I have written to all five General Election candidates standing in my constituency of Huddersfield, asking them to clarify their stances on key issues. You can see my letter here.

So far, I have received replies from the Green Party candidate, Andrew Cooper, the Reform party candidate, Susan Laird, and the Liberal Democrats (although not directly from the candidate himself).

I have not had responses from the Labour candidate, Harpreet Uppal, or Conservative candidate, Tony McGrath.

Here is the response I received (very promptly) from Susan Laird for Reform:

Good morning Miri

Reform uk as a whole do not wish to lock people up or make them have vaccines against their wishes.  It is your right to go about your business freely, the government should never have imposed such sanctions, I would go against future lockdowns.  On green issues we can stop polluting water stop plastic being dumped.  We need to recycle properly not just land fill or send it abroad.  We cannot push a button and the climate resets the planet has been hotter and colder as it passes through its cycles.  The electric cars were ill thought out and solar could be put on commercial buildings not fields.  We need to mediate to stop wars one bomb is surely worse for the environment.

So many things wrong

best wishes susan

i do hope you will vote for reform, if you wish to discuss anything please write 

I replied to Susan to thank her for her prompt and informative reply and wished her well with her campaign.

It is a very interesting exercise to compare Susan's comprehensive next-day response to the Green Party's Andrew Cooper's, which came after three weeks - and a prompt from me - and read: "Miri I don't share your views. You would be better voting for someone else. Regards Andrew."

For those who believe, "political candidates are all the same", one must admit, from these two dramatically different responses, that in fact they are not...

While I am no fan of Reform in terms of its leadership and clear establishment backing (it effectively functioning as a release valve for those who cannot contemplate voting for the "uni-party" of Lib-Lab-Con-Green), I am aware that many genuine pro-freedom candidates have chosen to stand under the 'Reform' banner in this election, feeling the legitimacy lent to them by a prominent political party will gain them more votes than standing as independents (whether they are right or not remains to be seen).

Susan Laird (my local Reform candidate) has previously stood for the Heritage Party, known for its consistent pro-freedom stance, and is a well-known activist in our local community.

The point is that it is important when evaluating candidates to make the distinction of whether one is actually voting for an individual candidate, or simply for a political party.

When candidates do not respond, as per Labour and Conservative, that is because they are owned assets with no autonomy and are simply there as "shop fronts" to toe the party line. When they get letters like mine, these go straight to "higher-ups" who sternly tell them not to reply. These people are bought and paid for corporate courtesans who have long since sacrificed any last shred of integrity or ethics, and will enforce whatever hideous tyranny their masters demand.

However, if a candidate responds directly and quickly, it tells us something different. A rapid response suggests they have not had to run their reply via Party HQ first, which is revealing and encouraging.

Alas, this is in rather stark contrast to the Lib Dems, whose reply - although prompt and courteous - bypassed the candidate entirely (there is not even an available email address to contact him on) and came straight from Party HQ.

Their reply reads:

Hello,
 
Thank you for your questions. The Liberal Democrats believe in balancing public health and individual freedoms. We support evidence-based measures to protect public health while ensuring individual rights are respected. Any decisions on mandates or lockdowns would be made transparently, based on scientific advice, and with a commitment to democratic principles and personal autonomy.
 
Kind regards,
 
Wadah Yousif

That the candidate himself - Jan Dobrucki - has been entirely excised from this exchange reveals that a vote for a Liberal Democrat candidate is not a vote for the candidate themselves, but for the Liberal Democrats as a whole, and their official policies. I do not have a clue what Mr. Dobrucki himself thinks about anything and therefore would not contemplate voting for him.

However, I do appreciate that at least somebody from the Lib Dems replied, and it was courteously written (take note, Mr. Andrew 'contemptuous' Cooper...), so I have replied as follows:

Dear Wadah Yousif,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

However, I'm afraid I find what you say rather ambiguous and lacking in clarity, especially where it pertains to issues of "evidence-based measures" and "scientific advice".

Regrettably, the field of science, and therefore scientific "evidence", is deeply corrupted, captured by nefarious groups and their agendas. Scientific evidence is no longer consistently impartial or reliable, and prominent figures in scientific research have confirmed this fact on multiple occasions.

Richard Horton, editor of one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, The Lancet, said:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”.

Another luminary in scientific research, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stated:

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine”.

In short, to say a measure is backed by "scientific evidence" has effectively no meaning, because there is no reason to believe that the scientific evidence is true.

On any given issue, one can find contradictory scientific evidence, and "cherry pick" the studies and scientists one happens to agree with.

This is what the government did during the "Coronavirus pandemic" to give a sheen of credibility to its illiberal and destructive impositions - impositions which many scientists who disagreed with the government criticised.

So it is not possible to rely on "scientific evidence" as a guide, not just because scientific evidence is so vulnerable to corruption and capture, but because science and ethics are not synonymous.

Even if there were cast-iron scientific evidence that, for instance, a certain medical product generally improved people's health, it is still immoral and unethical to administer that product to people by force.

The same goes for masking, testing, and so on. Whether these things are good or bad for people (and there is plenty of credible evidence to show that they are bad), the fact remains that, in a free and democratic country, it is imperative that these measures are not imposed on people through any sort of coercion.

As is enshrined in law and as per the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (Article 6, section 1):

"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice." 

I hope in light of this information you will consider revising your position and upholding the vital principles of personal autonomy in all circumstances, regardless of what certain "scientific evidence" might say.

No amount of scientific evidence ever makes the imposition of force acceptable. There must always be a free choice.

Kind regards,

Miri

If I receive any further replies from candidates, I will relay what they say accordingly, but with the General Election just nine days away, I think that is exceptionally unlikely.

What my correspondence campaign has therefore verified is that a vote for the uni-party is always a vote for the uni-party, regardless of whether they're wearing a blue, red, yellow or green rosette. You're not voting for a person or for a genuine individual making a principled stand, it's always a vote for an owned establishment asset who holds you in contempt (although I have to add that, even though I found the Liberal Democrat response entirely lacking in substance and won't be voting for them, at least it is polite, and, of the main parties, the Lib Dems generally appear the least hostile to challenge and questions).

For independents and the other smaller parties, certainly Heritage, Freedom Alliance, and ADF, but even - in some instances at least - Reform, you are voting for the person. It's important to make the distinction, and to grasp that even if Nigel Farage or Richard Tice holds a certain view, that doesn't mean every candidate standing under the 'Reform' banner will support them in that view. Sitting MPs can and do go against "the party line" - see MP voting records and who voted against lockdown and mandatory jabs, even when there was phenomenal pressure on them from their parties to vote for them.

This is why it's important to have alternative voices in parliament who will challenge the status quo, and why the enormous Labour majority that is predicted is so sinister. As we have seen, Labour candidates are not individuals who are permitted to think for themselves or express their own views. They are owned pawns who will do exactly as instructed by their handlers and - as they verified in their "opposition" during Covid - will not hesitate to remove any number of freedoms and civil liberties and unleash abject tyranny on us all.

The more of a majority in parliament Labour has, the more "legitimacy" their despotic diktats will be seen to have, which is why it's so critically important to challenge this majority and to get people into Westminster who we have credible reason to believe will challenge them. That is why I have written to all my local candidates - and encouraged others to do the same: so we have a verifiable record of what these people actually stand for and can hold them to it.

MPs are not "all the same" (that's why some voted against lockdowns and mandatory jabs), and so the more principled ones we can have in Westminster prepared to take a stand and challenge Labour's authoritarian tyranny, the better.

The bottom line is this: there is going to be an election on July 4th and in every constituency in the country (650 of them), somebody is going to win. "Mass non compliance" wouldn't change that fact because there is no official lower limit for an election to be declared valid, e.g., even if 95% of people didn't vote, the candidate with the most votes would still be elected. Voter turnout is that low in some areas of the country, and it doesn't make any difference to the declared validity of the result.

So if you believe, "if we all stop voting they will realise we don't want them and the system will collapse!", you couldn't be more wrong. A candidate could, technically, win an election with just one vote (from themselves). The establishment's line would be "we gave you the opportunity to vote against this person if you didn't want them, you declined to do so, and therefore the result is valid".

Moreover, even if low voter turnout did inspire the overlords to scrap the current system, what on Earth makes you believe they'd replace it with something better?

Please investigate the alternate systems of governance globally and I think you will find that whenever liberal democracy is scrapped, it is always replaced with something worse.

I think everyone should do what their conscience and logic dictates in this election, and you certainly ought to be entirely free to not vote if you don't wish to do so - and you are. You couldn't be more free. The establishment puts no pressure on you to vote and has in fact just made it harder for you by introducing voter ID. Consequentially, voter turnout this year is expected to be the lowest in modern history. If the establishment wanted you to vote, why has it introduced a step that has made it harder, and that has - predictably - diminished an already low voter turnout yet further?

Please think this through very carefully. You not voting does not change the fact that someone in your constituency is going to win a seat in parliament. That person is then going to serve as your official representative in Westminster and make decisions that will directly affect your life. If you don't vote, that functions in the same way as a vote for whoever is in the lead where you live (Labour, generally, who are predicted to win by a huge majority).

We may not like that fact - and I certainly don't - but it's the truth. The only way to take a vote away from the lead candidate is to vote for someone else.

It's not "rigged". Votes aren't "shredded" (this would be a mammoth operation requiring the cooperation of thousands of people, and in all the decades of voting we have lived through, not one whistleblower has ever come forward to say this happens - plus there is no time for it to happen, as counting starts immediately once the polling booths shut).

The only rigging, as I've said many times, is convincing you not to vote so the establishment's preferred candidate wins. The establishment manipulates its desired result - not by shredding votes - but by using the might of the media to convince the majority of 'normies' to vote for the preferred candidate, whilst sowing the psy-op amongst dissidents that "it's all rigged anyway so you shouldn't vote at all".

No matter how revolutionary and counter-cultural you think you are being by not voting, the reality is that it serves the establishment agenda perfectly that the vast majority of people who oppose this agenda, don't vote.

I've heard a million times some version of "voting legitimises the system".

Well, doesn't having a bank account?

Doesn't possessing an iPhone?

Doesn't using shops, pubs, social media?

You are in the system and you "legitimise" it (if legitimising means participating) multiple times daily: by earning money in "their" system; by accessing the internet using "their" devices; by shopping in "their" emporiums (even if you use independent shops rather than chains, these still depend on the system to stay functional).

We can all take measures to be less dependent on the system, such as growing some of our own food, and we should, but it is completely and utterly impossible to entirely extricate ourselves from it, and everyone who says "the solution is not to change the system but to destroy it" is notable in their disinclination to ever provide an actual practical plan of how we do this.

"Destroying the system" is a nice-sounding soundbite, but, like most soundbites, is ultimately empty and meaningless. It doesn't translate into anything real, and that is what it comes down to: acknowledging the reality we actually exist in and responding accordingly, not existing in the realm of fantasy and illusion (or even, frankly, delusion).

The reality is that you live in a system that you can't entirely get out of (the personal skills and social infrastructure you'd need to survive completely off-grid do not exist in the Western world. Even the Amish use supermarkets), but you can influence and change it.

One way - certainly not the only way, but one way - in which you can do this is through subverting the establishment's agenda by taking votes away from their desired candidate in elections.

Whether you do this or not is entirely up to you, as it should be. But, as I say, please live in reality and be fully cognisant of what the real effects of not voting are (helping the establishment candidate win), not the fantasy illusory ones (destroying the system by not legitimising it, etc etc).

Additionally, while we are on the subject of myth-dispelling, please note also that, where it comes to voting...

You don't have to use the pencil they provide - you can take your own pen and use that (I do).

You don't have to mark the box with an 'X' (the "mark of the slave", as some believe) - you can use a tick, a circle, or even write "THIS ONE!" in the box. Legally, so long as your intention is clear, the vote is valid.

You're not "contracting with the government" by voting (contracts have to identify both parties: voting is famously anonymous, and were you to put anything on the ballot that could be used to identify you, the paper would instantly become null and void).

In conclusion, if you are prepared to use Steve Jobs' iPhone, Elon Musk's Twitter, and Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook to protest what is happening in the world on a daily basis, but you're not prepared to spend two minutes in a polling booth once in four years to put an anonymous mark on a piece of paper "because it legitimises the system", you have to admit you are hypocritical and inconsistent. You're already using the system to protest the system every single day, so what, realistically, is stopping you from engaging in this particular form of protest that only comes around once every four years?

Please think this through very carefully, because your answer is far more important than the establishment, and its many agents (including those supposedly on our side with big platforms and high profiles telling you not to vote), ever want you to know.

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

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 this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you. 

Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...

Substack, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter (posting there as my other resource, Informed Consent Matters)