I thought I'd hit a high point of attracting celebrity accolades when the former 'Dragon', Rachel Elnaugh (of the now disbanded 'LOVE' party), made a video comparing me to a ranting Adolf Hitler... but I think Laurence 'Lozza' Fox may just have pipped her to the post of prima donna preposterousness, having described me, on a recent episode of the Delingpod, with the titular phrase...

Well, I say he described "me" - to be fair to Lozza, he didn't actually level this description at me directly, but rather, as "Mao H, or whatever she was" (see from 37 minutes in), as well as coming up with a variety of other creative alternatives to my oh-so complicated and impossible to accurately recall four-letter name...

I do acknowledge here that it might be possible that, fond as he is of threatening everyone with defamation lawsuits every time they call him a mean name, Lizzo (or whatever his name is) was simply cunningly trying to evade my crusading team of lawyers by not referencing me directly and instead conflating me with Chairman Mao (as it seems comparing critics to genocidal dictators is a tactic most beloved of the luvvie celebrity class, as I referenced at the start...) - but, more likely, I think, he is just a typical spoilt and petulant 'sleb who was attempting to invalidate me: to signify to me that I am so irrelevant, so worthless, so totally insignificant to the great Lozza Fox, that he can't even be bothered to remember my name.

(It's a very particular form of gaslighting to intentionally and repeatedly keep getting someone's name wrong, on a widely-viewed public broadcast no less, and can be a symptom of vindictive narcissism)

Well, Lozza: if I was that lowly and inconsequential, I can only assume you wouldn't have spent such a significant proportion of your chat with James talking about me. As one of your fellow thespie types, Oscar Wilde, once keenly observed: "there is only one thing worse in the world than being talked about, and that is not being talked about". (And yes, I am well aware that is probably the first and last time in history anyone will compare Laurence Fox to Oscar Wilde..)

So, Lozza, as you were so good as to focus so much of your time and attention on me, in the limited time you had with James, I thought it seemed only right and proper that I should return the favour and address the things you actually said... (At this point, I do encourage all readers who have not yet seen the full podcast to do so.)

As regular readers of this website are aware, I have written a number of pieces referencing Mr. Fox and his Reclaim political party, including this one, this one, and this open letter to Reclaim's first (and only) MP, Andrew Bridgen.

Eight weeks later, my letter to Mr. Bridgen remains unanswered (he's admitted on camera he's read it, but we'll get to that later), and not a single point I raised in that letter was addressed by Fox in his rant about me on Delingpole's show, either.

Rather, Fox chose to focus on a relatively minor point I observed in a separate piece, where I stated that you cannot join his Reclaim Party as a member, you can only subscribe to a mailing list.

After seething, moaning, and whinging about this observation at length, Fox then confirmed that, indeed, you cannot join his party as a member and can only subscribe to a mailing list.

He went on to claim that this is because the party doesn't have a bank account, and that I am a "bad journalist", because, if I did my research (instead of only talking in soundbites, which is what he says I do), I would know this...

Well, Laurence: if you were actually a serious political contender rather than a court jester actor posing as one, you would know this: you do not need a bank account to accept members as a political party. Freedom Alliance didn't have a bank account initially either, and received membership fees through PayPal instead. Not that you even need to charge members a fee, though - you could have accepted them at no cost. After all, Reclaim is hardly short of funds, with the £5 million+ from Hosking still just sitting there, since you refuse to use the cash for what it was stipulated to be for - to call by-elections for defecting MPs - and also have only stood three candidates since your formation in 2020: a tiny fraction of the number of candidates fielded in the same timeframe by other, legitimate pro-freedom small parties, organisations that did not have access to the lavish funding from generous establishment donors that Reclaim has.

But, as it happens, luvvie Lozza is a liar (a politician, telling fibs?! Never!!). Reclaim does actually have a bank account, in the shape of Reclaim The Media Ltd, a well-furnished and fully active bank account that could perfectly easily have been used as the bank account to collect membership fees for the Reclaim Party. Liar Lozza is forgetting that I am a founder member of the Freedom Alliance political party, so I know perfectly well that struggling to get a bank account in the name of the party does not - in any way, shape or form - prevent that party from accepting members.

To quote from my friend and colleague, and former Freedom Alliance leader, Jonathan Tilt:

"After founding [Freedom Alliance] in 2020 we tried extremely hard to secure a dedicated bank account. I think we made 14 separate applications. Eventually a helpful adviser at Danske Bank suggested I just forget it because “no one is going to offer a bank account to a new political party in the current environment”. Labour and Tory branches no problem but a new anti-statist party- forget it.

"At that point the party nearly folded because of this problem. All we had was a PayPal account. I offered the party use of a dormant limited company with its own bank account. I’d set this up several years previously when I was looking at splitting my acupuncture business in two. I never did that, and the bank account and company had never been used. I put in place a covenant from the company, Tilstand Limited to Freedom Alliance guaranteeing that all balances held in the bank account belonged to Freedom Alliance. The company was effectively just acting as a banking agent to the party and was not charging any fee for that service. The arrangements were approved at that point and on several subsequent occasions by the Executive Committee."

So, that the "we don't accept members because we don't have a bank account" shtick was the only point Fox chose to focus on - and lie about - whilst ignoring literally every other (much more serious and significant) point I've raised - whilst accusing me of being a 'puritanical right-wing wokie' (an interesting achievement, really, sort of like being a vegan carnivore or, indeed, an honest politician...), tells us much indeed about the furtive Mr. Fox.

I mean, the "right-wing" thing I get - obviously, in inverted clown world, everyone who didn't follow the guidance of a Conservative government to the letter during the last three years is a "right-wing extremist" - but puritanical? I really couldn't quite grasp what Fox was getting at there at all, until he declared, at the end of the pod, that he would be willing to engage in a blood-drinking ritual involving a goat and a virgin, and that those of us who balk at such things are "so puritanical".

Um, yeah....(As the epically patient and measured JD very diplomatically put it, "are you trying to make a point here that's falling a bit flat?")

Fox also declared that, in future, he would be willing to - shall we say - "become intimate" (I've puritanically paraphrased what he actually said) with the spectacularly sinister and clearly thoroughly evil media tycoon, Rupert Murdoch, if the price was right - and that, in addition, he thought James Delingpole should have both Julia Hartley-Brewer and Bill Gates on his show.

At this point, any rational person is thinking, "um, is this guy drunk or what?" - and for what it's worth, I think he was - but that there was something much deeper and darker at play, too.

I've written before about how there are different "levels" of controlled opposition, and not all who fall into that category have an open hotline to Jacob Rothschild from which they receive orders. I'd say that sort of thing only applies to the very upper echelons, the international household name types who wield huge significance and impact (e.g., Andrew Tate). The luxury goods department of controlled opps, if you will. But you've also got lower-level tiers, too, for the less glamorous operations - sort of like, the Woolworth's of world stage deception (with apologies to Woolworth's, which I used to love).

Lozza is more like that. He's being manipulated and having his strings pulled in ways he doesn't fully comprehend, having been selected for this role because he has the classic combination of being not very bright, egotistical, and deeply insecure. I'm not being gratuitously mean here by assessing him that way, I'm simply observing some fairly obvious facts about him - one of which was pointed out to him by James on the pod (the "not very bright" one).

That aforementioned combination of characteristics, not at all uncommon to celebrity actors (more common than not, in fact), does leave someone massively vulnerable to being used, exploited, and controlled, which is what it seems has happened with Fox. I think he is certainly aware he's being deceptive and dishonest, but only partially (he appears to believe some of his own lies and contradictions, as these types often do), and the full extent of what he's participating in, he doesn't really understand.

If he did, there is absolutely no way he would have gone on James Delingpole and behaved as he did. The way he came across was career-ruinously awful, and higher level controlled opposition would have given a much more adept performance.

Someone like Andrew Tate is smooth, rehearsed, and doesn't slip up, even when under pressure. Laurence Fox is none of these things - on the contrary, he's quite clearly a chaotic mess (he casually noted on Twitter the other day he'd been a massive coke head for a decade, and if that's the kind of thing he'll admit publicly...). A small amount of pressure - such as Delingpole put him under - and the acting falters and the mask slips.

What we witnessed with Fox's performance on the Delingpod was a reveal of his true snarling, unpleasant character, and the deep contempt he really holds us "civilians" in - an observation also made by the brilliant (and very funny) Alistair Williams, in his analysis of the Fox interview (relevant bit starts at 30 minutes).

As I said at the beginning of the piece, the reason Fox kept pretending not to know my name and intentionally getting it wrong was to give me the message of what a worthless nobody I am. Well, rest assured: Fox feels like that about all of us "nobodies", as does his pal Bridgen.

Andrew Bridgen participated in a group video call recently, with the group Doctors for Covid Ethics, who have since released the footage. At 1:11:00, Bridgen is asked by someone else on the call, whether he has read my open letter to him.

Bridgen responds that he has, but that it it is not worth his time responding to.

This letter has been shared thousands of times, perhaps even tens of thousands at this point, with many of his former supporters telling him they need the answers to the wholly legitimate and reasonable questions I have posed, before they can continue supporting him - and Bridgen, let us not forget, is an MP: a public servant, whose literal job it is to respond to public concerns.

Yet my letter is "not worth his time" dealing with, because (and this is the mask-slipping truth revealed by both him and Fox once the pressure was on) we are all snivelling little insignificant nobodies who are worth zero time, consideration, or acknowledgement - our only function is to look up to them in slavish devotion and praise them for what "heroes" they are.

Anything else - anything like engaging our own critical thinking faculties and asking for some transparency, accountability, and honest debate - and then the mask slips and the true dark triad sneering snake underneath is revealed.

Please remember that the High Court judge who Bridgen lied to under oath stated that Bridgen is not only "arrogant, aggressive and abusive", but that he is "so dishonest, nothing he says can be taken at face value". That's "dark triad" personified, and such characters proliferate on the world stage, in politics, and in the media, and are relentlessly used to target, lie to, and control us.

So I have written this article, not because I want to engage in tedious tit for tat with Mr Fox, but because this entire episode represents a very illuminating example of what these people really are.

I know we may agree with or support certain aspects of what Fox and Bridgen have said or done in the past (obviously: they would be useless assets if they didn't initially widely appeal), but some of the very best advice I have ever received is this:

When people show you who they really are, believe them.

Andrew Bridgen and Laurence Fox are not "on our side". If they were, they would answer my reasonable questions, rather than obfuscating, lying, gaslighting, and insulting. Indeed, Laurence Fox himself confirms this at 58 minutes, where he states that the only way to get to the truth is to ask questions of those you are suspicious about: if they refuse to answer, they have revealed themselves.

James D said towards the end of his pod that he was concerned some listeners might think he hadn't "grilled" Lozza enough: that he might have failed to ask him the tough questions, as they're mates and he might be seen to be letting Loz off the hook on that basis.

However, my analysis is - on the contrary: I think James did a stellar job. I know this wasn't quite his intention, as I know he is (or has been) fond of Fox - but that he put such a small amount of pressure on Fox, who nevertheless reacted in the spectacularly awful way he did, has actually been a far more decisive reveal than if Fox had been more aggressively "cross-examined" by someone who clearly didn't like him. Even legitimate people can fall apart and say the wrong thing if the pressure's really on in an antagonist way (lawyers rely on this fact, after all) - but if someone exposes themselves so thoroughly in a situation which is really quite relaxed and friendly, well...

I'll say it again: when people show you who they really are, believe them. This doesn't just apply to Fox and Bridgen, but to every "big name hero daddy" the establishment repeatedly and relentlessly sends to "save us". Remember, nobody legitimate ever gets colossal amounts of mainstream press attention. Do a Google news search on James Delingpole - virtually nothing on him for years, not since he stopped being a mainstream journalist.

That's because he's no longer part of the establishment, so the establishment won't promote him (and to repeat yet again: negative promotion is still promotion. There's no such thing as bad publicity, especially when you are trying to style yourself as "anti-establishment", because then bad publicity from the mainstream actually helps ratify your cause - "oh look how mean the mainstream are about me, that's because I'm soooo anti-establishment!").

Now you've seen how little attention the MSM pays to Delingpole, please conduct a similar news search on Fox, and then Bridgen.

The establishment gives these people so much coverage because it controls them, and it wants you to know about them. This is because their function is as "pressure release valves" to capture and funnel the anger of the dissident class into a dead end. It's always the same story and it always will be: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" and "whenever the people want a hero, we shall supply him". These are establishment weapons of political control and dissident management that are as old as time.

If you choose to ignore these plainly obvious facts regarding how the establishment works (and how it openly tells you it works), and just keep whining, "ooh, I'm sick of everyone being called controlled opposition, you're dividing the movement!!!" - you are a willing dupe, begging to be deceived and betrayed, and I'm running out of sympathy for you. While others may need to "wake up", you need to "grow up" and realise you've just switched your allegiance from "big daddy government" to "big daddy truth movement" - you still haven't learned genuine emotional maturity, self-reliance, or to think for yourself. You need to learn these things or the establishment will just keep you grinding in the same dead-end circles with every new glossy "hero" they supply you with. The point of this article is that the "heroes" are showing you something very important about their true nature now, so please pay attention.

Ultimately, I guess it's prudent to direct a heartfelt thank you to Laurence Fox at this point, for illustrating with such complete and irrefutable clarity what I have been trying to explain to people for so long: if you know their name (because the mainstream media has repeatedly printed it with great sensationalist fanfare throughout the headlines), they're in game.

You may consider this to be especially true when they pretend not to know yours..

With best regards from,

Mao, the puritanical right-wing wokie, otherwise known as "babe" (oh yes, he called me that too...).

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)