I follow an interesting rage-bait account on Twitter, currently known as 'Alicia', but that originally went by RFH - an acronym standing for for 'Rad Fem Hitler'.

RFH - or 'Holly Himmler', as she is sometimes 'affectionately' known - styles herself as an arch-misandrist, in order to lampoon arch-misogynists and drive them into a rage, and it works very well.

She's not really a man-hater, and in fact has just had a baby with "far-right extremist", Richard Spencer (for the longest time, the internet thought this was a huge joke - evil arch-feminist, RFH, has baby with heroic feminist slayer, Spencer - but it's actually true. Still quite funny, though). I follow her because I find that, in between the obvious satire and lampooning (saying men should leave the civilised premises of the home and live in tents in the garden etc., which her detractors take very seriously), she's quite perceptive - in particular, about where the political climate of the West is going next.

Commenting on Donald Trump's re-election in 2024, and the explosive liberal hysteria that resulted, RFH said:

"I don’t think Trump is going to do anything crazy in regard to abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. That’s not his brand, that’s not the kind of conservative he’s ever been, and he knows it’s deeply unpopular. I believe the plan is to focus on economy, immigration, health, and foreign policy so that he can become a well liked administration and then get JD in office in 2028 which is when all of this Heritage Foundation trad psychosis will begin... All the liberal women freaking out aren't really wrong, they're just early."

I agreed with RFH's summation very closely, observing that:

"[W]e must as always be vigilant, and ask, why is the media (mainstream and alternative alike) giving these "liberal meltdowns" so much attention?

It's not to mock them, and to show how hysterical, irrational, and foolish they are.

I know it looks like that right now, but trust me, it's not.

It's because, ultimately, these people are going to be vindicated.

Not by Trump, though..."

As we get closer to the end of Trump's presidency, and he has indeed refrained from doing "anything crazy" (i.e., anything that would be considered extremely socially right-wing), RFH's predictions look ever-more salient.

The plan was never to introduce, as RFH calls it, "Heritage Foundation trad psychosis" under Trump, but rather, under his far more traditionally conservative protege, JD. I felt initially that JD wasn't electable to the top job - that he lacked Trump's charisma and popularity, and was overall viewed as "weird" (the sofa thing...), however, it seems attitudes have changed dramatically towards him since the "assassination" of Charlie Kirk, and the birth of his own fourth child, meaning he has become much more popular.

Trump could never persuasively preside over an arch-conservative, ultra-right wing administration, because his own personal biography simply doesn't support it - five children from three relationships, one of whom he had with an (alleged) ex-hooker.

JD Vance, conversely, is an immaculate study in traditional family orthodoxy: he met his (terribly proper) wife whilst at university, and has only procreated within that marriage. His wife comes from a respectable background and has founded her own accomplished career (though has now taken a step back to support his).

Although I still wouldn't rule out JD being shoe-horned into the top job by Trump dying (or "dying" - you are reading Miri AF, after all), which was my initial prediction when he was less popular, I could now see him legitimately winning an election on his own merits.

If he does, he will come to power in late 2028, by which point, I believe, we will also have a performatively "far-right" administration in this country, in the shape of Reform.

Reform is already closely linked to the Trump/Vance administration, and are allied on many key policy points - including sharing links to the Heritage Foundation, the institute maligned earlier by Ms Hitler.

What is the Heritage Foundation?

Described as a "powerful conservative research group working to create and push public policies centred on free markets, limited government, and traditional American values", the initiative was founded in 1973 by political heavyweights,  Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner, and Joseph Coors (of the Coors brewing company, who provided the Foundation's earliest funding). The Heritage Foundation has exerted considerable influence over the American right ever since, and, while it has always drawn criticism from more left-wing commentators, it has attracted particular scrutiny over its ''Project 2025" proposals.

The BBC describes these as "a 900-page policy "wish list", a set of proposals that would expand presidential power and impose an ultra-conservative social vision".

Donald Trump has made some attempts to distance himself from the proposals, writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, in July 2024 that:

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

JD Vance, however, has shown no such reservations, explicitly endorsing the ideas of Kevin Roberts, leader of Project 2025, and writing the foreword for his book.

Vance wrote:

"Roberts sees a conservatism that is focused on the family. In this, he borrows from the old American Right that recognized—correctly, in my view—that cultural norms and attitudes matter. We should encourage our kids to get married and have kids. We should teach them that marriage isn’t just a contract, but a sacred—and to the extent possible, lifelong—union. We should discourage them from behaviors that threaten the stability of their families."

Nothing wrong with that, you might think, and I agree, in principle.

The question is, however, how will such a vision be imposed on a nation that is currently collapsing under the weight of 60 years of socially liberal, sexually permissive policies that have effectively destroyed the family as it was traditionally known?

Marriage and birth rates are at a historical low (as was the aim of these policies) and are continuing to decline. People en masse aren't just going to just suddenly freely choose to get (and stay) married whilst they are young and have lots of children, simply because a conservative think tank has decided they should.

They'll have to be, shall we say, "incentivised".

These incentives won't be benevolent or benign, though.

Remember The Handmaid's Tale?

There's a reason that show was so high-profile and widely talked about. Whenever a televisual production is "the one big thing that everyone's talking about", it's because it's serving some sort of predictive programming function regarding what is to come. The blockbuster 'Contagion' foreshadowed covid; The Handmaid's Tale tells us what is in store socially and politically for the US.

And - given Reform's very close, veritably incestuous links with the American government and the Heritage Foundation - here, too.

We are gradually getting a taste of what Reform has in store with their new proposed policies, one of which is to prioritise social housing for married couples under 35 with children.

Currently, fewer than 20% of UK adults under the age of 35 are married with children (and those who are, are disproportionately likely to be Muslim).

This is because social conditions have been intensively engineered for 50+ years to ensure the young are overwhelmingly unmarried and childless, because we are ruled by individuals who make no secret of their desire to drastically depopulate the world, whilst having people living lonely, isolated lives that make them easier to control.

So, why are these same individuals suddenly appearing to re-incentivise the very lifestyles they've spent more than half a century destroying?

It is because these kind of lifestyles are really now only the preserve of the elite.

Think carefully: how many people do you know under the age of 50 who have three or more children with the same partner that they are married to?

That used to be the norm, and describe the vast majority of people in their thirties and forties. Now, it describes very few indeed.

With the exception of the elites.

While the married young with multiple children model has become a veritable anachronism amongst ordinary people, it is an arrangement booming amongst the more privileged.

People like JD Vance, who married in his twenties, and has had four children within that marriage.

This reflects the new reality: that early, lifelong marriage, and relatively large numbers of children (three or more), produced only within that marriage, has become, effectively, a status symbol of the accomplished - and that is why the elites are now ostensibly incentivising and rewarding it.

Because it further disenfranchises ordinary people - to repeat, those under-35 who are married with children, the group Reform wants to prioritise for social housing, represent less than 20% of the population - whilst further benefiting the elites.

Whilst elites don't generally rely on social housing, that is just one example of how proposed policies will create a two-tiered society where certain traditionalist arrangements are powerfully rewarded and non-traditional setups, harshly punished. (After all, I'm sure plenty of single parents, who typically need more support than married parents, would be thrilled with the opportunity to access social housing, but under Reform's proposed plans - even if they became a single parent through no fault of their own - they wouldn't be prioritised.)

For example, JD Vance is on record as claiming parents should have more political power and representation than non-parents, and the more children they have, the more influence they should wield. 

He has gone so far as to suggest that for every child a parent has, they should get an additional vote.

I very much doubt Mr Vance means these powers to extend to single parents, though.

Like Reform's housing proposals, such measures, if introduced, are likely to apply only to married parents. Parents like Mr Vance himself and his wealthy friends - as, if political power is tied exponentially to how many children people have, then obviously it benefits the wealthy the most, as not only are they the only ones who can typically afford to have large families.... but they are also typically far less likely to be battling infertility, as they know to avoid the fertility decimating injections.

It is not a coincidence that hugely socially influential figures like Elon Musk, and political titans like JD Vance, are suddenly extolling the benefits of having many children, after the same ruling classes have just made serious attempts to sterilise everyone.

As I wrote in July 2024:

"[W]e are currently in a - rapidly intensifying - infertility crisis. Courtesy of the stealth sterilisation programme known as "HPV vaccination" - an injection estimated to have left around 1 in 4 women permanently sterile, and leaving many others enduring recurrent miscarriages - fertility has, in recent years, already been severely undermined. Then came the genocidal bioweapon Covid "vaccine", which has obliterated the fertility of many more people, women and men alike.

So why is it only now, after more than fifty years of anti-child propaganda, and when we are facing an unprecedented infertility crisis, that key members of the establishment have suddenly decided they like children again?

It's highly strategic, and it's about putting in place a new feudal society where some members are explicitly labelled as being more valuable and more significant than others. 

Were a system such as JD Vance has suggested - giving parents an extra vote per child - ever to emerge, a blatant and undisguised caste system would exist, where parents - especially parents of large families - would be a much more powerful and influential class than everyone else."

As well as the direct biological challenges facing an increasing number of people where it comes to reproduction, we also have the ever-spiralling economic challenges, where more and more people - especially the young - struggle to find stable, reasonably well paying jobs: the kind of jobs that would enable them to raise a family.

This situation is only going to get exponentially worse, and Reform has already outlined what it will do with young people who can't get a job - put them to work as unpaid compelled labourers, forced to work for nothing in order to qualify for the state unemployment benefit of £75 a week.

One cannot responsibly think of starting a family in that scenario, and so again, family formation, especially for the young, will increasingly become the preserve of a wealthy and privileged elite, whilst those who do not comply to this model - because they are physically or economically unable to or simply do not want to - will face harsher and harsher social, financial, and political penalties.

So all these moves towards "traditional values" and "family-friendly policies" are really just a devious and cruel trick, meant to further disadvantage ordinary people and move yet more power and resources towards the ruling classes.

The ultimate goal of the (to once again quote Frau Hitler) "Heritage Foundation trad psychosis", is to effect to demonstrate to people how evil and awful right-wing and traditional values are, so they ultimately call for their destruction and we're inducted into global communism.

We saw it in The Handmaid's Tale - people who thought they wanted a return to tradition (there's initially a lot of support for the swing to conservatism) are horrified by the realities of how it turns out, and are desperate to escape to the promised lands of uber-liberal Canada, which embraces modern left-wing orthodoxies.

In analysing what the real endgame is here, it's important to remember that JD Vance is a political chameleon and, like all high-level political figures, playing a part. He has strong ties to Hollywood, and his current role as right-wing, religious traditionalist is an artifice. Vance was formerly a liberal atheist - as well as being a "never-Trumper" - and his seeming conversion to all things Catholic and conservative was very abrupt and wholly unconvincing.

We may say the same for many high-profile "religious converts" who, after a lifetime of practicing and extolling the "joys" of permissive, atheist left-wingery, supposedly found God and became devoutly religious (yes, I'm looking at you, Russell Brand... and you too, there at the back, you know who you are!).

It's a performative pretence deftly designed to ultimately undermine and destroy the idea of Christian religious observation, and the values it typically supports (stable families, traditional lifestyles, etc).

Equally, Reform's leadership are presiding over "family-friendly", traditionalist policies and promoting a lifestyle that none of them actually practise themselves. They claim to support lifelong marriage and children, yet:

Farage has two failed marriages and is not married to his current partner (with whom he has no children).

Tice is divorced and not married to his current partner (with whom he has no children).

Yusuf is never married with no children.

So you can see that these people are just hypocrites and frauds; they are not genuinely deeply invested in traditional values, as they do not live them. Rather, they are part of a much deeper and darker plot to eradicate these values for good, by imposing them on society in such a way that people will react in horror and campaign for their abolition.

It's standard problem-reaction-solution and the manufacture of consent.

For the ruling classes desired future - a dramatically reduced population consisting of single, childless, genderless 'global citizens' living alone in pods and existing primarily online - they need to eradicate traditional, conservative, family-focused values for good.

The most effective way of doing that is not banning such values (people rebel and kick back against outright bans), but by driving them to unpalatable extremes, and forcing them on people in a deeply destructive way, so that people reject them themselves.

Manipulating the populace into adopting or rejecting whatever the ruling classes wish them to adopt or reject is how society has been governed for over 100 years, ever since the concept of 'the manufacture of consent' was first devised.

As ever, though, just because that's what the overlords want, it doesn't mean they will get it. The power, as always, resides with the people - that's precisely why they require our consent - and, as the union of RFH and Richard Spencer surely unequivocally showed us, people can be full of surprises...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (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 this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.