That being an almost-perfect anagram of her name... (unfortunately, since I coined it, internet sleuths have correctly deduced it doesn't quite work, as there are one too many 'y's - I knew I should have got the Scrabble tiles out instead of messing around in Word on my phone - an allegory for the merits of analogue over digital and authenticity over AI if ever I heard one...).
Anyway: this case has been splashed all over the media for days now, and the more intense coverage it gets; the more it becomes a national talking point; and the more all the papers - supposedly with competing and contrary political agendas - go lockstep on reporting over it, the more we can become sure this is some sort of major perception management psy-op. In short: it is not "real".
What do I mean by that? Well, in evaluating whether news items are real or not real, it's always useful to watch this brief 9-minute primer from acclaimed author and journalist, Dr. Naomi Wolf, who succinctly explains how and why the press engages in what is effectively "street theatre" - that the mainstream media frequently colludes with the establishment (military and intelligence agencies) to stage events, and then passes them off as real, for the purposes of propagandising the public in order to push through a political agenda. This, Wolf explains, is a perfectly legal thing to do and the press do it all the time. The more "theatrical" - dramatic, over-the-top, wall to wall coverage - a media event appears, the more likely it is to be, actual theatre. Acted. Staged. Not real.
When I first heard about the Bulley case, my initial evaluation was that it was to push more surveillence of the public ("for their safety"), in terms of the chip agenda (or "Maddie's microchip", as I remain convinced it will be called). I said:
IS THE HIGH-PROFILE NICOLA BULLEY CASE PART OF THE MADDIE CHIP AGENDA?
Whenever a story gets blanket, headline media attention, we always have to ask, "why this, why now?" - people go missing all the time, sadly, but they very rarely get the kind of intense media coverage being lavished on Nicola Bulley.
Nicola Bulley is, conveniently, a very easy person to sympathise with - blonde, pretty, and living a "perfect life" as a successful working mother in an idyllic country village. All a bit too perfect?
Much like Kate and Gerry McCann were the "perfect" family - two successful doctors (oh, doctors, how clever and compassionate they must be!) with baby twins (oh, twins, adorable, and one of each too!) and the cutest little blonde moppet toddler - the perfect media manicured psy-op to rouse maximal public sympathies (a fat working class family on benefits wouldn't have got 1% of the attention or sympathy the McCanns did and we all know it).
There's a story arc being built with the Nicola Bulley story, just as there was and still is with Madeleine McCann. The papers never let her name drop from the headlines - they informed us the other day that her twin siblings had just celebrated their 18th birthday - I mean, is this really national news - 'teenagers have birthday' - ? No, but the establishment has invested a fortune in keeping 'Madeleine McCann' a household name and they are not going to stop publicising her until they have reaped the rewards of their investment, which they will very soon.
I think Nicola Bulley (who could feasibly be the now 20-year-old Madeleine's older sister or aunt - both blonde, photogenic, middle-class) is part of the same agenda Madeleine is - to create a clamour for total, all-encompassing surveillance of everyone because they're "never really safe" otherwise. And if your phone, your FitBit, cameras everywhere are not enough to provide that level of surveillance and "safety" (as clearly they were not in the Bulley case), then what is?
The desired answer is clear: a microchip under the skin. Please see this article for my wider theory on the Madeleine McCann situation.
I certainly continue to think that could well be part of it - and big-budget media psy-ops are often multi-factorial in the agendas they are trying to push - but as a commentator pointed out, missing adults don't evoke the same emotional response as missing children do, where it comes to potential chipping. If the establishment really wanted to prompt clamour for a microchip, they would stage a missing child event (or finally find "the" missing child), rather than focus on a missing adult - and to reiterate, adults do go missing all the time and it almost never gets the kind of blanket, breathless coverage the Bulley case is receiving.
So, the subsequent theory I had was this:
So if it turns out Nicola Bulley was abducted, will this be used to generate more Sarah Everard-esque national hysteria about how no woman is safe on the streets and even that most wholesome and innocent of all activities - walking the dog - is not safe for lone women? I have postulated before that we are moving rapidly towards a dramatic cultural pendulum shift to ultra-conservatism, and one feature in many such regimes is that women are not allowed to leave home without a male chaperone - all “for their safety” of course...
This may be closer to the mark, and as I say, fits in with my theories about the imminence of ultra-conservatism and a mollycoddling misogyny aimed at women, all, of course, "for their safety" (the totalitarian tyrant's mantra of choice). You may think this position would get little support from right-thinking people in a free and liberal society, but it turns out that, actually, a surprisingly large number of the British public agree that adult women should not walk alone in broad daylight in idyllic middle-class villages (I mean, it's not like this affluent mortgage advisor lived in the middle of some sort of gangland ghetto, after all, and even when I myself once did - well, Lewisham - I still went for walks on my own).
The odds of an adult being snatched from the street by a stranger in broad daylight are so vanishingly small, that if the state simply tried to limit people's movements by saying "you might be snatched if you don't stay at home", they'd be laughed at. Yet we know they do want us to stay at home as much as possible for as long as possible - see my last article re: 15-minute cities and what the real end-game is with these, namely, incarcerating the general public in low-cost prisons - so how are they going to most effectively action that change and make millions of people too fearful to leave the house?
They're going to do it by making the idea of being snatched from the street by a stranger seem a very real and present danger, by staging it as happening in the media - and to such a lovely, innocent, photogenic woman, living in such ostensible safety and affluence, too!
If it can happen to her, is the sombrely, strongly implied message, it could happen to any one of us. Even when with a dog - dogs traditionally being seen as protection from 'stranger danger', especially for women - we are still not safe.
In cultures which literally do not let women leave the house alone, they never say this is about controlling or oppressing women through fear - of course not. It's about protecting them. It's about keeping them safe because we love them (I'm only doing this because I love you so much, as is the known abuser's charter as the blows keep raining down).
There is a very distinct theme being woven through the press these last few years about women's safety, and what do the very high profile cases of Sarah Everard, Zara Aleena, and Nicola Bulley all have in common? That they were all lone women walking by themselves when something terrible happened. Two were brutally murdered, and one continues to be missing-presumed-dead (in missing persons cases, once the first 72 hours have elapsed, it is generally understood the investigation is now looking for a dead body, rather than a live victim).
Of course, they may well find Bulley alive, with some terrible traumatic story of what happened to her, but either way, the takeaway is the same - women are putting themselves at lethal risk if they leave the house by themselves - even in broad daylight in quiet villages.
The story is going to hit its dramatic crescendo very soon, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they saved the final 'plot twist' for Valentine's Day. What more pointed occasion in the calendar could there be, to mark what allegedly terrible danger women face from men, than the day traditionally reserved for celebrating romance and love? We know the overlords want us scared, single, fearful, and alone, sitting meekly in our SMART pods with just a robo-dog for company, and they will keep pitting the sexes against each other and demonising one at the expense of the other until they have achieved this.
So, maybe the anagram doesn't quite fit (I definitely need to spend more time playing proper Scrabble and not the stupid online version where the computer beats me by insisting "qat" is a word) - but nevertheless, you can be sure that "Nicola Bulley", whoever she really is, is a key actor on the world stage, and that she, and the story being woven around her, are well and truly in that big, loyal club.
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...
Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chip in Nicola Bulleys front tooth.
Great article. I enjoy reading your theories and very much relate to them. Well done.
To me it's even more of a surreal theatre feeling because in Lithuania, where I am originally from, a 15 year old boy went missing on Saturday, and the story has been making national news since. I keep seing both stories parallelly on my feed. Guess where they say they think he is - in a river. I suppose the chip they're launching will be waterproof...
Qat is plant chewed by people from East Africa and South Asia
Absolutely love every single article you write, it gives me alot to think about, and mostly I think you are spot on.
Yes the NB case is odd, and we haven't even mentioned the husband yet. Caught his interview last week (on Sky I think), immediately struck me as odd. Looked on socials next day, turns out lots of people had the same reaction. His demeanour and expression was all wrong, given the situation. He seems like he knows something.
RE the Sarah Everard-esque agenda you posit. We could flip it and imagine MEN (males) are actually the target. It might not be about creating a situation where women are prevented from going out without a male chaperone, but instead creating the environment to ban men from going out (e.g at certain times of the day). Creating "women-only" hours on the streets. This would of course give rise to a surge in men dressing as women (to enable them to leave the house) and *this* feeds nicely into the ongoing trans agenda we're seeing unfold.
Also the hunt for Constance Marten, a woman who is exercising her right to not be found if she has not committed a crime.
This is how the public is being taught their lessons Miri.
Thank you everyone for your interesting comments as ever 🙂
To Ian, you may well be right about the tyranny being targeted at men, and in fact, that was my first thought when all the Everard hysteria kicked off, please see this article from 2021: https://miriaf.co.uk/it-ends-with-revelations/
Now I'm not so sure, though. There's definitely a strong sentiment that the onus is on women to be "sensible" and stay out of "danger" (e.g., the outside world!),so it could just be the tyranny will be universal - men will be tolf to stay at home because they're "dangerous", women will be told to stay at home because they're "in danger" - after all, the Covid tyranny was directed at both sexes equally. No doubt time will (soon) tell.
On the London Underground they are continually pushing this agenda, if a woman is being harassed on the train, how one should intervene, it’s an obsession like never before…definitely pushing the fear factor!
You see it clearly again, as always.
JonBenét Ramsey is the American equivalent of Maddie, a pure fiction, who it appears never existed.
https://twitter.com/humanvibration/status/1215102000498651136?s=20&t=3q2ddCXsOpy8n5csknUiPg
Miri: Read your interesting piece "It Ends With Revelations". Absolutely agree that men are the target of this aspect of the controlled demolition agenda. We are in the midst of a full-spectrum attack on masculinity. It is EVERYWHERE in the media (See "toxic masculinity" etc.) NB and the prior attacks def seem to be part of the story arc. And girls seem to be the primary target of the destructive "trans" agenda. So what's going on? What's this about? The crowning jewel of the Great Work of Alchemy...TRANSHUMANISM.
BTW, your Facebook post is fascinating. Amazing insight. In the years immediately prior to 2020, I too noticed a strange media uptick in vaccine conversations; specifically "anti-vax" vilification. At the time it was just something that lodged in my mind as...unusual...curious...vaccines were something I associated with babies! - why were they suddenly talking about this so much? Alas my puny brain did not make the connections yours did. It was only in mid-2020 that it dawned on me: the pre-2020 anti-vax talk I noticed was preparing the ground for the coming fake pandemic and specifically their coerced mRNA injection. Of course! In retrospect it all made sense (as did so much else). Which leads me to wonder...what is my mind registering as "odd" right now that in a year or two I will look back on as a clear indication of what was about to transpire. Because it is registering a lot of odd things all around us! 🙂
could it be "In local Buley "
Did you see this?
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/have-you-ever-met-this-woman/
Ohhhh yes! Well worth a read.