The UK electorate is stunned today as the leader of the Labour Party, Kier Starmer, has this week declared on the national news, to an audience of millions, that a female journalist with contrary political views to his own is "unshagable" and that, moreover, "no self-respecting man" in the world would want to "shag" her.

As a result of his remarks, Starmer has been immediately suspended as leader of the Labour Party, and it is widely predicted that he will hand in his resignation imminently.

The Labour Party has released a statement condemning Starmer's remarks and Conservative and Labour voters alike are taking to social media to vilify Starmer.

Or at least, that's what WOULD have happened, had any serious leader of a genuine political party made the remarks on a national news broadcast that Laurence Fox yesterday made on GB News.

In media circus controlled opposition clown world, however, Fox is not only still the leader of Reclaim, with the party clearly entirely untroubled by his remarks, but he is being valiantly defended by multiple prominent "alternative" voices, with the various, "well, so what if he said mean words? It's free speech! There are much more serious things happening in the world, you know!", and "well, yeah, she's no angel either, she's made stupid comments too, so there!"

This is entirely missing the point and playing right into the hands of those who cynically control the opposition, and who want to characterise those with alternative beliefs as utterly non-serious, non-credible, really rather unpleasant people.

No serious leader of a genuine political alternative would ever utter such juvenile remarks on the national news - regardless of what they may think in private about the "shagability' or otherwise of political opponents - because they would realise it would make them look like a smutty schoolboy without even the most rudimentary grasp of social or political etiquette - thereby completely annihilating them as a genuine political force.

And that's exactly why Fox made these remarks, and that's why it's utterly counterproductive (and just what "they" want) to defend him.

For those defending his remarks "because free speech", please consider the context. Fox was not sitting in the pub with his mates discussing which women they fancied, an environment in which he is perfectly at liberty to declare who he does and does not wish to "shag" (who even uses that word any more, anyway? Is it 1993?), without expecting any kind of censure or rebuke (unless the women in question happen to overhear him, I suppose). He was conducting an interview on a serious national news service, broadcasting to an audience of millions, in his capacity as the leader of a political party.

If he was aiming to be taken remotely seriously in that capacity, if he was meant to represent any kind of even slightly credible opposition to the legacy political system, he would never in a million years have dreamed of making such a remark. He did it to demonstrate - yet again - that he's not serious (this is the man, after all, who describes himself on his official party leader Twitter as "a trans lesbian of colour"), and that he is nothing more than a court jester - he even texted Dan Wootton after the broadcast stating, "making you giggle is my weekly joy". He, as an actor, is doing nothing more than playing the parody part of a "political leader", in a way that is meant to ultimately mock and humiliate those he "represents".

The point of Fox (and his ilk, such as Brand and Tate) is to entirely discredit the alternative movement by giving the mainstream the ammunition they need to declare, "look, THESE are the kind of people who lead this movement! Raging misogynists and rapey ex-heroin addicts who make appalling gaffes and crude remarks, when they're not seducing schoolgirls or committing lewd acts with other men in public toilets" (if you haven't seen "that" video regarding Russell Brand, count yourself lucky).

And the alternative movement then goes right ahead and ratifies this, by responding, "don't you be mean about my heroes! You're only saying this stuff about them because they're telling the truth and you're scared! Team Russell! Team Laurence! Go heroes, go!" (I wrote more about this phenomenon in the article, "Who's Your Daddy").

Whereas the appropriate response, and the apposite way to defeat this never-ending psy-op conveyor belt of false messiah, controlled opposition "heroes", who continually tarnish and undermine our cause, would be to wholly reject and condemn them and say, "these are indeed terrible people who do not represent me or any movement I am part of. It's immaterial if we share a few political beliefs. My standards are far higher than that, and I hold anyone in a leadership position to a much higher standard, too."

That is the correct response, and the way to preserve the integrity of the movement, as well as being the way to underscore that we are principled, morally consistent people, not just raving, dogmatic ideologues who will grab onto the coat tails of anyone who throws us a few appeasing soundbites.

Just think again of what would happen if Kier Starmer or Rishi Sunak or whoever leads the Lib Dems (does anybody actually know?) made public remarks about the "shagability" of a female journalist - they would be universally slammed and condemned, their supporters would be horrified and immediately act to distance themselves from them, because they would realise such "leadership" is completely counterproductive and would destroy any integrity or credibility the movement was seen to have.

In that sense, Dan Wootton's response was correct, insofar as he immediately released a statement distancing himself from Fox and condemning his remarks. Obviously, he only did that to try and save his own skin (which he has failed in doing as Fox has now released private text messages between the two indicting Wootton as a liar), but the point is, Wootton realised defending Fox would have been utterly self-destructive and the right thing to be seen to do was to condemn him (even Piers bloody Morgan has done that, a character not exactly renowned for his sensitivity or tact).

That is indeed the right thing to do if you want yourself, your news show, and above all your ideology and beliefs, to be taken seriously: you call out bad behaviour when you see it, including and especially if it's bad behaviour by people "on your side". Otherwise, you just look like an unprincipled hypocrite without a consistent moral standard.

Yet there appears to be a deep and unsettling tribalism in "the truth movement" which stops many people within it from doing that, and this is profoundly to the movement's detriment. If we want to be a credible, integrity-based movement that represents real and robust opposition to the mainstream, then we need leaders and representatives who embody those traits, too, and who - when they are on the world stage addressing millions of people - present themselves in the most credible and persuasive way possible.

If, conversely, our "leaders" are prone to making absurdly childish and demeaning public remarks, which make them - and by association, us - look terrible, then such people should immediately be disqualified as having any prominent role in this movement, as they will simply continue to severely tarnish and undermine it... and that's the point. That's why people like Fox are there.

That's their role...

It's not incidental that Andrew Tate constantly parades around the place half-naked, or that Russell Brand is famed for acquiring the title of "shagger of the year", or that Laurence Fox declared recently he'd be well up for attending a blood-drinking ceremony involving a goat and a virgin.

They do this to neutralise themselves from being a serious, credible threat to the mainstream and therefore making it easy for said mainstream to dismiss them. That is literally their entire purpose as establishment assets and controlled opposition.

Because, ask yourself this: why is Laurence Fox, a dim-witted and inarticulate mediocre actor, quite so visible and well-known as a political figure? Why is he constantly being invited on GB News, constantly in the mainstream press, constantly trending on Twitter and being talked about?

Why does he enjoy this level of fame and influence, when the other leaders of alternative political parties - parties that have achieved infinitely more than Reclaim "three celebrity candidates" has - are completely ignored?

As regular readers know, I was involved with the alternative political party, Freedom Alliance, for quite some time. Freedom Alliance was founded at the same time as Reclaim - 2020 - and in the same timeframe, and on a fraction of the budget, has stood over 200 candidates in contrast to Reclaim's three. It also attracted thousands of members, thus giving it robust democratic viability, whereas Reclaim has... none (yes, none), but we'll get to that later.

So if the mainstream media, and semi-mainstream channels like GB News, purport to be giving representation to Laurence Fox in his capacity as leader of an alternative political party, then why haven't they given similar (or even a fraction of) this exposure to other alternative party leaders?

Freedom Alliance had three leaders during my tenure in the party, Nigel Utton, Carol Dobson, and Jonathan Tilt.

None of these people were ever featured in the mainstream press. None of them were ever invited on GB News.

In fact, when the aforementioned Jonathan stood as a candidate in the Batley by-election in 2021, although many of the mainstream channels interviewed him, not one of them ever broadcast or published their interviews.

You can do a news search on him now and see that the only publication to give him any significant coverage at all was the Dewsbury Reporter, which, I mean, I'm sure is a fine local institution and all that, but realistically, is read by about six people.

Of all the big mainstream newspapers and TV channels, although they all had reporters in Batley and covered the other candidates (and gave plenty of coverage. to Laurence Fox when he stood in a by-election), none of them would give any sort of a platform to Jonathan.

Yet they do give one to Fox. Again and again and again. Just do a news search for his name now and see literally every mainstream platform talking about him.

I hope I'm not belabouring the point, but I will say it again: they give him a platform because he discredits the cause he claims to represent by being the kind of person he is - louche, profane, crude, etc., and I do think that's his real character, not an act - as I've talked about before, there are different "levels" of controlled opposition. Some people are just straight-ip actors and deceivers literally reading from a script, but others can be useful assets without fully realising they are being so used. Fox is certainly being controlled and manipulated, but I'm not sure how cognisant of this fact he is - his controllers know that, simply by giving this embarrassing loose canon free reign to "be himself", he will quickly and efficiently undermine any cause he is a part of.

These same mainstream vehicles that give Fox endless coverage would never, and do never, give genuine alternative voices a consistent platform, because such people are simply too credible, and so run the risk of actually building the legitimacy and influence of a movement that the mainstream is absolutely desperate to destroy.

Compare, for instance, Fox's interview with Dan Wootton, to Jonathan Tilt's with Richard Vobes. Who comes across as more credible and serious? Who reflects the truth movement in the better light? And who does the mainstream media relentlessly focus on?

By answering these questions, it becomes clear the agenda of promoting to prominence people like Fox is all about destroying a genuine and legitimate movement by equating it with non-genuine and non-legitimate people.

Note that Fox himself also has form for lashing out and trying to discredit and destroy legitimate people, having used his platforms and prominence to label yours truly a "puritanical right-wing wokie", a "bad journalist" and "thick", all whilst ostentatiously pretending not to know my name and calling me "Mao H or whatever her name is".

The reason Fox lashed out at me is because I did some investigative journalism regarding him and his "political party", and discovered some quite shocking anomalies, including the astonishing fact that it is not actually possible to join the party as a member. Yes, really. You can read more about that here, but Fox's response to my reporting - as well as to my open letter to his sole defecting MP, Andrew Bridgen - has been to evade every point I made in favour of insulting me (on James Delingpole's podcast, no less - if you haven't yet seen it, in all its eye-gougingly excruciating glory, please do - and that's not meant to insult James, who really did a valiantly good job at maintaining his patience).

Let us also remember that Mr "Free Speech Hero" Fox, who is now thrashing around ever more preposterously defending his ludicrous remarks, constantly threatens everyone who levels the mildest of criticisms at him with defamation lawsuits.

So, to be clear, he wants the "free speech rights" to call women "unshagable" on the national news, but thinks anyone who insults him on Twitter should be silenced by the courts and sued for tens of thousands of pounds.

The guy is a total fraud and a total joke and that is literally the point of him. A hypocritical, obnoxious, tedious buffoon who any right-thinking person quickly recognises as a dangerous liability to any cause he claims to represent.

To put it simply: the mainstream media intentionally promotes to prominence truly terrible people and labels them "the leaders of the opposition", so that they can behave as the pied pipers they are (remember that Russell Brand literally called his book this), and lead people into a dead end, whilst behaving increasingly appallingly to discredit the entire movement by association.

On the subject of Russell Brand, note that the mainstream media has made him more stratospherically famous than ever in the last couple of weeks (he's now a talking point of major political figures in other countries) and has enhanced his personal fortune (he's already a multi-multi millionaire) yet further by relentlessly directing everyone to go to his Rumble channel and take out a paid subscription.

When you are trying to "destroy" someone, you don't repeatedly inform millions of people where and how they can support that person. Supposedly, the establishment is persecuting Brand by "demonetising" his YouTube videos (not removing his channel, mind, whereas my friend Nick Cotton, whose videos weren't monetised and who had a fraction of the audience Brand has, has had his YouTube channel deleted five times) - but Brand "only" made about £1 million a year on YouTube. If all his six million followers decamp to Rumble and become paid subscribers, he will be making £288 million a year instead. Even if only 10% of them become paid subscribers, he would still be making £28 million a year. Either way, he's quids in and far better off than he was when relying on YouTube ad revenue.

This scheme has worked because the masses have fallen for the "persecuted hero being destroyed by the media" narrative, so they are even more compelled to give him money, even though, as I said, he's already a multi-millionaire many times over and could retain a luxury lifestyle never earning another penny a day in his life. He doesn't need your money.

Yet legitimate grassroots movements operate on the tiniest of shoestrings, constantly struggling for money - money they don't get because the mainstream media doesn't make them internationally famous and thus attract the support of millions of people. Because of the mainstream media's relentless blanket coverage of Russell Brand, scores of people who didn't know who he was two weeks ago, now do. Thousands of people who didn't previously financially support him, now do.

Can you see the sting now and how it all works? Legitimate people and movements are constantly ignored, censored, and suppressed, so they never get the visibility they need to reach and influence large audiences, whilst fraudulent fools like Fox and Brand are given endless attention. This is done in order to stop the genuine and legitimate people mounting a serious, credible and powerful resistance that might be a genuine threat to the establishment.

That's why Russell Brand has been allowed to accumulate eleven million followers on Twitter (that's significantly more than the UK Prime Minister), whilst my Twitter account was banned before I'd even reached 4,000. That's why he still has a YouTube channel whilst creators with less than 1% of his audience have their channels deleted. And that's why Laurence Fox is a media star with his name constantly plastered across. the mainstream press, whereas Jonathan Tilt has had a single, solitary article written about him in the Dewsbury Reporter.

That's also why, if you went into a work meeting that was being recorded and live broadcast to millions, and declared you found a female colleague to be insufficiently shaggable, you would be dismissed on the spot for gross misconduct and rightly so (I seem to have to keep reminding people that this is what this was: Fox was in a work meeting, a work meeting being live streamed to millions, not having banter down the pub with a couple of mates). It's not heroic "free speech", it's rank stupidity that no employer in the world would tolerate and no (sane) employee would expect to get away with.

Or are we saying we think Laurence Fox is so special he should be treated differently to literally every other person in the world?

Come on! If you're defending him you're being played. What he did was indefensible, it was meant to be indefensible, and defending it is therefore delivering colossal blows to the genuine truth movement and the real, credible people in it.

We can do a lot bloody better that Laurence Fox and we should not be defending him because "at least he's speaking out" when it really would be vastly preferable that he didn't, because of the increasing damage he does every time he does.

We need to stop forming dogmatic tribes and uncritically worshipping "heroes" just because they say a few of the right things, and, instead, start having real standards and principles and standing by them, no matter what. That is how we win this war - and, if it makes us all completely and utterly "unshagable" to Laurence Fox, so much the better...

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

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 as Informed Consent Matters)