I've purloined this title from another ultra-contentious conspiratorial controversy, but that's not what I'm going to talk about today (sorry... it's coming, though!). Today I want to talk about the current revelatory experience many 'awake' people are going through, of realising some of the seeming brightest lights and loudest voices in this movement, are not what they seem at all.
All forms of news media - mainstream, alternative, and social alike - are currently completely dominated with stories relating to the upcoming "11/11" events - that is so say, Remembrance Day services clashing with pro-Palestine demonstrations. Please take a few moments to read my article on that, if you haven't already, as it provides important context for what follows (or, if you prefer, you can listen to it here).
Since publishing the aforementioned article, I have received several comments along the lines of:
"The past few weeks since the October 7th false flag have been the greatest education since I woke up fully in 2021. The unveiling has gone into overdrive. A few so called truthers I follow have shown their hands too..."
"I read Fox's tweets today, thinking this bloke must be really F in thick, for what he's advocating, then I remembered what you said, so, 100%.
You've really sussed some of these duplicitous twats."
(These comments were shared publicly on my Substack and BuyMeACoffee accounts respectively, if anyone wants to verify them as real, given so many of my antagonists seem fond of the ever-fuller "things that never happened" file...).
Laurence Fox, by the way, shared a Tweet a couple of days ago stating:
"Next weekend, like millions of Britons, I'll be attending my local remembrance service. Woe betide anyone who tries to interrupt the two-minute silence in our neck of the woods. They'll get a 'resounding rejection', to use Hussain's words. And it won't just be verbal."
So have you got that? He's now openly advocating for and inciting violence.
I've been calling out Fox for quite some time, which I know has displeased some people tremendously, but I hope you can now see why it was so important to keep a critical focus on him.
He is an exceptionally dangerous and devious establishment pied piper, handsomely bankrolled by said establishment (check who backs his political party) to lead you into a trap, where you make the crossover from practicing legal free speech and lawful protest, over to very much illegal violence and the incitement of crime. The intended consequences of this are that you - as a known state dissident - are delivered directly into the hands of state agents (police, army) where they can assault you, arrest you, take your DNA (standard in arrest), and quite possibly prosecute you.
Fox’s staged “arrest” recently was just there to make you think inciting crime and being detained by the police is a cool, aspirational goal so that you follow him into a baited trap now.
The same goes for every single one of these pied piper shills cynically trying to rile you up so you walk into their scripted, staged psy-op on 11/11. The Zionist agitator Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (who prefers the pseudonym 'Tommy Robinson', because nothing screams 'legitimate' like using a completely fake name) has been permitted to re-perform on Twitter this week, for precisely this reason, and he wasted absolutely no time in doing so.
"Your country needs you", Yaxley-Lennon informed his 367,000 followers.
Well, that doesn't sound like war propaganda at all, now, does it?
What we are seeing now with all these high-profile "freedom-fighting heroes" like Laurence Fox, Tommy Robinson, Martin Daubney, et al, is their going lockstep with promoting the establishment agenda because that is always what they were there to do.
Whenever I do investigative reports on people I consider to be quite obviously controlled opposition, I always get a handful of the same predictable responses, often from "newbies", along the lines of, "well, you just call out everyone! At least they're doing something! What have you done??? Why don't you focus on exposing our actual enemies?!"
And I say verily to thee, newbie (as I was one once, too, and I also fell for Fox initially: I even own some of his, er, 'music'): I focus on them because they are our enemies. They're our enemies every bit as much as Hancock, Klaus and co, except they are a far more dangerous breed of enemy, because they pretend to be our friends. I'm sure you're familiar with the age-old tropes of wolves in sheep's clothing and Trojan horses - well, that's exactly what these people are, and that's why it's far more critical to call them out, than people who explicitly present themselves as not on our side.
Hancock is no active threat to you, because you will never believe a word he says or do anything he advises. Ditto Schwab, Trudeau, Johnson, Whitty et al. They've already been exposed so extensively, they are nothing more at this stage than paper tigers and cartoon villains. The body of work highlighting their misdeeds is exhaustive and overwhelming, and anybody who wants to find it, easily can (and I've certainly done plenty of pieces on Hancock and co myself).
So there's no point regurgitating yet more critiques of them. We all know they're evil and, consequentially, they have no power over us. Far more urgent, then, is to expose those who are just as duplicitous and unscrupulous as Hancock, but who are simply better at hiding their true intentions - which makes them far more dangerous.
Obviously, in any given scenario, the establishment knows there's going to be a certain percentage of the population who don't fall for "the official story": those who dig a bit deeper, and detect a conspiracy is afoot (that's exactly why the CIA invented the term 'conspiracy theorist', to try and belittle and dismiss such people). This being the case, do you honestly think the ruthless establishment, obsessed with power and control, is simply going to leave those people to it, to create genuine, grassroots movements on their own, and make no attempts to infiltrate, control, and ultimately neutralise these movements?
The answer is obvious. All throughout history, whenever a sizeable group splinters away from the state, the state hires agents and infiltrators to direct, manage, and control this group. It's as old as time and happens in EVERY significant anti-establishment movement, from animal rights through to anti-Zionists.
How do you identify the infiltrators and agents in any particular group? Well, the most obvious way to is to accept that everyone - and I do mean everyone - who receives significant, sustained establishment media coverage is a controlled asset. The establishment media simply does not give such extensive free publicity (and remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity) to people it does not control. Why would it? The mainstream media, owned by ultra-wealthy and powerful tycoons with tentacles reaching into all of society's most influential institutions, only prints what it wants you to know about.
It would therefore not give blanket coverage, even negative coverage, to genuine activists, because it knows all it is doing is raising their profile. For every person who thinks, "wow, this person sounds like a nutcase", there's going to be another who thinks, "I agree with this person and I want to find out more!" - hence, when the media allegedly "destroyed" Russell Brand by giving him blanket, back-to-back headline coverage for weeks (no arrests or charges have been brought against Mr. Brand relating to all these "allegations", what a surprise), what they really did was bring him to the attention of thousands of people who hadn't heard of him before, and as a result of MSM publicity, now listen to and support him. The MSM publicity blitz on Brand worked exactly as it was intended to - it raised his profile enormously.
I've heard so many people say, when the MSM gives coverage to this or that controlled person/project, "haha, the MSM thinks they're harming our cause by criticising whoever/whatever, they don't realise they're actually helping us by letting more people know about it!"
Believe me. They know. And they're not helping us - that's exactly the point: they're directing attention to where they want it to go, towards the assets that they control. Being "attacked by the media" does wonders for raising these people's profiles as "persecuted anti-establishment heroes" and that is the point. MSM vehicles are ultra-sophisticated, military-grade mind control weapons. They don't print things by accident and they don't promote people unless they want you to know about them.
So, Russell Brand, Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, Laurence Fox are all immediately revealed as establishment controlled assets because of quite how much establishment attention they get. The establishment isn't "threatened by how popular they are" - anybody who the establishment is actually threatened by is censored, banned, de-platformed and de-monetised into oblivion before they get anywhere near "famous" status - non-controlled assets are not permitted to build the kind of platforms controlled assets have, and any genuine content creator will verify that. We battle constantly against bans, shadow-bans, censorship and de-platforming, and we certainly never get any headline news coverage in the mainstream press.
Whenever I point this out, however, I often get the rather amusing rebuttal of, "you're just jealous of all the attention these high-profile accounts get!", so I might as well address this suggestion once and for all...
First of all, the people I call out are virtually all men (there being very few female agents as prominent as the male ones), whereas "jealousy" is far more often a same-sex phenomenon than an opposite sex one, e.g., a man who criticises Andrew Tate might be told (as many are), that they are "just jealous" of his machismo and expensive baubles.
Not quite sure how that would apply to me, though.... do my critics imagine I envy his bulging biceps? Covet his fast cars (I can't even drive, so...)? Wish to have scantily clad women throwing themselves at me, whilst I cackle in a dubious Dick van Dyke accent?
Okay, I lampoon somewhat, as my critics would undoubtedly retort, "no... you're jealous of how high-profile he is".
So let's examine that a bit closer. You will note from looking at my website that I do not use a picture of myself as the main image on the site, nor as the main avatar for any of my social media accounts. In fact, I almost never put pictures of myself online at all (the only reason there is one on this site, and on Substack, is to verify I am in fact a real person, and not a man or a bot or a Russian agent - all of which have been suggested by critics in the past).
So, let me ask you an honest question: is this the behaviour of a desperate attention-seeker who longs to be higher profile and is seething with jealousy at those who are?
Come on: we're not naive, we all know how the internet works, and that, if women post carefully posed, strategically filtered photos of themselves, wearing plenty of make-up and dressed in a certain way, that their profile will immediately sky-rocket. It's the old joke that you post a long, thoughtful, well-referenced political analysis, and you get 2 likes. You post a selfie and you get 347 likes, 49 comments, and some unfortunate DMs.
I know this as well as anyone, and I know plenty of people - women and men alike - who exploit this to raise their profile (like our friend Lozza and his infamous bikini shot...).
I don't do this, though, because it's not ME I want to rise to any sort of fame or prominence - it's the ideas and information that I discuss that I want to be better known: and I want to warn people when they are being misled. Needless to say, of course, when you pour thousands of hours of work into something over years, you get frustrated when it's censored into oblivion and your audience repeatedly tells you "I never see your posts in my feed anymore" (which I hear all the time), whilst clowns like Brand and Fox write a two-line Tweet and it gets 76,847 likes and coverage in the Daily Mail... obviously that's frustrating to any sane, thinking, feeling person who cares about what they're doing.
But frustration is not envy.
So, no, I certainly am not jealous of Mssrs. Brand, Tate, Musk, or Fox, and have absolutely no desire to be "famous" - I am simply pointing out that, if the establishment supports and promotes someone in their endeavours for 'fame', then it is because that person is one of them.
You must, therefore, and as the title advises, 'learn to see them' - learn the clues and cues that give away their real intentions - otherwise you'll keep falling for them and keep being led into baited traps, and the stakes are so high now, that we simply cannot afford for that to happen.
It looks like we are on course for a rocky few months ahead, but the one real silver lining is that 11/11 - as the "illuminator" number it is - is becoming the great revealer: shining light on dark people and exposing who they really are.
Please remember that 99.99% of people in the world never get any significant exposure in the mainstream media, so there's nothing depressing or hopeless about realising those who do are almost certainly compromised. It's simply about breaking the spell of the cult of celebrity and realising there's nothing special about anyone just because the MSM promotes them to "fame" - it doesn't mean they're any more able or gifted or important than anyone else. All it generally means is that they were born into a certain bloodline so they qualify for world-stage "fame" (Andrew Tate, for example, is the son of a CIA agent, whilst Laurence Fox is a descendant of the world-famous Fox acting dynasty).
We really don't need "big name heroes" making fancy promises and ultimately delivering nothing (which is always what happens - has Matt Hancock been 'arrested' or even 'sued for defamation' yet, as various "heroes" have promised?) - we, in fact, specifically need to break that dependency mentality and get active with real people in the real world ourselves, not characters and actors we only know through screens.
Not incidentally, Laurence Fox has a poster on his wall, which is often visible in his Tweets, of a film his father, the actor James Fox, starred in. The film is called 'Performance', and the strap-line reads, "see them all in a film about fantasy. And reality. Vice. And Versa."
Falling for these performers and their fantasy acting that pretends to be real has been our vice. But now we are ready for it to be our versa (meaning to turn around) and exit the pantomime for good.
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...