Whenever I ask people, as I often do, what "government school" they went to, I get a funny look.

"What?" They say, looking rather perplexed and slightly annoyed. "I didn't go to a 'government school'. I just went to a normal one."

"What, a normal state school?"

"Yeah."

"And 'state' in this context means..?"

A stunned silence.

"Oh..."

We are not trained to think of it this way, but the reality is that the vast majority of us spent at least twelve years (and twelve of our most formative years) in a government-run programming centre known as a 'state school'.

If the state schools you, then, by definition, the state is only going to teach you what is beneficial to it for you to know, which centrally means - nothing that could be harnessed to seriously challenge it later on.

So tell me, how much time did your state school invest in teaching you about how to participate in the political system? What percentage of lesson time was dedicated to explaining to you how elections work? Which teachers detailed how to stand as a candidate, run a campaign, fill in nomination forms and devise effective election literature?

None of this happened, of course.

Schools don't teach any of this stuff - it's not taught at primary school, not at secondary school, and not even in the sixth form as your 18th birthday, and eligibility to participate in the democracy in which you live, approaches.

They don't even teach you how to register to vote (which is exactly why nearly one in three 18-34 year olds are not).

Do you think there might be a reason for all this?

The purpose of government schools - and why governments everywhere take such a zealously keen interest in "educating" the nation's children - is to keep you neutralised and unthreatening: "dumbed down", as veteran educator John Taylor Gatto put it in his brilliant book.

The entire reason governments pour so much money into these institutions called schools - which increasingly fail to teach children even the most rudimentary life skills - is so the state can maintain its stranglehold status quo, by ensuring you never develop the skills or the knowledge that might allow you to effectively challenge them.

That's why they don't teach you about elections, and that's why the large majority of the population remains so utterly ignorant about them, as was so devastatingly demonstrated this July 4th, with voter turnout the lowest since World War Two, thereby enabling the establishment's one-party dictatorship to be seamlessly installed. (The turnout where I live was 51%, but as voter turnout figures don't include the millions eligible to vote but not on the electoral roll, realistically it was much lower.)

I have covered at length the hypnotic NLP psy-op that is being used against state dissidents to convince them not to vote, and everyone who fell for the "Don't Vote" military-grade mind control programme has simply cooperated with the state to allow it to install what is going to be the most tyrannical government any of us have ever known.

Let's be really, fundamentally clear on why this has happened: the state attempts to ensure its desired result in elections, not by shredding votes or any such impractical nonsense, but in two simple - and devastatingly effective - ways:

1. Using the mainstream media to convince 'normies' to vote for the desired candidate;
2. Using alternative and social media to convince dissidents not to vote at all.

That's it. That's all it takes.

And it's worked...

If you didn't vote, please do not kid yourself - or much, much worse, congratulate yourself - that you have done anything other than enable the establishment to achieve exactly what it wanted.

I understand not voting if you didn't have a viable candidate, but if you did - and millions of us did, there were more pro-freedom candidates at this election than any I'm previously aware of - and yet you didn't vote for them, you have been instrumental in installing the supermajority Labour dictatorship which will go on to make life horrendous for us all.

And to be clear, while I don't mind people disagreeing with me on this issue if they have a legitimate counter-view, what I do very much mind, and will be vigorously calling out for as long as I have a platform, is lying and liars.

And what I have noted repeatedly about prominent "don't vote" Pied Pipers, is that they lie. They exploit general ignorance in this area to their advantage and circulate absolute untruths which people leap on and repeat as gospel, having not bothered to make any attempts to verify whether what they are sharing is true.

There are some considerable whoppers doing the rounds at the moment, including the nonsense fiction that, "if enough of us don't turn up to vote, they'll realise we don't want them and the whole system will collapse!".

This is a total fabrication and fantasy. There is no official lower limit for an election to be declared valid. It's not uncommon at all for police commissioner elections, for insance, to attract a turnout of under 10%. The result is still declared valid.

If you believe otherwise, please show me one single shred of evidence that, at a certain magic number, "the whole system collapses" through people not voting?

It doesn't.

On the contrary, actually: not voting emboldens it. The ruling classes are thrilled if you don't vote (that's why they've made it harder for you by introducing voter ID, something around 1 in 5 under-35s don't have, and nor do many other disadvantaged and minority groups). This is because the more disengagement from voters, the more the establishment feels they have a mandate to do whatever they want because you're clearly not interested in mounting any kind of challenge.

Or do you honestly believe that, one day, the overlords will look at the low voter numbers and declare, "hmm, looks like the electorate doesn't like us very much. We'd better just abolish ourselves!"?

Come on!

They want the voter turnout to be as low as possible, which is why they don't educate you about voting and elections in their schools, and why they put no pressure on you whatsoever to vote (compared to things they DO want you to do, like wear masks and take vaccines. Contrast the amount of aggressive state propaganda directed at you to do those things, to the complete absence of it related to the importance of voting).

So, they don't want you to vote, they're delighted if you don't, and they want the voter turnout as low as possible because that maximises the chances of their desired candidate getting in, and that's exactly what you non-voters have enabled for them. They've persuaded you to play into their hands, all the while tricking you into thinking you're doing something really subversive and worthwhile (they're past masters at this, more of which later).

But the lies don't stop at the "the system will collapse if we don't vote" fairytale.

Oh no...

The latest farcical fib doing the rounds is that, even if 100% of the eligible population turned out and all voted for independent candidates - that, in other words, even if literally the entire electorate voted against him - Keir Starmer would still have got in!

"Because it's all rigged innit"...

This is one of the most breathtakingly ludicrous lies I have ever heard. It's literally up there with "asymptomatic cases" and the prophylactic power of Scotch Eggs.

If you believe this, then I'm going to require a step-by-step breakdown of how, exactly, such a colossal operation as this would actually work (and then, you know, some actual evidence - any evidence at all - that it ever has).

There are more than 30,000 polling stations in the UK. As soon as they shut at 10pm on the day of the elections, the ballot boxes are instantly transported to a nearby location to be counted, and the count starts immediately.

So, for all 30,000+ of these booths to be corrupted to the extent that ALL votes (tens of millions of them) could be removed AND replaced with different votes, all in the tiny window of time between the booths shutting and the count beginning... this would be a military operation on par with invading a small country and would require the cooperation of thousands of specialist personnel, and even then, the risks that members of the public would notice what is going on are phenomenally high.

If this had therefore at any point happened, or if anything like it had ever happened, we would know by now because we would have whistleblowers. At least one whistleblower confirming that the entire thing is a complete sham and "all rigged".

Not one whistleblower has said this ever.

You know why?

Because this doesn't happen. This is ludicrous fantasy fiction which is even less plausible than Rachel Clarke's "Breathtaking" memoir.

You will note also that all those purporting to speak so authoritatively about all the "rigging" supposedly happening at electoral counts, have never themselves actually attended any. Put bluntly, they haven't got a bloody clue what goes on, but as they know most other people haven't either, they can capitalise on generalised ignorance and gullibility by peddling lies.

I have attended four electoral counts, and neither I nor anyone who's attended them with me has ever seen any evidence of any rigging. It's quite plain to see they are not rigged by the behaviour of the candidates, who are all watching their counts obsessively and raising merry hell if it looks like even one vote might have been missed.

If it's "all rigged anyway" or "all decided in advance", why do they do this?

Electoral counts are not public. This is not performative political theatre as no members of the public are there to witness it, the count is very private (you can't even take photos) and only candidates and their agents, and limited special guests, can attend.

However, a little known fact (that I didn't know until a few weeks ago - another thing no government school ever teaches you) is that you can actually apply to attend a count as an "official observer", should you so desire. I think that anyone who is tempted to believe "it's all rigged anyway" and is using that as an excuse not to vote, should apply for this scheme and go and see for themselves, rather than taking as gospel the word of social media rent-a-gobs with dubious motives who have never set foot in any electoral environment.

I'm going to say it again, because this is the irrefutable reality and truth: if it was "all rigged anyway", we'd have whistleblowers attesting to that fact. At least one whistleblower - you know, like we have vaccine whistleblowers, and midazolam whistleblowers, and so on and so forth.

But we don't have any, because it's not...

The only rigging going on is convincing you not to vote, and as we can see, that's worked a charm.

You may recall that, up until the relatively recent past, most people weren't allowed to vote. Voting was reserved for wealthy establishment men (as well as possessing a Y chromosome, you had to own property, and/or be in a certain tax band, to be permitted to vote).

And obviously, whenever the establishment bans people from doing anything, they instantly rebel and say they want to do it, hence the huge universal suffrage movement that developed.

The establishment could have continued to withhold the vote from most and thus been obliged to expend huge energy and resources dealing with the ever-growing and ever more disruptive suffragette movement... or they could give people the vote, but persuade them not to use it, knowing that, it now lacking the "forbidden fruit" credentials, voting would be far less attractive.

So that's what they did.

It's really simple reverse psychology, and it's worked with ruthless efficiency.

The overlords weren't great at using or understanding human psychology until the advent of Freud and his psychoanalytic theories, but these taught the ruling classes how to expertly harness and control the human mind (as was brilliantly detailed in the must-see documentary, Century Of The Self) - which they've been doing to great effect ever since.

It's not a coincidence that Freud started practicing in the late 1800s, and universal suffrage promptly followed in the early 1900s. Freud's theories and techniques taught the overlords that they could govern far more effectively by "manufacturing consent" in the populace, as opposed to trying to control them by overt force, which tends to provoke rebellion.

So, instead of the brute "you will not vote" angle they'd been using for so long, they changed tack: they let you vote... but shrewdly sowed the subconscious belief that it's not worth doing so - that your vote doesn't count, it's all rigged anyway, if voting made a difference they wouldn't let you do it...

And you have to admit: it's clever (and if you're not familiar with the concept of the manufacture of consent and how this has been used to control the political climate for the last century, please do look into it).

Leading on from this, however, is the fact that there is an influential subsection of society who have proved largely immune to the NLP "don't vote" brainwashing, and that is the Muslim community.

Far more likely to see through the Covid psy-op than the population at large, the Muslims, as a general rule, also don't fall for state programming trying to convince them not to vote.

At every election, they organise and mobilise and in many cases, get their desired candidate elected. Here in West Yorkshire, the "polls" (predictive programming) suggested a Labour landslide in Dewsbury, just like all the other local constituencies.

Yet who won?

An independent.

Please can the "it's all rigged anyway" brigade explain how and why the Zionist establishment desiring a Labour landslide would "rig" a pro-Palestine independent to win a seat? Isn't that rather contrary to their interests?

You can see the same in other constituencies and elections. The Muslims put on a united front: they organise, they get active, and they get results. They will even stand down candidates where a vote split could hamper a good candidate getting in, and they did this in the recent West Yorkshire Mayor elections, agreeing not to stand a candidate themselves so as to not take votes away from Jonathan Tilt.

If you were to approach the average Muslim voter and tell them, "you know there's no point in voting because it's all rigged anyway", they would shake their heads and smile sadly at you, like you were a particularly dim-witted child. And I'm afraid to say that - no matter how clever and insightful you might be on a whole host of other issues - if you're still falling for the "don't vote" psy-op, then on this issue, they'd probably be correct.

And I can say that quite confidently, because, until 2020, I was too. I had never voted, and parroted all the same NLP soundbites about rigging and foregone conclusions and "if it made any difference they wouldn't let you do it".

I had no evidence for any of these assertions. I knew nothing about how the electoral system worked. I'd never even entered a polling booth, much less attended any electoral counts - and, in common with most people, didn't even know local council elections existed, or that I could easily stand as a candidate in one myself.

I was brainwashed and in a cult, every bit as much as Branch Covidians who believe flappy dirty hankies wrapped around their chins protect them from the world's deadliest plague (and Labour's barely been in power a day and I can already see mask usage creeping back up).

To get out of these paralysing false beliefs, I had to be "deprogrammed" and that is what happened in 2020. With the unprecedented insanity that was Covid, I was confronted with the fact that the establishment was even more tyrannical than I had previously thought, and my staunch record of not voting had not exactly proven an effective prophylactic against this tyranny. So, when I met fellow dissidents who made the rather good point that "not voting doesn't seem to have worked, does it? Shall we try something else?", I was receptive to it.

It often takes a shock and a jolt to shake people out of hypnotic programming - hence why so many former normies "awoke" in response to Covid. I was already a conspiracy theorist in 2020, but prior to that, nothing shocking enough had happened to me personally to make me reevaluate my views on voting and elections. Covid provided that shock for me, and so my only hope now is that the hell on earth that will be the Labour government will provide that shock for more of the non-voters. That's the only good thing that can come out of it, and that's the good thing that must come out of it.

"You can't vote your way out of tyranny" is a nice, ReTweetable soundbite, but you tell me, then: how do we get out of it?

"A revolution"? Who's organising that, then? Are you volunteering? Do talk me through your plan...

None of the non-voters have a practical plan for challenging the current system in a way that actually gets visible results.

I, on the other hand, do have a plan, and it's a plan I have been putting into practice for the last four years: getting together with likeminded local friends, agreeing which one(s) of us will stand in elections, and then working together to get our names out into the local community, so come voting day, people know who we are and vote for us.

It's a plan that's seen us go from getting 70-odd votes when we first started standing in 2021, to over 46,000 in this year's mayor elections. So yeah, I'd say it's working.

And seriously: what is the alternative?

Please note that the non-voters will now spend the next four years whining bitterly about all the pro-regime, anti-freedom MPs in parliament. But you know why lockdown-loving, vaccine-happy MPs predominate in Westminster?

Because people who like lockdowns and valorise vaccines, vote.

If you want pro-freedom representatives in parliament, you have to vote them in. It is the only way they will get there. The Muslims know this, which is why they now have power and sway in Westminster, having installed their candidates in key seats.

The conspiracy fringe, on the other hand, has what?

Some meme-able soundbites to share smugly on Twitter?

You have been played.

But the game isn't over yet and in future, you have two choices:

You either play politics - or politics plays you.

You can choose to be a passive recipient, or an active participant - and which one do you think best serves the establishment?

Please choose wisely.

(And for all those dissidents who DID turn up and vote, including and especially those doing it for the first time or the first time in a long time - thank you.)

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 or Substack (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

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 there as my other resource, Informed Consent Matters)