The only previous time in the last three years that I have paid any significant attention to the so-called "home of free speech", GB News, is back in August '22, when David Clews of the Unity News Network outed them as having funding links to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the WEF.

I wasn't in the least surprised to hear this, as they had always seemed to be quite obviously controlled: a classic 'limited hangout' operation - that is to say, they have some good people on who say some good things, but there are many legitimate people and credible causes they just won't touch, and many really rather unfortunate people they pay far too much attention to.

So, in the recent furore regarding Laurence Fox, Dan Wootton, and Calvin Robinson (all totally compromised controlled shills, for my money), there has been an inordinate amount of attention paid to how terrible it would be if the great intrepid GB News fell apart because of all this controversy. Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first fledgling broadcaster to collapse due to internal chaos if it did - but nor would it be the terrible, irredeemable blow to the freedom movement that some people seem to think.

GB News is just there to control and manage the opposition, as the mainstream and ascendant ruling classes are always invested in doing, and GB News links back to all the same dubious names and shady funders as every other mainstream media vehicle does. As Amazing Polly reminded us on Twitter yesterday:

"GB News is Paul Marshall's creation. Marshall of Marshall Wace hedge fund. Marshall Wace got $25 million seed money from George Soros. Paul Marshall is also the director of Alliance For Responsible Citizenship, the so-called alternative to the WEF."

Eagle-eyed regular readers may recognise the name the 'Alliance for Responsible Citizenship', otherwise known as "Jordan Peterson's ARC for billionaires", that I explored in the article, 'What The Devil is the Deal with Democracy 3.0?" - Democracy 3.0 being the bizarrely inept and inexperienced fundraising platform, that has never met a single fundraising goal, but is, nevertheless, beloved of celebrity multi-millionaires including Andrew Bridgen and the aforementioned Dan Wootton.

If you haven't read the full article on Democracy 3.0 yet, please do take a few minutes to do so (or you can listen to it here), as it provides some important context for what is to come.

I have followed with interest the recent fall-out from the prodigal foolishness of the most unprodigal son, Laurence Fox (who is apparently even losing his family members work now, so toxic has his 'brand' become), and one of the most interesting revelations in this saga of all - delivered in a theatrically customary blink-and-you'll-miss-it style - was what Fox said about Dan Wootton's legal situation.

In Fox's "apology" to the journalist whose 'shagability' he judged as being lacking, he expressed his dissatisfaction with Wootton's disloyalty over the matter. Although Wootton had clearly condoned and been amused by Fox's remarks, both during the broadcast and afterwards, when the social media storm about it erupted, Wootton dramatically recanted and publicly condemned Fox.

Fox retaliated by releasing public text messages between the two, demonstrating Wootton's insincerity, and then blasted him for his betrayal, by telling the public what a good friend he'd been to Wootton during his recent legal wrangles, including providing him with free legal support via his own Bad Law Project.

Did you catch that? 'Free' legal support. So what, then, was Dan Wootton using the Democracy 3.0 platform to raise £34,000 to pay "legal fees" for... a fundraiser which has now completely disappeared?

Go ahead and click on this link, which I reproduce in full below so you can see what its title is ("Stop Dan Wootton being cancelled by far left online smears"):

https://democracythree.org/stop-dan-wootton-being-cancelled-by-far-left-online-smears

When you click the link, it says "page not found", because Democracy 3.0 has removed it - with absolutely no explanation about either why it has done this, or what has happened to the money raised. And, just to confirm the above link did previously lead to Wootton's fundraiser, here it is archived on the Wayback Machine.

A month after I published my piece on Democracy 3.0, exploring their dubious initiatives and dodgy connections, the platform Open Democracy published a very similar article (so it was a bit rich for them to call it 'exclusive', frankly), probing Democracy 3.0's links to "shadowy think tanks" and their "lack of transparency" regarding donations.

Open Democracy's article also highlighted Democracy 3.0's links to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), and as I said about ARC in my original article:

 "ARC (the 'Alliance for Responsible Citizenship') has already been exposed by Amazing Polly as "Jordan Peterson's 'ARC' For Billionaires" - essentially, an alternative global control forum to the WEF which functions... exactly like the WEF (as Polly says, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss").

Scrolling through ARC's advisory board, we see some very "interesting" names indeed...

There's Danny Kruger, who - what a coincidence! - has used the Democracy 3.0 platform to fundraise (for the 'assisted dying' campaign mentioned earlier, which did not meet its target but did raise over £16,000).

There's Louise Perry, alleged grassroots feminist campaigner, who I have been calling out for months as a prominent controlled opposition change agent.

And of course, there's Jordan Peterson.

We've all heard it and said it a million times but it deserves one big resonant repeat...

It's a big club and we're not in it.

"Anti-establishment heroes" like Laurence Fox, Andrew Bridgen, and Jordan Peterson are in exactly the same club as Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau et al. The only difference is, they're scripted in order to appeal to a different demographic - the "dissidents", us - but ultimately, are funnelling us all in exactly the same direction as Hancock and co are the normies.

That's why all these supposedly independent anti-establishment figures and platforms interlink, and why, ultimately, they all coalesce with the same establishment agenda (and its money), as is irrevocably clear by the names listed on ARC's Advisory Board. You've got "anti-establishment rebels" like Peterson and Perry, right there with as-establishment-as-it gets Tony Abbott (former PM of Australia), various members of the House of Lords and assorted other billionaires and big cheeses."

So, to be clear, all these supposedly independent, unconnected initiatives, including GB News, The Reclaim Party, The Bad Law Project, and Democracy 3.0 - and all names prominently associated with these projects, including Laurence Fox, Andrew Bridgen and Dan Wootton - are nothing but funnels to take us all in the same direction - to WEF 2.0, the ARC.

The WEF has intentionally been made very prominent as an institution, and become very publicly villainised, with its most famous representative quite literally (and intentionally) resembling a cartoon villain - so that we can be manipulated into feeling we've won an important victory when the WEF is inevitably dismantled (Klaus Schwab is very elderly and hasn't appointed a successor for when he dies) and is replaced by ARC... which will, in reality, function in exactly the same way.

To further ratify this, you can currently see all the "alternative anti-establishment heroes" (those ones who are relentlessly publicised by said establishment) starting to go lockstep on exactly the same agenda, such as with Andrew Tate's recent public endorsement of lockdown as a permanent and preferable lifestyle to ever leaving the house. Tate said:

"They released me from house arrest and I'm allowed to go anywhere in the city - So I went for dinner. Went shopping. Bla bla... But I always felt guilty. I made 280k a day instead of 300. I did 1000 reps before leaving the house, instead of 10,000 throughout the day. So at the end of each day, I would analyze. Was what I did today worth losing 20k and 9000 reps of training? The answer was only yes if I was racing cars. Otherwise, the answer was always no. Fancy dinners are bullshit. How dumb do you have to be to enjoy eating food? It's a boring necessity. Clubs are bullshit. I can't possibly see all the females begging for me already, go club why? Socializing? Everyone is below me. Those who aren't are already in my house. Waste of time. Unless it's to race around in a supercar, I will literally never leave my house again. Ever."

So here is change agent Tate predictively programming you for the Agenda 21 inspired future, where life is lived entirely indoors and "reality privilege" (going outside) is no longer accessible to the masses. Like other change agents and propagandists, Tate is selling this to you as a good thing. His purpose is to sell the same agenda as the mainstream elites - who will sell permanent lockdown to the masses as being a necessity to elude "climate change" and to protect from plagues - but he is simply tasked with packaging it in a different way, so that it appeals to would-be "dissidents".

Here are other examples of Tate, and other prominent change agents such as Elon Musk, pushing elitist dystopias repackaged to appeal to those who see themselves as "alternative".

And that's all GB News, The Reclaim Party, and their spin-offs, are as well. Funnels with fancy packaging to look "alternative", but that are actually taking you in exactly the same direction as the mainstream.

As I have covered at length, The Reclaim Party is non-functional as a political entity - it neither stands candidates nor solicits or even allows members - but rather, it is a shop front, and like many literal shop fronts (e.g., those who set up as shopkeepers to disguise what they are really doing), its true purpose appears to be to accrue money in underhand ways, wholly misrepresenting how it is acquiring this money and what it is being used for.

As many readers will recall, several months ago, Reclaim's sole defecting MP, Andrew Bridgen, set up a fundraiser on the Democracy 3.0 platform, supposedly to "sue Matt Hancock for defamation". Bridgen was seeking an eye-wateringly large £250,000 to do this, despite the fact defamation suits typically only cost between £2k and £20k - and despite the fact that Bridgen is already a well-paid public servant with many rich donor friends. He can afford to bankroll his own lawsuits.

Nevertheless, Bridgen managed to solicit an extraordinary £107,000 of this goal within weeks, but, since the fundraiser was launched in May, it has gone curiously quiet, with no official update for supporters issued since May the 10th.

So where is that money now and what is it being used for? (Certainly not to sue Matt Hancock, who is currently enjoying the boons of his celebrity status having just filmed another realty TV show.) The researcher John Bye has some ideas... Quoting from his recent investigation:

"Laurence Fox and friends seem to have his Reclaim Party's lone MP, Andrew Bridgen, over a barrel. Recent filings in the Register of Members' Financial Interests suggest they're holding onto £100,000 raised in his name, paying for his house, AND employing him as a consultant.

Previous filings showed Fox's Bad Law Project gave thousands of pounds in funding and services for Bridgen's defamation case against Matt Hancock, while Reclaim Party donor Jeremy Hosking gave him a £25,000 interest free loan for his housing costs.

The latest Register of MPs' Interests shows that Andrew Bridgen received thousands of pounds in services from Laurence Fox's Bad Law Project. This includes "media support", "speech writing" and "social media strategy", all following Bridgen's infamous Holocaust tweet in January. twitter.com/TheCraneReport…

A year after his last loan, Reclaim donor Jeremy Hosking has given Andrew Bridgen another £18,600 interest free loan to cover the cost of his constituency home, while Reclaim leader Laurence Fox's Bad Law Project doled out another £4,319 to cover court costs against Matt Hancock.

That £4,319 exactly matches the sum that Bridgen previously declared as "drawn down" from his crowdfunding campaign to cover his court fees. So do Laurence Fox's Bad Law Project, who have run other campaigns on the same site, hold the remaining cash? Now totalling over £100,000!

And last month Andrew Bridgen declared that his Reclaim Party boss Laurence Fox's Bad Law Project has been paying him £1,500 a month for 8 hours of political consultancy. So they gave Bridgen £6,000 worth of free legal consultancy .. then paid him £6,000 for consultancy work?"

In my capacity as co-founder of Informed Consent Matters, and in collaboration with Vote Freedom Project's Jonathan Tilt, I wrote to Mr. Bridgen in relation to this fundraiser, and many other concerning anomalies in his "campaigning", back in May. Mr. Bridgen has not replied, though he has confirmed on video (see from 1:11:00) that he has read this letter, where he said:

"Yeah, well, it's all about time, and whether that's a good use of my time. I've seen the letter, and it's with my people, we can deal with all of those issues, erm, there are a number of people that think I'm some sort of managed opposition or something, it's a load of old rubbish, I mean, if I am, I'm not managing very well. The government have managed to separate me from every penny I've got in the world. I've got a fortune - a personal fortune before I was in politics - of about twenty million, and I have no access to that, or my private pension, because of what the government have done to me. The first thing they do is isolate you financially."

More than four months later, I am still waiting for "his people" to deal with "all of these issues", and I am also waiting for an explanation regarding how and by what mechanism the government has separated him from twenty million pounds... whilst continuing to pay his MP's salary and expenses every month?

It's clear that Andrew Bridgen is an inveterate liar and conman, as was demonstrated when he lied under oath to a high court judge who found him to be so dishonest, nothing he says can be taken at face value, but what does seem to be true is that - primarily owing to the feud with his family firm that left him owing £800,000 in legal fees, and his disinclination to pay the rent on his luxury cottage - that he is in dire financial straits, and was therefore the only MP quite desperate enough to allow Reclaim to buy him - which is exactly what they have done.

Prior to joining Reclaim, due to his spiralling financial problems, Bridgen knew his political career was finished, as once he is formally declared bankrupt, he can no longer serve as an MP. So, he allowed the joke shopfront party Reclaim to purchase him, thereby completely decimating his political credibility (as he himself confirms, genuine political alternatives don't join inept non-functional parties led by clowns, they sit as independents).

He knows his political career is over, so he's using Reclaim to reinvent himself as a "courageous activist" and prominent alternative talking head, looking to secure his own show on GB News etc. He couldn't care less about the harms done by lockdowns and vaccine mandates (hence why he endorsed and voted for both prior to his bankruptcy and when he still had a lucrative political career to maintain), he is just reading a script handed to him by his paymasters, e.g., his "mate" Hosking who funds Reclaim to the tune of £5 million, and who, as we have seen, has been repeatedly bailing Bridgen out.

Bridgen is simply being used by shady higher-ups - as is Laurence Fox and his pet projects, like The Bad Law Project and Democracy 3.0 - to funnel all supporters of these initiatives in exactly the same direction as the mainstream influencers are ultimately channeling theirs - to all board the ARC. And, make no mistake: 'ARC' is no accidental acronym. Rather, I submit that they devised the acronym first and then latterly came up with a (really rather meaningless) full name to justify it. Our collapsing culture (a controlled demolition) is the flood, and ARC is meant to be seen the saviour - and this has just been irrevocably exposed, albeit, I believe, unintentionally.

Although a huge amount of media-storm "drama" is staged and scripted in order to manipulate people, I don't think the latest Laurence Fox outburst was - I think it's clear by how clumsily and inconsistently Fox, Wootton and all names surrounding the scandal have reacted to it, that it wasn't meant to happen. Fox is a loose canon who went off script and said something he wasn't supposed to, and - in his desperation in the aftermath to save his own skin - has divulged things that were never meant to be made public, such as Dan Wootton's free legal support.

That careless indiscretion has enabled us to pull at an already loose thread which has now unravelled the entire tapestry of obfuscation and deceit, and laid bare exactly who these people really are - and whose interests they really serve.

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)