One of the most critical distinctions between "the 1%" (the ruling classes, the overlords, those malevolent f**kers - as you prefer) and the rest of us - and a key mechanism by which they have maintained their stranglehold over humanity for so long - is this:

*We plan our lives in days, weeks, and months

*They plan in years, decades, and centuries

The planning for the "Covid" episode, for instance, began as far back as at least 1992, and once we learn that vital skill of pattern recognition - of connecting past and present events together, and not just seeing life as endless, random, fragmented chaos - it soon becomes clear the same is true for almost all major global events.

The kind of events that shape and define history are typically years, decades, and sometimes even centuries in the making, and - if we want to truly understand what is going on in the world - we have to zoom out, look at the bigger picture, and stop having the memories of goldfish, flitting mindlessly from one "current thing" to the next, failing to see the unifying threads between past and present - and how making these connections often allows us an insight into the probable future, too (link goes to a post from April 2019, when I predicted an imminent fake pandemic to usher in a bioweapon "vaccine").

Unfortunately, however, with modernity's very many distracting, dopamine-based baubles, contemporary attention spans have become so short, that people have a tendency to get bored and impatient once the initial exciting "hit" of the "next big thing" has worn off. You don't see many Ukrainian face masks around now, do you? Because people got bored of that after a few weeks, forgot all about their prior investment, and off their attention wandered, searching for the next big dopamine-based distraction.

You would hope this kind of thing - childlike attention-spans and goldfish-bowl memories - would be restricted to the "normie" community only, but alas, it is not so.

Two months ago, I wrote an open letter to Andrew Bridgen MP - current aspiring heart-dotted hero of the conspiracy community - asking him to answer a few key questions relating to his current endeavours (not least his desire to relieve the public of a quarter of a million pounds via a very shady and questionable website).

He hasn't replied, despite having publicly acknowledged he's read the letter, and I know why he hasn't - because his advisors, understanding modern human psychology all too well, will have told him:

"Just ignore it and it'll go away. People will be interested for five minutes, but then the next thing will come along and this letter will be totally forgotten."

Knowing that is exactly what Bridgen will have been advised, and what he will be counting on, I make a point of regularly publicly reminding him that he hasn't responded yet and that I would still very much like him to.

As a result of this, I was recently informed by some ostensibly "awake" people that, "right, you've had your say, but you need to shut up now. This is getting boring. You've sent the letter, he hasn't replied, it's time to move on."

And it is exactly that attitude that the overlords count on for controlling the opposition and keeping them grinding round in endless inane circles, attention darting from one big-name controlled "hero" to the next, one dopamine-doused distraction to another, without ever making any real progress.

I sent my letter to Bridgen two months ago. Not two decades or two lifetimes - two months. That's absolutely nothing - people make longer-term commitments to their favourite TV shows - and if we can't keep our attention trained on the same thing for a smattering of *weeks* without getting impatient and demanding "more, different, new! I'm booooored!", then we really might as well just throw in the towel now and line up for our transgender Costa coffee...

That's one of the "current things" meant to annoy us, and yes, it's annoying and Costa should be boycotted and so on and so forth - but if we keep allowing our attentions to be hijacked by every new high-profile "outrage" that comes along, at the expense of showing some consistency and follow-through by also sticking with other themes that are no longer so shiny and new, then we will never make any meaningful headway on anything.

By keeping my attention on Andrew Bridgen, and his abject failure to answer my letter, I have been able to actually start getting somewhere: since I can now confirm that, courtesy of some, er, "feedback" I received from the leader of Bridgen's political party, the fulminating Mr. Fox, that my refusal to be ignored and go away, is starting to - so it would appear - make their paymasters sweat.

My last article, exposing some of the rather extraordinary links between Bridgen, his fundraiser, Fox, and some very major, sinister global players, was shared on Twitter by the Heritage Party's David Kurten, with the introduction:

"This is an excellent article by @MattersInformed [my Twitter name] about the Democracy 3.0 'crowd funding' platform, currently being used for some high profile 'campaigns'. Before donating to legal action by multi-millionaires, be sure you know where your money is going."

Within literal minutes, Laurence Fox was on this Tweet, replying to David with:

"Did you read the article? Democracy 3.0 is a crowdfunder created to be uncancellable. Much needed in these times of crowdfunding platforms and banks cancelling campaigns and people for their views.

There are no multi millionaires involved. @ABridgen has clearly stated that any money or damages will go to the vaccine injured. As for Mirif, or whatever her name is, she couldn't even be bothered to do the most basic research. So she's either a poor journalist, malicious for some reason, or just thick.

Strange to see such people behaving in a strangely identical way to those they pretend to stand against."

I feel compelled to initially observe that Fox responding to David's stating "this is an excellent article" with "did you read the article?" is a singularly stunning piece of - shall we say - "Lozz-gic" (no, Loz, he just took a wild stab in the dark and endorsed and accurately summarised the article's content, without reading it first...) - but as for the rest of his remarks - Fox is just flailing around desperately at this point, being puerile and pointlessly rude (attempting more of his narcissistic invalidation by pretending, once again, not to know my name), throwing insults around and hoping one might stick - so that people will simply take him at his word, rather than actually reading the article in question and deciding for themselves.

When I retweeted his remarks, asking people to do just this - to read the article and make up their own minds - he blocked me.

Concurrently, other "big name hero" June Slater jumped on the same thread, also restating Fox's declaration that Bridgen "says" the money is going to the vaccine injured, so that's it, case closed.

Because, of course, inveterate liars who deceive High Court judges under oath and are labelled "so dishonest, not a word they say can be taken at face value" would never mislead us! A politician makes a promise, well - what more reassurance could we possibly need as to his authenticity!

(Eye-roll emoji, face-palm emoji...)

To be very clear, just because someone *says* they're going to do something, does not constitute evidence they actually are, and this is especially so when the person in question is a consummate, practised, and it would appear, almost pathological liar (or - that universally recognised shorthand - a politician).

To date, Andrew Bridgen has not given one penny of the money he has raised to the vaccine injured and, as it stands, there is no evidence he ever will. I mean, what is he waiting for? He's already raised over £100k (the amount he claims to be aiming to gain from suing Hancock), and the vaccine-injured have a well-known tendency to "die suddenly", so he's not really helping them by sitting on the money indefinitely, is he? This showboating trial - if it even goes ahead - and which Bridgen will almost certainly lose (therefore also losing all the public's money in the process) could be dragged out for years, whereas people are grievously ill and need help NOW.

So why the delay, Andrew? How are you "helping the vaccine injured" by sitting on this money for an unspecified amount of time? And by what mechanism do you allege you will eventually give it to them? Will they have to apply individually? If so, how will their claims be assessed? Or are you giving the money to a charity that supports the vaccine-injured? If so, which one? What is the actual arrangement in place here to deliver these funds to those who you say you are fundraising for, and can we see some actual evidence (not merely the "word" of a prolific liar) that such an arrangement exists?

If we can't (and it seems quite clear that we can't), why can't we? To reiterate again - if (and it's a big if) Bridgen's case actually goes ahead, he will almost certainly lose. Therefore, he will be ordered to use the money he has raised from the public to pay Hancock's costs and the vaccine injured will get nothing. To be very clear: if you have donated to that fundraiser, there's a very sizeable chance your money will end up straight in the pockets of Hancock and his lawyers.

Conversely, Bridgen currently has over £100k sitting in his account at Democracy 3.0 right now, so - if he was really interested in helping the vaccine injured (who, to repeat, can't necessarily afford to wait many months or years for this case to reach court) - surely he would give these funds straight to them now, rather than risk losing everything (and enriching the coffers of Hancock) in a court case?

These are all key issues that have yet to be addressed, and the lack of clarity or transparency here qualifies why it is no defence of Bridgen to declare "he says he's giving money to the vaccine injured".

It's most revealing to note that David Kurten's sharing of my article got almost no other responses (although a lot of likes and retweets) - so why were "big name heroes" Fox and Slater on it so quickly, trying to discredit it and defend Bridgen? Why didn't they just ignore my piece, if it's nothing but the poor journalism of a disingenuous thicko? (Or why doesn't Fox threaten - as is his very favourite thing! - to "sue me for defamation", if all I do is disseminate malicious lies?)

It's because - by keeping my attention on the same thing for more than five minutes - we are now getting somewhere close to the truth... and, as such, the professional deceivers are starting to sweat.

That's why Fox gets so nasty and snarling whenever my name is brought up, and can't help himself from lashing out and trying in every which way to diminish and discredit me - well, every way, of course, apart from actually engaging with my arguments and proving them untrue.

He can't do that - because they are true, as my friend Nick Cotton recently demonstrated, by contrasting Lozza's lies with the facts in this video (relevant section starts from 3:35) - although, as I have told Nick, I don't agree with the sentiments in the video's title - so don't hate me for sharing, James, remember I bought your book...

This is the point: when bad actors are repeatedly exposed and put under pressure, eventually, their mask starts to slip, and that is precisely what we are seeing with Fox here - and also with his pal, Bridgen.

Please watch this short video clip (from 1:11:00 - 1:13:00) where Bridgen is directly asked whether he has read my letter, and if he plans to reply. His response to this perfectly reasonable question very much appears to be the response of a shifty and inauthentic character alarmed at being exposed. He says:

"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."

And really, what kind of meandering, rambling nonsense is this? It's classic deflection, as nothing he says above is even remotely connected to what has been asked of him in the letter.

He says the letter is with his "people" (who are they and how does he employ "people" if he is penniless?), and if they can "deal with all of those issues" then why don't they do precisely that?

As for his claim that the government has separated him from all his money - how, exactly, have they done this? What is the mechanism involved? Because I was of the distinct impression that the reason Andrew Bridgen is in dire financial straits is due to losing a court case relating to his family firm (you know, the one where he was declared "so dishonest, nothing he says can be taken at face value") which left him owing £800,000 in legal fees, and - because he has declined to pay the rent on his luxury cottage for quite some time - also owing £244,000 in rent arrears (by sheer coincidence, almost the exact amount he is fundraising for).

However, if Mr. Bridgen would like to provide some evidence to the contrary, to show that his catastrophic personal finances are actually due to "the government", rather than his own deceptions and fraud, then I will be very happy to review it.

What is not going to happen though, Mr. Bridgen, is that I will be ignored and dutifully go away. (Although it is true that Laurence Fox now lives blissfully untroubled by me and my puritanical malicious wokie thickness, since he blocked me on Twitter....)

Look at Bridgen's comment again - what twenty million pounds is this? If he is worth twenty million, how does that square with Fox's declaration to David Kurten that there are "no multi millionaires" involved in his projects?

Note that, as well as Bridgen's self-described "personal fortune", Reclaim is funded to the tune of multi millions, by multi-millionaire mate of Bridgen, Jeremy Hosking, whilst Democracy 3.0 is run by the very well-heeled Andrew Hawkins, who lives in a grade II listed building replete with tennis courts.

So it almost seems that, rather than "no" multi-millionaires being involved, it would be far more accurate to say "only" multi-millionaires are involved (as how much wealth exactly is floating around in the world-famous, multi-generational Fox acting dynasty from which Laurence descends?)

It appears quite clear at this stage that these people are all liars and frauds, establishment assets scripted to play the parts of "anti-establishment heroes" in order to manipulate and control the opposition - which, of course, the establishment always looks to do - and that they hold the people that fall for their lies and support them in utter contempt.

They imagine us all too thick and easily distracted to do our due diligence, to stick with the same subject for more than an afternoon, and to keep holding them to account - in order to find out who they really are, and whose interests they really serve.

Andrew Bridgen, Laurence Fox, Dan Wootton, and the rest of your ilk - we see you. And we're not going to get bored and go away.

(Although admittedly, you can block us on Twitter...)

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

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, and Twitter (posting as Informed Consent Matters)