The problem with being a conspiracy theorist these days - well, apart from the societal-wide ridicule, the tyrannical state harassment, and the propensity to run out of tin foil - is that you can't take a single day off without coming back to literal World War Three...

I took a day trip to nearby York on Saturday, which was very pleasant (apart from the shocking, scandalous, daylight-robbery car parking costs - you can see why the native Guy Fawkes felt the way he did about the government), but when I returned home, I learned a major event had taken place in the Middle East suggesting the widely-promoted battle epic, World War Three, was about to make its world stage debut.

We have been cautioned for months that "if" (when) Iran got involved with the Israel-Palestine conflict, that would be the torch paper that would ignite the tinder box of tensions into all out global war.

Iran has now attacked Israel, but - as we must expect with all such coordinated, stage-managed events - it was a very peculiar attempt at "attack", as nobody was hurt and it was very short-lived.

As a native Israeli, highly sceptical of his government, said on Twitter in the aftermath of the assault:

"I don't think anyone got hurt or injured in Israel.

I actually think that there was a big media propaganda... to instil fear in people.

I'm not saying the attack didn’t happen, but last night, the entire Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, shut down their airspace.

And guess what? This morning, they all reopened it again.

... If Israel did not know that there were no more attacks, they would never have opened the airspace.

I don’t know about you, but it seems like a big show, a circus, a clown f***ing world."

This fits the scripting of this staged psy-op: that, right from the start, it has been meticulously planned and organised to give the ruling classes "justification" to do what they wanted to do anyway, but had no public mandate for.

The October 7th attacks were staged by the Israeli-funded Hamas to give Israel the excuse to retaliate and attack Palestine (what they wanted to do anyway, but without a preliminary exculpating event, would have lacked any public support for).

Ditto this latest Iranian staged "attack". Israel wants to attack Iran and now they have the excuse, and the backing, to do so.

And when I say an attack is "staged", I don't mean it didn't really happen, or that people didn't really get hurt, because people really do get hurt on movie sets (see the recent Alec Baldwin scandal, where Baldwin "accidentally" shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of a film).

What I am saying is, just like a movie, this has all been scripted and pre-produced well in advance. Therefore, Israel knew the Iranian attack was coming, and allowed it to happen, but has already reopened its air space as it knows there won't be any more surprise attacks, as nothing about this conflict is coming as a surprise - because it's all planned.

It has been "predicted" for decades that there will be one immense final world war, involving the East vs. West, and the reason these predictions exist and appear to be proving accurate, is that it is in fact scripting, not predicting.

If the screenwriters for your favourite drama show tell you what's going to happen next season, you don't think it's because they have masterful powers of prophecy - rather, they know what's going to happen because they are the ones writing it. And that's how the world stage works, too (hence why TV shows like The Simpsons are able to "predict" major future events - The Simpsons' creator is a high-level social architect who's seen the blueprints and knows the plans).

Now that Iran has attacked Israel, the stage has been set for the big, bombastic war epic of World War Three, because if Israel retaliates - as of course they will - Iranian leaders have already promised to strike back harder, warning the US, the UK, France and Germany to stop supporting Israel.

The official Iranian state news agency IRNA reports that Brig Gen Abolfazl Shekarchi said:

We remind the heads of state of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to stop supporting the declining child-killing terrorist regime of Israel. The Islamic Republic of Iran has proven that it is not a warmonger and does not seek to spread the war. The response will be stronger if the regime carries out more severe aggressive act.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden in the US has reaffirmed US' "ironclad" support of Israel, with US planes reportedly downing Iranian drones over northern Syria. The UK response is equally staunch, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stating Israel has UK's full support.

While Biden and Sunak have paid lip service to the idea of restraint and de-escalation on both sides, there's no doubt what their response will be if (when) Iran attacks again.

At that point, battle lines would be well and truly drawn, with the West - Israel, the US, UK, and other European countries - taking on the East: Iran, Syria, Russia and China.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind as to who would win in such a conflict, and, indeed, who is scripted to win.

We are at the end of a sociological cycle here in the West, with the liberal, progressive trends that began in the aftermath of World War Two, having reached their peak - and quite rapidly, peak insanity - and now have nowhere else to go but collapse.

The West has become far too ideologically incoherent to represent a durable challenge to the far more ordered and disciplined regimes of the East, not to mention their superior military capacities. The UK armed forces, for instance, are currently facing a "crisis", with the latest Ministry of Defence figures showing that last year, 5,800 more people left the forces than joined, and that the British army would exhaust its capabilities after just two months of war.

Iran's military, on the other hand, is viewed as one of strongest in West Asia, with approximately 580,000 active-duty personnel and 200,000 trained reserve personnel.

In any global conflict, Iran would also likely be backed by Russia and China, who possess the second and third strongest militaries in the world.

There is another, often overlooked but highly significant, angle to this situation, too. As ominous and daunting as the military might of countries like Iran might be, at least they are confined to Iran for the time being, e.g., we don't have hordes of Iranian troops stationed within our country awaiting orders.

... Right?

We currently have tens of thousands of single, military-aged males from overseas strategically placed in locations up and down the country including military bases, and one of the top countries of origin for these males is Iran. Other highly represented countries include Iranian ally, Syria, and next-door-neighbour, Afghanistan.

The men comprising this cohort are called "asylum seekers" and yet, they demographically do not remotely resemble them - traditionally, and for obvious reasons, it has been the strong young men who stay behind in conflict-ridden countries, whilst the more vulnerable and those who cannot fight - women, children, and the elderly - seek asylum in safe countries.

Indeed, it has been the case in the Ukrainian conflict that men under 60 were banned from leaving the country, whilst refugees overwhelmingly comprised women and children.

A war-torn country that sends hordes of its fighting-aged men away wouldn't have much chance of winning the war, after all, would it... unless it was sending them to invade another country where the war is soon to spread to.

Quite frankly, you would have to be a complete idiot (or a reader of the legacy press, but I repeat myself) to believe that these men are actually "asylum seekers", for the reasons outlined above, and also because of the way the government treats them - putting them up in luxury, no expense spared, and overriding the rational objectives of local councils, who have offered the government much more suitable and economical alternatives for actual asylum seekers. Wholly rejecting these proposals, the government has opted to dismiss the councils (sometimes taking them to court to override them) and instead significantly increase the amount of (already exorbitant) money it is spending.

So how to interpret this? The UK government routinely and ruthlessly ignores and oppresses its own vulnerable citizens, including children, leaving them living in desperate poverty and fatally dangerous environments, but we are to believe it cares so much about random foreign nationals, it spends millions of pounds a day on accommodating them in luxury, simply out of the goodness of its heart?

There's only one thing the UK government, or any government, has such a lavish and seemingly unlimited budget for, and that's war.

In my own town, Huddersfield, local residents and councillors alike were stunned when, last August, just days before they were set to move in, students due to arrive at a large, luxury development on Chapel Hill were told they could not move in after all, as the Home Office had requisitioned this accommodation for "asylum seekers".

Please note that these are no ordinary, no-frills student halls. This is brand new, top-tier opulent living, with the complex including its own gym and cinema, and being able to house a staggering 670 people. As of next month, the local paper reports, it will be inhabited entirely by single male "asylum seekers".

Huddersfield is not a huge place - it's not even a city - and to put into context just how many of these men it will be accommodating, I have filmed the enormous monolith that they will be moving into, please see below:

In just a few weeks, this gargantuan structure will be full of single men of military age, many of them from Iran and countries that support Iran, just as the UK is on the precipice of going to war with Iran, and when its own military is exceptionally weak.

I mean, just imagine the idea, in 1939, of the UK government shipping in tens of thousands of fit young men from Germany, placing them in military bases and other facilities with the on-site resources to allow them to maintain fighting fitness (note that these men are routinely moved into residences that possess gyms) - and then telling the populace these are - not soldiers sent by Hitler to conquer the UK, but rather, poor, vulnerable "asylum seekers" and any objection to their presence is nothing but callous, prejudiced racism...

There is very little difference between that imagined scenario and what is actually happening now, except now, the social controllers and mainstream media are able to weaponise accusations of racism and xenophobia far more powerfully and successfully than they could have in 1939. Now, people up and down the country - self-styled "good people" - are far too terrified to point out the bleedin' obvious (that fighting-aged single males stationed in military bases on the precipice of a world war, are probably soldiers) lest they might get accused of isms and phobias.

So, they meekly go along with it instead, even staging ostentatious demonstrations to welcome these invaders to their communities. Imagine that happening in 1939. It wouldn't have, of course, so we're in a far weaker position and far more ripe for successful invasion now than we were then.

One may question why the UK government would be allowing and coordinating this, the extensive, expensive accommodation of all these Iranian fighting-age men, when ostensibly it is a foe of Iran, and that is because that - the idea of clearly defined "sides" in a global conflict - is all a performative facade: in reality, the concept of national sovereignty and countries being in control of their own destinies is a veneer. At the highest levels, countries are all controlled by the same people with the same allegiances and the same end goals. Those people have long since desired a third global conflict and the decimation of the West, and that is what they're now setting the stage for.

By "decimation", I don't necessary mean a huge civilian death toll - if, after all, they were planning to annihilate us all in war, why bother having spent such an enormous amount of money on vaccines to sterilise and depopulate?

The problem with conventional guns and bombs warfare as a depopulation tool is that it is too destructive to the infrastructure of countries, which the ruling classes then have to rebuild at huge expense, so for population control, biological warfare is by far their preferred method, whilst conventional war is more about invoking fear to coerce compliance to the new regime.

So I don't think we need to worry about being bombed to death any time soon, but we should pay attention to the ideological reasons for this conflict and what the social architects want to bring in next.

We have discussed at this site many times the inevitability of a pendulum shift to a more conservative regime, after decades of liberalism which has now gone much too far: drag Queen story time; children identifying as cats (and so on).

Well, the deeply religious and orthodox East has no truck with any of that, and we in the West are being primed by the increasing rise of conservative voices such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Jordan Peterson, et al, for the degeneracy of Western culture to take a dramatic (and inevitably violent) swing in the opposite direction.

There is a reason that The Handmaid's Tale has been such a high-profile talking point in recent years: it's because what is depicted in that show, the violent uprising of extremist conservative faction overthrowing the liberal, libertine West, is exactly what is intended to occur.

Not via a twisted version of Christianity, though, but via Islam.

As I have observed several times, it's not a coincidence that one of the most famous and influential men in the Western world, beloved of the youth and especially teenage boys, is a fundamentalist Muslim.

Andrew Tate famously "reverted" to Islam, and not the moderate, Westernised form we might recognise, but all out extremism, where he has not only declared that "ISIS are the real Muslims", but he also possesses what he describes as a "harem of females" who have produced "at least ten" children for him (indeed, in a particularly exercised recent rant, he declared the white race would go extinct because "all you white boys lost control of you’re (sic) women and now they won’t accept multiple wives anymore... 30 children minimum").

Tate is always professing, to his huge audience of millions, the benefits of Islam and his own extremist interpretation of it, so were there to be a cultural clash where Islamic Iran and its allies triumph over the West, Tate would inevitably frame this as a good thing, bringing to the degenerate and decaying UK some proper values and a moral compass etc. Many of his legions of disciples would believe him, as clearly, given the popularity of his brand, many already do.

The prospect of such a revolution in the UK might sound outlandish and impossible, but many citizens of Iran itself thought that too, as recently as the 1970s, when an extremist religious revolution took place, plunging the formerly fairly liberal and progressive country into a state of sinister oppression in which it remains today.

Women in Iran, for instance, whom in the 1970s could freely work and study and dress as they pleased, since the revolution, live in a Handmaid's Tale-style dystopia, where they are not only forced to veil, but are made to travel at the back of the bus, can only travel abroad with their husband's permission, and are prohibited from a whole host of everyday activities including attending sports matches, singing and dancing in public, and even riding bicycles.

What's more, one of the first acts of the revolution’s leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, when he took power in 1979, was to reverse women’s rights in marriage, child custody and divorce. This included lowering the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 9, and girls this young can still be married in Iran today.

So, anyone tempted to celebrate Iran's attacks on Israel and declare they "stand with Iran" as this conflict inevitably escalates, may want to rethink that endorsement...

It is of note to also consider that part of Iran's revolution involved overthrowing the monarchy, and as we have explored here before, it would appear our own monarchy is on the brink of being dismantled.

Could a hostile invasion backed by Iran, Russia, and China (all countries that have disposed of their own monarchies) be the decisive blow that finishes off our monarchy for good?

Revolutionary forces with "one world government" ideals have always opposed monarchies for the simple reason that monarchies are an obvious obstacle to all-powerful global government goals, so they're definitely for the chopping block, and another worldwide obstacle the overlords are diligently working on getting rid of, is religion.

"But wait a minute," you may reasonably object. "Didn't you just suggest we were going to have an Islamic revolution and be plunged into arch religiosity?"

Yes, but I believe this is only meant as a strategic, and relatively short-lived, 'stepping-stone' stage.

The ruling classes want to get rid of religions - because like monarchies, they are an obstacle to all-powerful governments - and social engineers been quite successful with dramatically undermining and neutralising Christianity, especially in Western countries, with the UK officially no longer a Christian country.

They have so far not had the same success, however, with Islam. So how could they achieve this? How about by forcing people into an ultra-extremist interpretation of the religion, just like the Republic of Gilead did with Christianity in The Handmaid's Tale, so they inevitably rebel against it, and clamour for a secular authority to take over?

We know the ultimate goal for the "one world" dystopia is no countries, no possessions, and no religions (see John Lennon's 'Imagine' blueprint), but at the moment, Islam is too strong a global force, so a mammoth worldwide operation will need to be undertaken to definitively undermine it and turn people against it for good.

That is already happening in Iran, where the "overwhelming majority" of the populace reject the harsh theocracy of the republic and want a secular government.

That's what I believe was always the endgame of the 1979 revolution: it's classic problem-reaction-solution to get the public clamouring for what the ruling classes ultimately want - and I believe said ruling classes are very likely intending to use the same strategies on the West.

The reason that the poster boy in the West for extremist Islamism, Andrew Tate, is so ridiculous and over-the-top in his proselytising is to give people a ludicrously exaggerated caricature to ultimately push back against. Just as in The Handmaid's Tale, the "Christians" practice an absurdly distorted and extremist interpretation of the religion driving people to reject Christianity in its entirety and to demand secularism, Andrew Tate and other "Islamic extremists" are all designed to do the same thing.

Islamic extremist factions like Hamas and ISIS all inevitably have their roots in Western intelligence agencies, primarily Mossad, MI6, and the CIA, as they are simply ruling class proxies there to manipulate certain reactions in people, e.g., Hamas were used to gain public support for an Israeli attack on Palestine, ISIS are used to justify further military aggression elsewhere, and the overarching effect all these "Islamic terror" groups have is to turn more and more people against Islam, which is the ultimate ruling class goal - as it is to turn them against all religions.

But to get to that stage, I believe we will have to go through something more immersive and dramatic than a few isolated "terror attacks", and that is what it appears is up next.

Note that the fake pandemic has set the stage for this in many ways, by accustoming the UK population to such things as no pubs.

Alcohol is haram (forbidden) in Islam, and the UK's pub sector is collapsing as a direct (and predictable) consequence of the harsh measures deployed in "the pandemic". It's a controlled demolition, and it paves the way for the UK becoming a dry country, just as Islamic countries are.

Covid was also effective in conditioning many to accept extraordinarily draconian directives from the state about the minutiae of their lives, just as happens in austere theocracies like Iran. While it may sound like insane, ultra-authoritarian overreach for the government to tell women they can't ride bicycles, as the Iranian government does, bear in mind that our own government told us we couldn't have a coffee in the park with a friend, so there has already been a beta test to see if the UK populace would accept similar levels of tyranny and oppression to those imposed by ultra-religious regimes, and the answer, in general, appears to be "yes". Most people did go along with the Covid measures.

Equally, as outraged as many of the ostensibly liberal UK citizenry have claimed to be about women in Islamic countries being forced to cover their faces to leave the house, they were only too quick to comply when their own governments demanded the same of them.

So what I am proposing as a possible future scenario really isn't that far-fetched, implausible, or without historical precedent. Dramatic revolutions and regime changes, often involving war and religion, do happen, and all the hallmarks at the current time suggest we are on the precipice of one. I do not make these predictions to alarm anyone, but rather, to forewarn them, as to be forewarned is to be forearmed and to have a far better chance of successfully responding to challenging times.

That said, though, I don't think I'll be taking any more day trips in the near future, as I really can't imagine what I might come back to the next time...

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

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)