I've never actually made either of these declarations before, but I'm so often accused of having done so by my critics that I thought I may as well use the clickbait...

What I have actually said - and what has never been more consummately qualified than by the ongoing pantomime of the Lucy Connolly fiasco - is that if something or someone is high-profile in the media, and getting a large amount of national and international attention, then the overwhelming likelihood is that this story, and these persons, are fabricated.

That the story is scripted and staged.

That the people are acting and lying.

That it's not a real, organic event, but spycraft street theatre. A psyop confected by the intelligence agencies, and presented to the public as real, for the purposes of propagandising them. This is called "the manufacture of consent" and it's how the ruling classes have run societies for at least the last 100 years.

You can always tell when some widely publicised "horrific incident" fits this criteria, because the "victims" - far from being too traumatised to speak to the media at all, or stuttering and stumbling over their words as the enormity of their emotions overwhelm them, as would be the case with real tragedy - are always all too happy to converse with the media immediately, typically in an incredibly fluent and confident way. In these situations, the "victims" almost invariably speak far less about their "terrible ordeal" and far more about the agenda said "ordeal" is being used to push.

We see this with every high-profile psyop going, whether the agenda is gun control, stoking immigration tensions, demonising the "far-right", or whatever.

For instance, the grandfather of one of the little girls allegedly murdered at Soutport last year has spoken to the media at length, not primarily about the terrible life-shattering grief of his family, but rather, that he is concerned Nigel Farage may use the event for political purposes.

To be honest, if my young granddaughter had just been brutally slain by a psychopathic serial killer, I cannot imagine giving two hoots what Nigel Farage or any other useless politician - especially one who isn't even in government - had to say on the matter.

Nevertheless, Michael Weston King, grandfather of Bebe King, told the Guardian that "in the aftermath of the tragedy the family were failed by the “despicable” actions of the far right, who “tried to make political gain from our tragedy”.

The Guardian continues:

He urged the government to reconsider following in the footsteps of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party on backing disclosing the race and immigration status of high-profile suspects – which became official police guidance on Wednesday, despite criticism from anti-racism campaigners and women’s groups.

“This apparent kowtowing to the likes of Farage and Reform, who surely want such a policy in place, is extremely disappointing, though perhaps not surprising,” Weston King said.

This is how we can discern that these events are highly unlikely to be organic, simply left to chance and then utilised by opportunistic elites to agenda-push.

Because in a real situation - if three little white girls really had been killed by a black boy from an immigrant background - could the establishment rely on the families involved to react as Bebe's did? To firmly declare to national newspapers that race and immigration status are irrelevant where it comes to violent crime and to decry the "far right" for saying otherwise?

Of course not. The far more likely reaction of families in such a situation would be to do the exact opposite.

Hence, the ruling classes are far more likely not to utilise real events for high-profile propaganda purposes, but instead, to script and stage them, because only then can they be entirely sure the narrative will unfold as they wish, that the "victims" will say what they wish, and that the public will be propagandised as they wish.

(For further context, and more examples of this, see Francis O'Neill's excellent 'Victims or Actors?' series.)

So that leads us on to the psyop of the season, perhaps even of the century so far: Lucy Connolly and her "release" from prison.

What appeared to be an empty taxi left a near-deserted HMP Peterborough on Thursday, where not even Lucy's own husband had bothered to turn up to welcome this persecuted political hero, let alone any of her thousands of adoring fans and prison pen pals worldwide.

Even The Telegraph newspaper remarked in surprise on the "muted fanfare" surrounding the release of this world-famous celebrity, whilst other, "nobody" inmates released on the same day were greeted by jubilant family and friends.

Shrill social media sycophants claimed at the time that Lucy left the prison this way as she wanted to avoid the media glare after her terrible ordeal and just get back to the bosom of her loving family, returning to her quiet life as a "nobody" (as she recently described herself in the press. A world famous nobody...).

However, this explanation was rather rapidly revealed as complete nonsense, as - barely 24 hours after supposedly leaving the cruel confines of HMP Peterborough where she was brutally manhandled, roughhoused, and starved (we'll get back to that in a minute) - Connolly conducted two lengthy media interviews, one with Telegraph journalist, Allison Pearson, and the other with ex-GB News presenter, Dan Wootton.

They remain the only people Lucy has been photographed with since her release (bar some dogs, and a man's back, which may or may not belong to "husband", Ray).

Of all the two people to choose to speak to after her "terrible ordeal", these two individuals have been selected very carefully. The Lucy Connolly character has been painstakingly crafted to appeal both to the mainstream right, and the adjacent conspiracy right. Hence, she does an interview with Allison Pearson - respectable Telegraph journalist with mainstream right-wing appeal - and Dan Wootton, "cancelled" conspiracy-friendly hack, who pals around with the likes of Laurence Fox and Calvin Robinson (all of whom, including Lucy herself, use the same deeply dodgy fundraising platform for their various "appeals").

Upon seeing the new photos of Lucy recently released, the reactions of many commentators across both the news and social media has been to express surprise at the amount of weight she has gained. While some trolls have predictably made cruel and unnecessary comments about this, overwhelmingly, the mood was more disbelief - how did she manage to gain so much weight? Prison food is typically terrible and portions are far from lavish (the daily food budget for prisoners is £2.70).

Others commented on her tanned skin, and recently dyed hair, wondering "can you dye your hair in prison?".

But most surprising of all was her confident, fluent performance with both Pearson and Wootton in their interviews.

This woman, we are told, had only hours before emerged from a year in prison, cruelly ripped away from her young daughter, barbarically mistreated by guards, and denied basic rights and privileges.

Yet there was not a trace of this trauma in her breezy, relaxed style as she chatted confidently away to Allison and Dan, just like she'd been doing media interviews all her life.

As someone who has done a fair number of video interviews myself, I can tell you right away this is completely unpersuasive. When you start off doing them - and this is when you haven't just spent a year in chokey - you are inevitably nervous, and this comes out in terms of lots of "ums" and "ers", pauses, searching for words, and so on.

Unless you have received extensive media training - or perhaps, should we say, theatrical training - you cannot be as relaxed and fluent as Lucy Connolly was in these scenarios.

This has not escaped the attention of numerous commentators across social media, with one remarking:

"I’m watching the interview with Allison Pearson and I can’t believe she’s been in prison for a year. No sign of being traumatised at all. And why would you do interviews this quick? I would just want to get home and be with family and a cup of tea. Very weird."

On the subject of her family, it is of note that they decided to devise a particularly novel welcome home gift for old Luce by, er, changing their names.

Her daughter, Edie - who has been widely reported as being named Edie, right back to 2013 when the Connollys featured extensively in the press regarding the death of their son - is now named Holly.

Meanwhile, Lucy's mother, who has for many decades been Valerie - including on the record of birth I was able to find for Lucy - is now retitled Heather.

After such extensive focus on this story for the last year, the media doesn't just accidentally get details like this wrong. We are being given fictional names for Lucy's "family" as a nod to the fact that this is a fictional story. There is no record of birth that I can find for a Lucy, born in the right time and place and with the right maiden name, to a woman named Heather. There is no record of birth that I can find for a Holly Connolly (or, for that matter, an Edie). Conversely, I can easily find birth records for Ray Connolly's first marriage, and the births of his older children.

I mentioned being unable to find birth records for Lucy's children, nor a record of her marriage to Ray, in my last article, and as yet, nobody has contacted me to provide this information. Unless and until I can find this information (and I will keep looking), I can only assume it doesn't exist.

I can only assume, based on the evidence currently available, that "Lucy" is a fictional character being played onscreen by a well-trained actress.

That paid actors across the media and social media have been compensated by the UK government to validate her existence by pretending to know her in real life, and claiming to have visited her in prison.

Given that Freedom of Information requests to the prison to verify Lucy's high-profile visitors have been denied, the UK public has no way of verifying that what the media says about politicians visiting Lucy in prison is true, and can therefore only assume that it is not.

That Lucy is, in fact - and just as I always thought - equally as real as Deirdre Barlow, and spent exactly the same amount of time in prison as the actress who portrayed Deirdre did.

The whole story from start to finish has psyop stamped all over it, and you can discern that in one very simple and straightforward way: that the mainstream media is absolutely all over it. As my little slogan says (with valued help in devising it from Simon the copywriter), "if it's headline news, it's a ruse".

The establishment media does not conspire to make stories universally high-profile, or their "stars" into national household names, unless it is fully in control of these events and these people, and the only way to ensure that level of control is to stage the events and script the actors themselves. It's as simple as that.

This, for the hard of thinking, is quite a different premise to declaring "everything in the news is fake".

Everything in the news is not fake. For example, the news recently reported that one of my local pubs, The King's Head, which is in the train station, is to close for a month due to ongoing works on the railway. The newspaper quoted the manager confirming this fact.

I know this is true, because I too know the manager, and he's told me the same thing himself. Anybody can pop in to the pub and get the same confirmation themselves.

There are innumerable other small stories printed in the press every day that are also perfectly real and verifiable.

The difference is (and it's really quite a large and stark difference) when something is extremely high-profile. When it's sensationalist. When it's the "one big story that everyone's talking about" (and more often than not, arguing about).

The establishment only bestows this level of extraordinary attention (and therefore power) on narratives and people that it controls, as there is no benefit to them in heavily promoting an organic narrative that they don't control, as they don't know how it will develop or whether these developments will be in the interests of the agenda they wish to promote. Most likely, they won't.

For example, in the instance of real tragedies taking place, if the UK establishment feels these are too politically sensitive to be widely reported in the news, they can silence the press with a DSMA notice, citing national security concerns. Consequently, most people have stories of horrific crimes that have happened in their neighbourhoods that have been hushed up by the press. Equally, when then Prime Minister, Tony Blair's teenage daughter Kathryn tried to kill herself, the press was silenced and it was never reported.

Further, the press is strictly prohibited from reporting on crimes and alleged perpetrators in such a way that might prevent them from receiving a fair trial. As lots of high-profile coverage about alleged perpetrators and the circumstances of the crime they are accused of could obviously have such an effect, it's always very suspicious when the media runs a huge campaign about an event and a perpetrator, before the perpetrator has been convicted in court.

This is particularly so following the Leveson Inquiry, in which the practices of the police in releasing details of investigations to the press were examined. Lord Justice Leveson’s report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press (published 29 November 2012), recommended that “save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or public.” 

Obviously, however, such restrictions wouldn't apply if the crime and perpetrator were fake.

So we have to ask serious questions about all high profile coverage of "crimes" that are reported before the accused has been tried and convicted, bearing in mind that the national mainstream media does not exist to report things that are "newsworthy", Rather, it exists to report things that are propaganda worthy. It exists to reflect and reinforce the ruling regime and its interests.

Hence, it reports on events that fit the desired narrative and push the desired agenda. And to reiterate, because the establishment can't rely on these events "just happening" in the desired timeframe and in the desired way (and because there are laws in place preventing the media from reporting too much about such events when they do genuinely happen), the establishment scripts and stages them instead, and presents them to the public as real.

They even openly admit it in the USA, where it's a known fact that, due to an amendment in the National Defence Authorisation Act, it is perfectly legal for the American government to stage events and use the media to present them to the public as real, for propaganda purposes.

The Lucy Connolly propagandist psyop was staged to make you believe there is a free speech crisis in the UK, and that you can't speak your mind without risking a jail sentence, in order that you self-censor by not saying what you really think out of fear.

In reality, no such crisis exists. It's a fear-based fabrication, because fear-based fabrications work better at controlling people than rules and restrictions do, which people tend to kick back against.

The LC operation is also deftly designed to further stoke race and immigration tensions, and hostility towards the Starmer administration - whilst Reform's star continues to rise - for reasons I laid out in this article.

If you were still in any doubt about the ludicrous scripted nonsense of this entire scenario, note that "Lucy" is now set to meet with President Trump's lawyers, whilst Nigel Farage is to address the Trump administration about Lucy's case.

Everyone who knows that Trump is a charlatan and a liar, just another bad actor with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, cannot feasibly now still continue to invest in the Lucy Connolly story as real.

Meanwhile, that other very authentic figure who's definitely also been in prison himself (he had a beard, FGS!), Tommy Robinson, is also championing Lucy's cause.

So, just to be clear, those championing the Lucy Connolly story as real include:

Donald Trump; Tommy Robinson; Nigel Farage; Allison Pearson; Dan Wootton; and Lord Toby Young.

Yet a suspiciously coordinated collection of alleged "alternative free thinkers" have lashed out abusively at those of us who have questioned the veracity of the LC story, calling us every name under the sun... and, by virtue, chosen to ally themselves instead with the group just listed above.

What we can conclude, therefore, is that one of the major purposes of this op was to recapture the "conspiracy fringe" and redirect them back into the mainstream right-wing - to effectively tell you, yes, you were right to be suspicious about Covid (and many of the big "alternative" accounts now pushing LC built up their base and credibility during Covid), but you need to stop being a crazy conspiracist now, and it's time to return to the real world and those true bastions of honesty and trust, the Trump administration and The Telegraph.

Lucy Connolly was (and is) a big deal. The establishment spent a lot of time and money seeding "her" into the right-wing / conspiracy consciousness by having "her" bombard Twitter with her thoughts 100+ times a day, whilst interacting with as many people "on our side" as possible.

(If I had a pound for every person who has said to me, "Lucy is definitely real because I interacted with her on Twitter", I might be almost as rich as the woman herself.)

You were supposed to believe in her. You were supposed to defend her. You were supposed to believe "this could happen to me".

We don't believe it. The op failed.

Because "everything is a psyop and everyone is fake" - ?

No. Because of two things I have actually said:

If you know their name, they're in the game.

If it's headline news, it's a ruse.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (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 these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.