random children.

To have the desired effect, the assassination has to be of someone with at least a modicum of celebrity - someone who's seen as important; someone who people feel they know.

Imagine what would happen, then, if a beloved right-wing celebrity, someone who was well known for voicing immigration concerns, was killed by an immigrant.

That would be it: that would be enough to fully ignite people's indignation and fury, taking it offline and onto the streets, where of course there would be plenty of agent provocateurs and state assets like Yaxley-Lennon ("Tommeh") to whip up and weaponise the situation as much as possible.

We're heading towards the one year anniversary of the alleged Southport stabbings (29th July), which were subsequently followed by the riots, and then the supposed imprisonment of Lucy Connolly (who we're told was jailed for writing a Tweet inspired by the Southport stabbings) - and the timing is not incidental, because hot weather drives aggressive behaviour. There is always more conflict in hot weather, so the ruling classes plan these kind of events for the times of year when they can exploit them the most.

Oddly, having already been in prison for nearly a year and just weeks away from her release, it is only now that the public is suddenly being encouraged to write to Lucy Connolly in prison to keep her spirits up, during her terrible ordeal.

Very strange timing.

Surely she could have done with the support when she was just at the beginning of her sentence, dreading the next 12 months, a year ago: not right at the end, when she must be feeling increasingly jubilant - eagerly anticipating her release and fat pay cheque of over £150,000 (minus the cost of a dishwasher).

Even stranger, though, are the characters cheerleading this send-a-card-to-the-Twitter-convict campaign. At the helm, we have Alex Belfield, a former BBC DJ most famous for being the last person to interview Jimmy Savile.

Next up, we have a handful of Lucy's random Twitter pals, some of whom have never actually met her.

Surely any campaign to encourage people to write to Lucy that involves releasing her private details (prison numbers are private and confidential information) would be conducted by the family or close friends, not "Nat the Twat" (as she calls herself) from Twitter.

Let's talk about Nat the Twat....

Ever since I started investigating the Lucy op, numerous people have pointed me towards Nat as an authentic source of reliable information because "she knows Lucy in real life and has visited her in prison".

I have been "corresponding" with Nat - if you can call it that - for many weeks now, and have still seen no verifiable evidence whatsoever that she knows or has ever met Lucy, let alone that she has visited her in prison multiple times.

I have, however - for my temerity to question the veracity of a high-profile cause championed by such trustworthy sources as Lord Toby Young and Allison Pearson - been subjected to a highly coordinated campaign of abuse, degradation, mockery, and attempts at public humiliation by Nat and her - shall we say? - "colleagues".

These include calling me every name you can imagine (c***, w**** etc), extensive pornographic references, and graphic descriptions of sex acts.

Just to reiterate, "Nat" has been recommended to me by numerous people as a genuine and legitimate source of information on Lucy Connolly.

To those people, please be fully aware that this is who you are recommending: these are her "friends".

Do you think that if the Lucy Connolly story was remotely true, the main name on Twitter associated with legitimising her cause - on making it all "seem real" - would behave like this? Be so openly associated with, and encouraging of, men who talk to women like this?

Obviously not, so I can tell you quite easily what this behaviour actually is: it's psychological warfare brought to you by - and bankrolled by - the very same people who brought you "Covid".

Remember what would happen when you questioned Covid online? Remember the abuse you would get?

The MO of highly trained state assets like "Nat" is to shut down any questioning and debate of official state narratives - especially surrounding high-profile and important psyops like this one - by, essentially, fighting dirty. They won't bother even attempting reasoned discussion and debate, they will simply go straight for the jugular: insult, mockery, and abuse - especially regarding sex and sexualised terms, because these are the best and most effective ways of demoralising and degrading people and grinding them down into silence.

Why do hostile forces in conflict flood enemy territory with pornography? Because it is a weapon of war. It demoralises and disables those who would otherwise fight.

The relentless coarse language is also key, because what is another term for "swear words"? Curse words. These words are curses, and they hit people like they are. Reading and hearing curse word after curse word has a dark and degrading effect on people's psyches, so again, this is why these type of assets swear relentlessly.

They also hunt in packs, dog whistling for each other, and trying to isolate their prey (they will block those whom they feel might offer support to the target), because the goal is not just to grind down the target, but to send a powerful message to anybody else who might be reading: that if you dare to publicly question the official state narrative, this will happen to you, too. Only a small fraction of people are thick-skinned enough to calmly and consistently deal with this (shoutout to General Ripper and Martin!), and these scrupulously trained state attack dogs know that.

Consequently, I receive large numbers of private messages about Lucy Connolly (and her online "friends"), but few people who are willing to go public, knowing the kind of treatment they will receive if they do.

So what does that tell you? That the state narrative is real? That the people who promote it are acting in good faith?

The Twitter gang who promote and aggressively gatekeep Lucy Connolly are some of the world's worst people, and not because of their silly pornified language - I'm all for free speech, publicly degrade yourself as much as you like - but because they take money from the state - tax-payer's money - to do this.

These people are not just bored trolls firing off abuse for attention, these are highly trained and scrupulously strategic state assets who are paid to do what they do.

How can I be so sure they are paid? Apart from observing their tactics, which are revealing enough in themselves, it's the simple fact that when confronted with the direct question of whether they are state assets, they won't answer.

They'll mock and insult you for asking, dodge the question, deflect, etc., but they won't simply say "no". It appears to be a part of the rules of the "game" that they can't lie if directly asked (and some of them do actually say yes, and then follow it up with a load of silly comments and swearing, as if to suggest they're being sarcastic, but they're not, it's just hiding in plain sight).

So yes, these are paid assets. Some police, some military (good old 77th). We know such people were deployed in "Covid" and they are of course deployed again now.

The question we have to ask then, is why - when they allege to be unable to afford heating for pensioners or support for the disabled - the British state invests so heavily in promoting the Lucy Connolly story, and shutting down those who question it?

Why is it quite so important to them that we all believe in St. Lucy, patron saint of social media shitposting, and her "languishing" in prison (most convicts are simply "in prison", but not our Lucy, who specifically "languishes").

Why is the establishment investing such a colossal amount of resources into aggressively corralling us all into agreeing this narrative is real?

If it is real, then it is of absolutely no consequence that a small fringe of crazies on the internet don't believe it (after all, Nat and her pals have gone to great lengths to tell me and those who agree with me how unimportant and insignificant we are).

If it isn't real, though - if it's dark, dirty military black ops - then it matters very much indeed that said crazies are bringing increasing attention to it, getting more and more people questioning it, and, therefore, brutal and unforgiving tactics must be deployed to shut them down.

I don't usually engage with the sorts of people who use these gutter tactics (I just mute them, as to block them excites them a bit too much), but in this case, it has been extremely revelatory and instructive to do so, since it has underlined so irrefutably what the Lucy Connolly situation really is. True stories don't have these kind of people, using these kind of tactics, as their central defenders. They just don't - and every single person reading this knows that to be accurate.

So, once you understand what these people really are, and why they behave as they do, you can dismiss them as easily as you would Matt Hancock telling you you're a granny-killer if you don't get your 82nd booster.

Same people, same team, same boss.

(What could "Lucy" be short for, I wonder...)

As I am not on that team, and certainly do not have that boss, I'm not going to stoop to their level by resorting to curse words to emphasise my final point, but please do always remember... illegitimi non carborundum.

They're desperately trying to intimidate us into silence with their attempts at abuse and humiliation.

Yet the only people they are really humiliating - and, more to the point, incontrovertibly revealing - are themselves.

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.