"The truth movement's over!"

"The awake community's been destroyed by in-fighting!"

"People need to get over their differences and unite if we're ever going to win!"

How many times have we heard the above soundbites in the last four years, with these sentiments becoming ever-more amplified recently, especially by self-appointed "leaders" (more on them later)?

Too many to count. So, please, let me be emphatically clear, so there is absolutely no room for ambiguity... they are all a load of old rubbish.

Perhaps not the most sophisticated or articulate of rebuttals, but sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, or, indeed, a spoon a spoon, as in the famous 'Matrix' observation that, instead of fixating on your control over the spoon and its ability to bend to your will, realise there is no spoon. You can't control the spoon, you can only control yourself.

Equally, there is no "truth movement": there are just many different and distinct individuals who agree on some things, and disagree (often vehemently) on others; who have different values, priorities, and goals; who get on some of the time and sometimes (again, often vehemently) do not.

This is exactly as it should be, because the alternative is the exact antithesis of all we claim to be fighting for - freedom, self-determination, and personal autonomy. Such concepts depend wholly on preserving the sovereignty of the individual and rejecting collectivist schemes - all collectivist schemes.

Trying to shoe-horn millions of people, from radically different backgrounds, with a cornucopia of different interests and perspectives, and with vastly varying ideas about how they want to live and what the world should look like, into the same extremely narrow and limiting category, just because they all agree - for instance - that vaccines are dangerous, is ludicrous madness. Sinister collectivist (pardon my profanity, but in the interests of straight-talking...) bullshit, which - and here is the key point - is only ever pushed by those who have a nefarious agenda, namely, wanting control over others (albeit sometimes unwittingly - e.g., controlling people often do not realise they have this tendency: it often only becomes clearly apparent when they are given some degree of "power").

The people I see bemoaning "the death of the truth movement" are primarily wannabe gurus who love the limelight, and who want to control the narrative to various degrees - and many of these types therefore delighted in the brief period in 2020 when they could easily wow a crowd simply by standing on a stage and regurgitating a few soundbitey slogans:

"No more lockdowns!"

"Ditch the masks!"

"We do not consent!"

And be met with roars of approval - and deluged with adoration - from a whipped-up, high-energy crowd as they did so.

I'm not criticising this, by the way: it was a necessary preliminary stage in forging a longer-term resistance, much as the deeply delirious "in love" stage is a necessary preliminary stage in forging a longer-term romantic relationship - but you don't expect said stage to last. It's the rocket launch to get things going, but is undesirable and unsustainable in the long-term, as the relationship matures and the rose-tinted view of your beloved starts to wear off. Then you need to - not split up (although that might sometimes be for the best) - but mature, move forward, and be more realistic.

I wrote a piece further expanding on this analogy, back in 2022, called 'The Truth Movement Falls Out of Love", in which I explained that "the truth movement" is the same as ever it was: that it hasn't "ended" because it never "began", not as any kind of collectivist, unified "we are one" force; rather, it is largely 'newbies' (those who got involved in 2020 and after) mourning the end of this 'first flush' stage, and thinking that signals "it's all over"... But that isn't true at all.

What happened in 2020 was unprecedented, and galvanised a large number of previously rather disparate and loosely connected people to come together in a way they had never had reason to before. I'd been "awake" since about 2012 (or at least, that was when I read my first David Icke book cover to cover...), and had developed an online community of similarly disposed friends, largely through Facebook. But I'd never met most of them... until 2020.

Mostly, we lived hundreds of miles apart and so had never found the incentive to spend the time and money it would cost to meet IRL - but 2020 gave us that incentive, and at the first large London protest, I was delighted to finally meet in person people I had formerly only known online (and had in some cases been speaking to for up to seven years).

Yet because I'd been moving in these circles for a number of years before "Covid", I knew the immense energy and "love-in" of early 2020 wasn't a real reflection of "the resistance", and that this level of energy, excitement, and apparent unity would soon ebb away - it's natural and inevitable, just as the infatuated, swooning, "only have eyes for you" early stage of a romantic relationship also wears off and (if the relationship is to last) matures into something more realistic and sustainable.

Anyone who has ever been in a long-term relationship can confirm this, and can also confirm that sustaining a long-term relationship with even ONE person, is not an easy, effortless walk in the park that could just happen with any old person, provided you agreed (for instance) that vaccines are dangerous: you need a far higher level of compatibility than that, and even then, you need to continually invest in the relationship in terms of communication, reviewing mutual values and goals, and so on.

We all accept that this is true when it comes to having a successful relationship with just one other person (and that goes for any type of successful long-term relationship, be it romantic, platonic, or collegial), but somehow, we are to throw it all out of the window when it comes to having successful long-term collaborations with much larger groups of people? Something which, by definition, is harder, as the more people you add to the equation, the more challenges there are in making the dynamic successful.

Any manager of a successful, non-toxic workplace will tell you that managing the interpersonal dynamic, and successful collaboration, in large teams, is an exceptionally challenging task, which requires not just recruiting the right people (a mammoth task in itself), but then committing to continual professional development, team-bonding exercises, performance reviews, and so on.

Just chucking a load of people who vaguely agree on a few things into a room and saying, "right you lot, go out and save the world" is never, ever going to work and is in fact going to create far more problems than it solves. The indiscriminate, raggle-taggle "why don't we all just get along" approach inevitably enables the abusive, exploitative, narcissistic types to predominate, at the expense of the genuine, skilled hard workers.

Ever heard the phrase "people don't leave jobs, they leave toxic work cultures"? It's absolutely true and it goes for any environment - work, volunteering, freedom activism, etc. You must have standards and you must have discernment (you must - ooh, dirty word this - "discriminate"), or you create a toxic quagmire that the best people quickly walk (or run, screaming...) away from.

So what do I suggest?

Pretty simple, really: just as you very carefully choose the person who is going to be your long-term life partner, and don't just select the first random person recommended to you by Tinder because you both like dogs, we should all apply equal discernment and care when it comes to selecting a trusted inner circle who we can collaborate on important projects with.

There is a huge pool of (often untapped) talent and skill amongst people who share pro-freedom convictions, and plenty of people who complement each other and can work effectively together. It's just a question of them finding each other, and that quest - just as is so in the romantic sphere - can involve "kissing a lot of frogs" before you find the right people for you.

The first person you meet at a rally is unlikely to be your proverbial "prince". Probably the first ten people won't be, either. And there's nothing wrong with that: on the contrary, there's a lot right with it, because it means you have discernment, standards, and are unlikely to get into a toxic relationship - relationships which, as we all know, are certainly not restricted to the romantic sphere, and unhealthy friendships and professional connections can cause just as much damage and stress as an abusive partner can.

The fact is that, in any large group of people, there are always abusers, narcissists, users, and simply those who aren't very bright or aren't very skilled, and if you attempt to indiscriminately "unite" with all of these people, it's a one-way ticket to profound misery, exploitation, and burnout.

This is why the only people who preach this ludicrous strategy are wannabe gurus who just love being fawned over indiscriminately, and whose primarily concern is quantity (of attention, of 'likes', of ego-rubs etc), and not quality - in other words, searching for the right people with whom one can actually get important things done.

I put my ideas out there in an attempt to unite with the right people. I know I'm not for everyone and that's fine (it's essential!). But by consistently communicating who I am and what I'm looking for, I've been able to find the right people - and, equally as importantly, reject the wrong ones.

The group I've most publicly rejected are the 'big name' celebrity heroes - who Alex from Thinking Slow has astutely renamed 'Approved Opposition', rather than 'Controlled'.

'Approved Opposition' is self-explanatory - it's those people who are permitted to develop and maintain large platforms and who get prominent publicity in the mainstream media.

All these people tend to push the "we must stop the in-fighting and unite" narrative, because what they really mean is you must unite behind them (they certainly won't be uniting behind you, and we'll get to that shortly) - this is both to ratify their own "guru hero" status, but also - and perhaps more crucially - to distract you from taking direct action yourself, and to prevent you getting involved with genuine, grassroots activism with real, non-"approved" people.

This is fundamentally important to understand - these "big names speaking out" are not there to "wake up the masses" or to make any real difference to the dominant narrative: they're there to manage you, to keep your attention on them, rather than considering getting directly active yourself ("what could little old me possibly achieve? Better to leave things to these big name heroes who really matter"). They're there to ensure you give your money to them, rather than investing in genuine resistance projects (which typically operate on shoestrings, which keeps them playing small and having minimal impact).

Darren Smith encapsulated this very well earlier this week, when he said:

"We need video screens and speakers in every town centre showing 'A Second Opinion' and other such brilliant films.Anybody got Russell Brand's contacts? He'd be able to stump up the £50,000 we'd need for vehicle, screen and speakers for 20 cities i'm sure. Or Joe Rogan?

How about Andrew Tate, Andrew Bridgen, Lawrence Fox or any of the other very wealthy so-called truthers on the scene? Very simple, very practical way of getting the message out to people instead of staying in echo chambers online making coin and preaching to the converted.Why is it nobodies like us with no money who have to think of these things?"

I shared Darren's sentiments, adding:

"This is so true. I have seriously contemplated writing to Russell Brand and asking him to fund a billboard campaign for Informed Consent Matters (the health resource I co-run with Mark) alerting people to jab dangers etc.

There is so much we could achieve if we had the backing of serious funders, as the mainstream does. The money the below people have access to (Bridgen for example is backed by Jeremy Hosking, who casually tossed Reclaim £5 million in funding) is phenomenal, and they could make epic game changing moves in terms of funding prominent national campaigns in every city as Darren suggests.

Yet, they don’t, and instead ASK for money (multi-multi-millionaire Brand is richer than ever after the huge media coverage he enjoyed recently, that specifically told everyone how to financially support him).

And why the hell is Bridgen asking for quarter of a million pounds from the public to fund a frivolous personal lawsuit he has no chance of winning (and it wouldn’t make any meaningful difference to anything even if he did win) rather than using his considerable connections and resources to do something that actually matters?

Why do these very wealthy people NEVER fund real grassroots projects and only ever support and promote each other?"

The last sentence sums it up. Please do go and have a look at the social media accounts of all of the "big names" and see the exceptionally narrow and selective strategy they deploy where it comes to who they endorse and promote. Only ever each other - only ever other prominent, visible, "approved opposition" accounts.

Andrew Bridgen, for example, repeatedly Retweets "fundraisers" from the deeply dodgy Democracy 3.0 platform, the same platform where he hosts his own crowdfund (and that has tentacles into some of the most sinister new elite schemes, such as ARC) - but he never shares funding drives from smaller grassroots projects, who need the money far more than people like Dan Wootton do (Wootton being one of the celebrity multi-millionaires to use Democracy 3.0's platform to fundraise for a personal lawsuit. Note that Wootton's funder recently completely disappeared from the Democracy 3.0 platform with no explanation as to what had happened to the money raised).

Andrew Bridgen has already raised well over £100,000 for his "lawsuit" (an attempt to sue someone for calling him a mean name on Twitter - what a free speech hero!), whereas real grassroots people struggle to get 1/100th of that level of support - because they don't have the visibility he does, because they're not allowed to have it, because they're not "approved".

Here as an example is the fundraising platform for my friend and long-term freedom campaigner, Jonathan Tilt (incontestably one of the most hardworking and dedicated people I know), who is trying to raise awareness of the issues that most concern freedom activists, by standing as a candidate in the West Yorkshire Mayoral elections. He knows he's very unlikely to win, but it's about using the opportunity, and the press exposure it generates, to bring wider attention to such things as the climate change hoax, 15-minute cities, and anti-travel restrictions, amongst other key issues (which could prove even more key if the overlords try to "play pandemic" again). You can read his full manifesto here.

These kind of elections are very expensive in terms of requiring a deposit, extensive leaflet printing, and other promotional activity, costing roughly £20,000 per candidate - money which all the "big boys" like Andrew Bridgen easily have access to. Jonathan, not being "in the club", doesn't, so he is attempting to crowdfund.

His funder has been active for a few months now, and as of today, January 9th, he has raised a total of £138.

Whilst it's very kind and generous of everyone who has supported him thus far to do so, the reality is that £138 won't even finance a single leaflet run.

Regardless of whether people support the idea of standing in elections as a form of activism or not (here are my thoughts on that), the fact is that if Andrew Bridgen or other "approved opposition" needed to raise £20k to stand as Mayor, they would have it in a matter of hours (most of the £100k+ Bridgen has raised for his "lawsuit" was generated in the first few days).

So that is how the sting works. Approved Opposition candidates are given all the resources and visibility they need to keep your attention (and money) on them, whilst real people with integrity and commitment and who could make a real difference if properly backed, are relegated into the shadows and kept playing small.

Why doesn't Andrew Bridgen share Jonathan's fundraiser as he shares his celebrity pals?

Maybe he will after I've written this article and prove us all wrong (great!). But I doubt it (he never did respond to my open letter asking him a number of very legitimate and pressing questions about his intentions, and here in this short clip you can see him "explaining" why he has no intentions of ever responding).

Equally, why doesn't ultra-wealthy Russell Brand set up a philanthropic fund to help grassroots projects that share his beliefs, and have plenty of talented people with lots to offer, but lack the money they need (and that he has) to make a real impact?

Like I said, imagine if he backed a nationwide billboard campaign under the Informed Consent Matters banner, warning people of jab dangers?

Or if, as Darren suggested, he funded a screening of key documentaries in all major cities?

Big name 'approved opposition' will never do this, though: because their role isn't to wake anyone up or to make any real difference, it's to manage the dissident class via the echo chambers of social media, placating you into believing that there's "someone with influence speaking out", whilst hoovering up your money that they absolutely don't need, to stop you giving it to projects that do.

The reason the mainstream is so successful in promoting its narrative is because it has the money to have extensive real-world visibility (imagine how much all the lockdown advertising campaigns, in terms of massive billboards in every city and posters at every bus stop etc., cost). Mainstream narratives are never consigned to social media black holes, which is where they relentlessly attempt to funnel all alternative narratives.

Online resources absolutely have their place and are an essential part of the resistance (thank you to all who support mine!) - but the most effective activism is real-world activism - and that costs a lot of money. Imagine, for example, what real opposition could have achieved with the £5 million funding Andrew Bridgen's "mate" Jeremy Hosking lavished on Reclaim: instead, Hosking gave it to the verbally incontinent twit Laurence Fox, whose most memorable contribution to freedom activism has been to tell us who he does not wish to "shag".

It's not a coincidence people like that get millions whilst real activists get completely shunned by the money-men. It's to make sure the approved candidates remain the highly visible "leaders" - tasked with keeping the dissident class managed and controlled.

So, in conclusion, the takeaway message is that collectivism is bad... but not only when it's pushed by the radical left. The "the truth movement must unite" types are just as dangerous, as they are only pushing that toxic trope for one of two reasons:

1. Vanity and ego - they want to be a "leader" and miss the brief period in 2020 where they were relentlessly gushed over in that capacity;
2. Manipulation and control - they are part of the "approved opposition" class and want all your focus on them (and their mates), in a bid to starve legitimate projects and people of the resources and support they need to succeed.

The way we truly succeed is nixing the idea that we need "leaders" - no autonomous adult needs to be "led" like a dog. Rather, we need collaborators. People we're compatible with and can work with well. Not everyone works well with everyone else, even if they do agree on a few things: so the key is to find the people you can work well with (and treasure them, because they're rare...), and commit to achieving what you can together, whilst supporting other real grassroots activists to do the same.

This is what I do: I work with others when I can (and yes, I have high standards for collaboration, having learned the hard way what happens when I don't), and donate to other projects I support when I'm able. It's a really simple formula that, if we all followed, would be colossally more effective than all this nonsense about "uniting" with millions of strangers and giving money to celebrity multi-millionaires.

In terms of how to identify legitimate people/projects, it's pretty simple - they don't get prominent publicity in the mainstream media, and they don't rack up millions of followers on social media. This is a pretty fail-safe formula which I expanded on here. If someone's getting that kind of exposure, it's because they're being allowed to have it, they're "approved" - genuine opposition is censored into oblivion and is never allowed to reach the numbers of a Russell Brand or Andrew Tate (who have more social media followers than the UK Prime Minister). If you think I'm "only saying that because I'm jealous", please read this.

Remember that what we're ultimately fighting for is our individuality and right to self-determination, which will never, by definition, be achieved by collectivist schemes. The ruling classes aren't scared of big, amorphous blobs of people all robotically chanting the same thing - on the contrary, that Borg-like hive mind mentality, characterised by mindlessly following a leader, is what they desire the most (remember that telling scene from the ever-astute Life of Brian...).

Those who seek to rule over us are, however, scared of capable, competent, strong-minded individuals who know who they are and what they want and fight for it - alongside a select and carefully chosen group of friends. They're scared of that, because that is what works. That's what they do, after all - they're not called "the 1% or "the elite" for nothing (all terms we use to refer to them imply a small, select group). That's what they choose for themselves, whilst foisting collectivist, Borg-like 'we are all one" nonsense on the rest of us, and the idea that we must all be commanded and directed by "leaders".

No thanks.

"Follow the leader" is a kids' game. Adults find their way themselves.

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)