Even if you don't have school-aged children (or even if you have the good sense not to study the media as forensically as I do), it is unlikely to have escaped your attention that the country is being plunged into yet another schools' crisis, as several hundred of the places are now at risk of collapsing upon their inhabitants' heads.

Made in the post-war decades from a cheap concrete substitute never meant to last more than 30 years (why? We will get to that), hundreds - or even thousands - of schools are now at imminent risk of caving in and so cannot safely educate pupils.

Even though it has been known for decades this was the inevitable fate of these schools, government ministers chose to do nothing about it until mere days before term is due to start, with now scores of anxious families up and down the country being told they will have to find alternative childcare arrangements as of Monday morning.

Whilst a small number of children can be squeezed into alternative local schools, with others offered a "tent-in-the-garden" style experience in the grounds of their dilapidated alma maters, most pupils, ministers admit, will be shunted back into pandemic-style online learning.

To date, the government has ordered 104 schools to close, and with the average secondary school accommodating nearly 1,000 pupils, that's a very significant number of children who will be learning at home this term, rather than in the noisy chaos of (and here is the kicker) "superspreader" schools.

As I have written about at length, this school term, for the first time ever, the UK Government intends to offer the flu nasal spray to every single schoolchild in the country, including all three million of the nation's secondary school pupils, something that has never been done before.

Every year, the flu spray is known to create and spread illness, so it obviously follows that if it is offered to more people than usual, more illness will be created - especially as this year's formula contains a new mystery ingredient that nobody seems to know very much about (as well as all the usual gunk and very possibly other, undisclosed ingredients, as are often found in vaccines).

This spray is explicitly being administered in schools, rather than other, more clinical environments, and applied by specialist teams who go from school to school to apply it. Therefore, if a child is not at school (due to learning online because their school has been condemned as unsafe), they are almost certainly not going to get this spray.

I just can't see the perennially crisis-ridden, collapsing, cash-strapped NHS getting its act together in time to work out which children are not at school this term, and sending letters to invite them to get the spray elsewhere, nor can I see stressed parents, already struggling having to manage an extra child or three at home full-time, being bothered to take the child/ren down to a packed doctors' waiting room to get a spray they don't need.

Even pro-vaccine parents are likely to think, "well, my child isn't going to school where these kind of things spread. They're just sitting in the house all day, so no need for them to get this spray". Indeed, the specific reason given for the government sending teams school to school to dispense various vaccines is that, if they don't, parents often don't bother with them.

Consequently - with a large cohort of online-educated, unsprayed children - we will then have "evidence" that schools are deeply dangerous plague-spreading environments, because the children not at school (who didn't get the spray) don't get sick, whilst the children at school (who did) do.

Already in the press, there is a phenomenal push to depict schools as too dangerous for children to go back to. Not just the fact the places might collapse on their heads, but that they are diabolically dangerous to their mental and emotional health, too.

This week, The Guardian has published one of the longest articles I have ever seen it feature, entitled:

'Children are holding up a mirror to us': Why are Britain's kids refusing to go to school?

The article opens with:

For many, lockdown was a relief. Some never went back at all. As a new academic year begins for most of the UK, more children than ever are worried about returning. What’s being done to get them into the classroom – and is that always the best idea?

The article continues on with harrowing, heart-string-pulling stories of desperately distressed children, terrified at the idea of returning to the classroom - even going so far as to threaten suicide if they are forced:

Sarah’s voice breaks as she discloses that her daughter used to say she’d rather be dead, so she didn’t have to go to school. “When she was saying those things, she was so young she didn’t even realise people can kill themselves. Now she’s older she knows suicide is a thing. That’s why we have to keep her safe at home.”

The article then deviously points out that, as adults increasingly get to enjoy the comfort of working from home, that it's simply wrongheaded and potentially catastrophic not to extend this "luxury" to children as well.

Almost half of adults still work at least sometimes from home. In demanding children snap back to the old norm, society is arguably asking more of them than of grownups. What’s more, when schools minister Gibb was asked by MPs this year about a reported rise in anxiety among children, he said home working may have allowed some parents to keep at home anxious children who would once have had to go to school.

The Guardian article quotes one parent who says:

"Lockdown really unsettled [my daughter] and she struggled to go back – we know now it was because she really liked the much calmer environment at home. It showed families there’s another way of doing this. We don’t have to put them through the hell of school every day.” (Emphasis mine.)

Now, in one sense, I agree with a lot of what these parents are saying. School can indeed be "hell" for some children, even driving them to self-harm and worse. I can obviously see how, for these children, lockdown was a huge relief. I am also a big fan and advocate of the work of John Taylor Gatto, author of 'Dumbing Us Down' and various other treatise against conventional education.

Gatto (a 25-year teaching veteran and multiple recipient of Teacher of the Year awards) has argued very clearly and persuasively that the only real purpose of conventional schooling is to produce formulaic, unoriginal, predictable drones, who can't think for themselves or challenge authority, and so present no threat to the ruling elites.

So, in theory, I would be all for the end of schools.... but only if (and it's a big if) they are going to be replaced with something better - which is clearly not the plan. They are going to be replaced with an online curriculum delivered by AI and VR, and that will be much, much worse.

This is because school, in its conventional guise, has two saving graces: one, the presence of other children, which means the would-be indoctrinators are greatly stymied in what they can achieve, as there are frequent breaks in the brainwashing whilst children socialise with their friends at lunch, break-time, and, indeed, in class (many an initially intrepid teacher has been broken by children who JUST WON'T STOP TALKING!).

Two, teachers and lessons are, generally speaking, boring. We may, if we are lucky, encounter one or two truly great and inspirational educators on our scholastic journey (thanks Mrs. J, year 9 English teacher), but by and large, children perceive teachers as dull: boring old farts who drone on at the front and who they have to tolerate for an hour or so before they can get back to their friends. Meanwhile, it is well documented that "talking at" people is not the way to hold their attention, and many children faced with this scenario in class, simply switch off and daydream instead.

The two above factors mean children are effectively "safeguarded" against the worst extremes of brainwashing and mind-control school would really like to inflict on them,

These safeguards, however, are completely removed if the children are sitting on their own in a darkened room staring at a screen all day.

Parents know how much children love screens. They know, if they want a few moments peace and quiet, to simply put their child in front of a screen, and the child will be instantly mesmerised. This is nothing new, of course, generations of parents have used the TV as a babysitter as nothing else comes close to keeping children quiet and entertained for significant periods of time, and - especially if you're a working or single parent or have other, younger children to attend to - it's not always plausible to involve your child in improving, educational hobbies. So of course TV must be used.

And why does TV work so well? Because flickering screens and made-for-purpose entertainment are simply far more captivating than unstructured, unscripted, often "boring" reality - such as school lessons.

So imagine if school went screen-based: that, rather than boring old Mr Rogers, with the famed halitosis problem, droning on from a musty old text book, an exciting, glamorous, cool AI image disseminated information to your child instead.

Imagine that, instead of children having tedious dates scrawled on a chalkboard to memorise and rote repeat, a virtual reality simulation actually immerses them in D-Day, the Battle of the Somme, 9/11, or other extraordinary historical events?

This may sound fantastical and futuristic, but please note that in 2018, education expert Anthony Seldon stated that, "robots will replace teachers by 2027".

AI and VR are so advanced now (you should see the VR headset one of my young family members got for Christmas - amazing and terrifying in equal measures), they are infinitely better able to capture a young mind than the archaic and no longer fit for purpose conventional schooling model.

And by "purpose", I mean "indoctrinating children into being unthreatening state drones", as that is the only real purpose state schooling has ever had.

That's why the social scriptwriters are now staging a double whammy of "schools as unsafe" social engineering, to lead parents to the inevitable conclusion that schools are far too dangerous - either because they are going to collapse on your child's head or give them the deadly plague - to contemplate sending them to. So instead, children must be kept safely at home where they can learn online - which children, even those who quite liked school, will quickly accept, as what child wouldn't leap at the chance to interact with high-tech virtual reality, taking them all over the world and galloping throughout history, as opposed to sitting in a boring, stuffy old classroom all day?

For families who aren't internet-enabled, it will be a small price for the government to pay to get them the requisite devices. Far cheaper than operating thousands of schools, paying innumerable teachers' salaries, etc.

And for the obvious objection, "but my child can't stay at home all day to learn online because I've got to work and can't supervise them", we have impending UBI. Again, it works out a lot cheaper for the government to offer a parent UBI to stay at home, than it does to run all the country's schools.

Another lockdown, which we've already been told is on its way, will offer the "perfect" opportunity for this, as it will destroy so many businesses and plunge so many into unemployment. With the average parent therefore terrified to send their children to school because of all the hazards, and now without a job to go to every day, they will be grateful and relieved to be offered the safe, comfortable "lifeline" of an online curriculum and UBI.

The social engineers have made it very plain that the intended future for ordinary people is permanent house-arrest and existing solely online. This is no "conspiracy theory" - they're open about it, saying most people of the future will be better off staying at home (safer, cheaper), whilst only the moneyed elites will enjoy what they call "reality privilege". Indeed, The Telegraph newspaper even made a video stating that, by 2030, you may never need to leave your house again.

Obviously the key consideration in ushering in such a future is normalising it for the next generation, hence, physical schools are being condemned, whilst children will be introduced to an all-singing, all-dancing, all-encompassing online curriculum that will immerse them utterly - and please have no doubt that this curriculum has been developed by the top minds over many years, no matter what "cobbled together at the last minute" cover story they give.

Because they've known this was going to happen for decades. That's why (and it can be the only reason) they built quite so many schools out of materials with a very limited shelf-life, due to expire at exactly the time the social engineers had planned a vast, global "great reset".

And they have been planning it a long while - what we are experiencing now goes back to at least 1992 (and in reality, much earlier), when the concept of Agenda 21 was first publicly introduced at a UN conference.

We must always remember that, while we are encouraged to be myopic, planning only weeks or months in advance, the ruling classes look at the much bigger picture, planning in years, decades, and centuries. They knew when they started to erect these time-limited school structures in the 1960s that the ultimate goal was to destroy conventional schooling altogether and move everything online, they just had to wait until the technology had been perfected and the social climate was right for it.

And here we are.

Yet it does remain the case that there is no law declaring the state has to have anything to do with the education of your child - even if schools are scrapped, you don't have to submit to the ominous "online curriculum” the state has lined up (and, given what they're already teaching in "PSHE lessons", I dread to think). You can simply deregister your child and declare they are being homeschooled - and there is already a robust support network of families who homeschool for you to tap into, and which can help offer support if you need to work.

The state is taking a big gamble by removing physical state supervisors from the education of children, because whilst some families will sadly just plonk their kids in front.of the screen all day without the slightest bit of interest in what they're being taught, many others will take the opportunity to break the state's stranglehold on their child's mind and do things differently.

It's eminently possible that communities will pull together, and create vibrant new alternatives to either conventional schooling or online learning, such as education co-ops and other forms of alternative education.

Just like in lockdown, where the social engineers tried to make us all isolated and lonely, yet for many of us, we used the opportunity to make new networks and friends and become more connected than ever, this may very well backfire on them, too.

As the old saying goes, "they tried to bury us. They didn't realise we were seeds".

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 Substack (where you can also join my mailing list)

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 Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter (posting as Informed Consent Matters)