"We have to deal with the anti-vax campaigns because they will cost lives, and if we have to pass emergency legislation to deal with them, I'd be quite prepared to work with the government on that, we could pass it in a couple of days in parliament. The sooner we do that, the better."

So said "Sir" Keir Starmer, intended to be the UK's next Prime Minister after the country goes to the polls on July 4th.

In case anyone was in any doubt - which I am absolutely sure no reader of this site is - having a Labour government fronted by Starmer is going to be utterly catastrophic for this country. Every sinister agenda the scheming overlords have been plotting behind the scenes since at least 1992 (which saw the official birth of Agenda 21) will be terrifyingly accelerated under Keir Starmer (or Keir Stalin, as I prefer to call him).

I am certainly no Tory, but a Conservative government has to present at least a veneer of being pro-individual rights and anti-nanny state - hence why the only "opposition" Starmer's Labour Party provided throughout the Covid episode was to relentlessly claim the Tory government had not been strict enough.

We should have been locked down for longer!

Dissenters should have been punished harder!

There should have been more masks, more tests, and of course, more vaccines.

That's what Starmer will bring in, with the (as Patrick Vallance described it in yesterday's press) "inevitable" next pandemic. Please note that the explicit political agenda of the ludicrously high-profile TV drama, 'Breathtaking' - written by hard-left activist, "Dr" Rachel Clarke - was to declare so many lives were lost in the pandemic - not because of Midazolam murders, death-trap ventilators, or killer vaccines - but because of Tory disinclination to be sufficiently draconian with implementing restrictions.

This was deftly timed propaganda, screened just a couple of months before a general election was announced, to spur people to vote for Labour who will handle the next ("inevitable") pandemic "properly" (read: tyrannically, despotically, oppressively etc - but "all for your safety", of course).

Other key agenda items, that could never be brought in under a Conservative government, such as UBI and assisted dying, will also be ushered in under Starmer, and - as has been widely predicted - he will very likely lead the country into war.

However, Starmer is not Prime Minister yet. The future is not preordained, and the overlords most certainly are not omnipotent. Therefore, the worst possible thing those of us who oppose the sinister agenda Starmer will be used to unleash can do is literally let him win.

The system wants Starmer to saunter into number 10 virtually unopposed. That is why it is orchestrating a blatant controlled demolition of the Conservative Party, who have not only been made to appear as inept as possible in recent years ('bumbling Boris' who doesn't even know how to brush his own hair, etc), but are now undertaking preposterous political stunts which have no other objective than to lose the Tories votes hand over fist, such as Rishi Sunak's announcement today that, if elected, he would force all 18-year-olds to do a year's national service.

Moreover, whilst Labour has just 13 MP candidates left to find before the election on July 4th, the Tories have a staggering 190. Why on earth would you, as the leader of a political party, call for an election so soon that you are blatantly not ready for, unless you are very obviously and openly trying to lose it?

Furthermore, we have literally only just had the local elections. Not even a month has gone by since the local council and Mayoral elections on May 2nd, in which many genuine grassroots and independent candidates made huge efforts to gain ground, and were in many cases successful: Labour lost control of my local council, as well as nearby Oldham council, with many independent candidates gaining seats, and if not seats, taking huge numbers of votes from the legacy parties.

The system does not like this, which I - as an "infiltrator" having stood in local elections four times - have written about at length.

So what does the system do to counter a rapidly growing, genuinely impactful independent resistance movement?

Calls a general election just weeks after a local election, a local election which has drained the resources - money, energy, time - of many independent and smaller party candidates.

Standing as a candidate, if you are actively campaigning (rather than just functioning as a 'paper candidate') takes enormous commitment, tenacity, and drive, and at least some money.

Having ploughed all of the above into the local elections, independent candidates - who are often "one-man bands" and who therefore lack the enormous resources of the legacy parties - have been exhausted, and have not been given the time they need to regroup, nor the notice they require to rebuild an optimal support base (including funding) for an election that is just a few weeks away.

This is all entirely intentional, of course. It's about using every tactical advantage the establishment has to neutralise the genuine anti-establishment opposition (that being grassroots independent candidates, and the smaller parties who get virtually no press attention - so not Reform / Reclaim).

So, this is how they "rig" it. Not by shredding votes. Not by adding them. But with stunts like this. The establishment is trying to ensure there are no viable alternatives to Starmer, by 1) making the Conservatives un-vote-able, and 2) by not giving the smaller parties and independents the time they need to be ready and resourced to contest another election so soon after the last one.

But hang on... Wouldn't trying to dissuade voters from voting for certain candidates, or trying to prevent certain candidates from standing altogether, suggest that voting does actually matter?

If it's "all rigged anyway" in the sense that many anti-establishment people believe - e.g., that the winner is already a foregone conclusion, which has nothing to do with the number of votes they receive, and therefore going to the polling booth is just meaningless theatre - then why go to all the expensive, time-consuming hassle of trying to sway voter behaviour, and stop people from voting for certain candidates? Why not just rig it at the end to ensure the desired result, regardless of who people have actually voted for?

Because that's not how it works. Your vote does matter, and that's why "they" try so hard to sway who you vote for, including and especially encouraging you not to vote at all, because this is the top way of ensuring their desired candidate (Starmer in this instance) walks in.

Directly rigging an election by removing or adding votes is highly illegal and therefore very risky. Convincing people not to vote, however, is neither illegal nor does it carry any risk.

So that's the "rigging" strategy they opt for - because convincing someone not to vote has the same effect as ensuring an additional vote for the lead candidate.

Let me explain how:

Imagine you're with a group of five friends and you want to have a meal together (you rarely meet up and so don't want to eat separately). But you can't agree on which theme of cuisine to go for, so you put it to the vote. Three friends vote for a burger bar; two for a curry house. You don't like burgers, but also don't believe in voting, so you stay quiet.

What food are you all therefore going to end up eating? Burgers, because you not voting functioned in exactly the same way as if you had cast an additional vote for burgers.

But imagine that instead of abstaining, you had platformed a third option, and what you actually wanted - Chinese - and in so doing, won over both curry voters and a burger voter: now you're not having burgers any more.

So, what made more of a positive difference in that scenario: abstaining, or participating?

Participating, because that - being active rather than passive - always makes more of a difference.

That's why such a monumental psy-op has been sewn in convincing you not to vote. It's because the group the establishment wants to neutralise the most, are the anti-establishment activists (the "anti-vaxxers", the "conspiracy theorists" etc) - so, the establishment has successfully prevented these groups from having any formal political influence by entirely excising them from the political process.

The establishment has always wanted to exclude such people from politics, and they used to do it by force - when only a tiny percent of the population was allowed to vote, essentially only wealthy establishment men - but they've since realised it's far more effective not to use explicit force, but rather, to get you to exclude yourself by making you believe that is the radical, subversive thing to do

Actually, you're just letting their chosen candidate walk in.

The phrase repeated ad nauseum in the conspiraverse is "if voting made a difference, they wouldn't let you do it", but the reality is the opposite: "if NOT voting made a difference, they wouldn't let you do it."

Read that again.

If not voting had the effect its advocates claim it has - undermining the system, delivering a seismic blow to the evil overlords, putting pressure on them to replace the current system with something better, etc - do you really think it would be so easy to do?

Not voting is literally the easiest thing in the world, which takes no energy, no effort, no time - nothing.

If not voting made any meaningful difference, it would not be so effortless and so easy.

The right thing to do is very seldom the easiest thing.

The right thing to do during 'Covid' was not take the vaccine: was it the easiest thing to do, or did you have to resist one of the most aggressive and totalitarian propaganda pushes ever unleashed?

The right thing to do was not wear a mask: was it the easiest thing to do, or did you have to continually battle against expectations and demands you wear one?

The mask, you will note, was at times "compulsory", because the overlords wanted you to wear one.

Why isn't voting compulsory?

Why have they actually made it harder for you to vote by introducing voter ID (which has had the absolutely predictable effect of diminishing an already low voter turnout yet further)?

Because they don't want you to vote.

They don't want you to, and that is why you must exercise some healthy scepticism about anyone high-profile loudly telling you not to.

This is where controlled opposition will really reveal themselves, by using their large platforms to neutralise the resistance by aggressively instructing you not to vote. Not just "don't vote for the uni-party" (Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Green), but:

*Don't vote for a genuine pro-freedom party like Heritage

*Don't vote for a real independent candidate, even if you know them personally

*Certainly don't stand as a candidate and vote for yourself

They are telling you to do NONE of these, not even to spoil your paper, and to instead remain completely inert and inactive, therefore - let's repeat it one more time - allowing Starmer to walk into number 10 unopposed.

The people pushing the "don't vote" psy-op will garner mass approval with ReTweetable soundbites like "voting just legitimises the system".

Well, I sincerely hope you haven't shared that pearl of wisdom on a social media platform owned by an elite oligarch, via your iPhone, that you pay for through your bank account?

Surely you wouldn't be such a ludicrous hypocrite?

We're in the system and we're not getting out of it (not unless we're prepared to sacrifice our bank accounts, tech devices, mortgages, cars, etc). Nobody telling you not to vote is an off-grid pioneer living in an electricity-free shack they built themselves, living off the land and making their clothes from the hides of wild boars.

They all live in houses full of mod-cons, go on the internet daily, use banks and shops and other public and state services, so they're entirely reliant on the system, just like everyone else - regardless of whether or not they vote (and if they have an actual, tangible plan to fully extricate themselves and the rest of us from this system, I'd sure like to hear it, but one hasn't been forthcoming as yet).

I don't think it should be compulsory to vote and people should certainly be free not to do it, as they are. So (unlike the "YOU MUST NOT VOTE" brigade), I'm not telling you what you must, or must not, do.

But as much as I believe in freedom of choice, I also believe in informed choice, so if you're not going to vote, understand what you're doing and the actual, real-world effect your choice will have.

As I explained earlier, to not vote has the same effect as voting for the leading candidate.

So, there is an argument to be made that non-voters will be just as complicit for Starmer's victory if he wins as those who directly voted for Labour.

You will not be able to immunise yourself from the effects of Starmer's tyranny by declaring "I didn't vote". You're not going to stop him from plunging the country into hard lockdown or dragging us into brutal war by simply stating that you declined to make your mark on the ballot. The jackboot will be just as firmly on your neck as everybody else's. So it's time to get active now, before that happens.

That fact is that you're in the system and can't fully opt out of it, unless you're prepared to sacrifice all the perks it offers and live as the boar-attired wilderness pioneer I previously described (and if you are, call me! Or rather, send your carrier pigeon). Therefore, what you choose to do come elections has an effect on that system, and the effect not voting has is as I have said.

Not voting most certainly does not have the effect of making the overlords think, "hm, the masses clearly don't like voting. Let's replace it with something better!".

If and when voter turnout becomes low enough (and remember, they have just implemented a further step, voter ID, to ensure it continues to decline), they will simply use this as an excuse to scrap democracy entirely and replace it with a more explicit form of tyranny, where there is no suggestion you have any choice (such regimes exist in many other parts of the world).

Here's the reality: if every "anti-vax", "conspiracy theorising" anti-establishment activist went out and voted on July 4th, Starmer wouldn't get in.

He's not popular. He doesn't have a mass mandate. The only reason he will get in is voter apathy, and the fact that on election day, vast swathes of people will sit at home doing nothing, therefore allowing him to get in by default.

If you don't want to see that happen, it's time to stop writing smug soundbites on social media which simply lead people to a disempowered dead end, and actually do something.

Get active in your local community and find out what political resistance there is. Is there already a candidate who shares your beliefs, who opposes the WEF agenda and is pro-freedom and anti-tyranny? There very well might be. Contact them and see how you can work together (these genuine grassroots candidates are always hugely under-resourced and so incredibly grateful for any support).

If there's genuinely no alternative where you live, why not offer an alternative yourself (or encourage a friend you trust to offer one)? It's relatively straightforward to stand as a candidate and offers you an incredible opportunity to platform pro-freedom beliefs, even if you don't win - the Royal Mail will deliver your campaigning leaflet free of charge to every house in the constituency for a start. Imagine what conversations could be started in your locality if every single household knew what the overlords have in mind for the next few years?

You can also set up stalls in town centres, disseminating leaflets and other information, talking to passers-by about their concerns, and further explaining to them why a Starmer win would be such a disaster. As well as raising awareness of key social and political issues, you also can and do take votes away from the "uni-party" this way.

In addition, such campaigning gets us out of our social media echo chambers and into the real world with real people - something which we know the overlords are desperate for us not to do (they want us all existing solely as avatars in the Metaverse, whilst "reality privilege" is available only to the moneyed elites).

There's so much we can do to actively oppose the agenda and if you still really believe "voting makes no difference, it's all rigged anyway", I have one word for you:

Brexit.

Everybody thought Remain would win. Everybody on our "conspiratorial" side was absolutely adamant it would be rigged for Remain so - even though some did vote anyway as a protest - nobody thought Brexit would be "allowed" to win.

And what happened?

I got the biggest shock of my life on the 24th June 2016, and it was the very first thing to begin to shake me out of my defeatist apathy that "voting doesn't make a difference, it's all rigged anyway".

They want you to believe that so you don't vote, and they get their desired outcome. It's as simple as that.

To repeat, the establishment needs Starmer in number 10 to accelerate the agenda at the ruthlessly rapid pace it desires. Therefore, the last thing the establishment wants is people getting active and taking votes away from Starmer, just as the last thing they wanted was people voting for Brexit - so they sewed the belief that "it’s all going to be rigged for Remain so there's no point you voting".

We, many of us, fell for that once: shame on them for fooling us. But if we fall for it again, when the stakes are so much higher, shame on us.

To find out more about how to get active in the run-up to the elections, and do everything we possibly can to Stop Starmer, please visit:

The Vote Freedom Project

The Democratic Network

The Heritage Party

Freedom Alliance

We really need to wisely implement the time we have left to make every reasonable attempt (and possibly some unreasonable ones) to oppose the agenda, throw spanners in the works, platform pro-freedom beliefs, and ultimately make every last effort to disrupt the hideously dystopian vision "they" have in mind for our future.

If we all pulled together, we could and would do it.

The establishment, and its many and various enablers, are desperate for you to believe otherwise.

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)

"We have to deal with the anti-vax campaigns because they will cost lives, and if we have to pass emergency legislation to deal with them, I'd be quite prepared to work with the government on that, we could pass it in a couple of days in parliament. The sooner we do that, the better."

So said "Sir" Keir Starmer, intended to be the UK's next Prime Minister after the country goes to the polls on July 4th.

In case anyone was in any doubt - which I am absolutely sure no reader of this site is - having a Labour government fronted by Starmer is going to be utterly catastrophic for this country. Every sinister agenda the scheming overlords have been plotting behind the scenes since at least 1992 (which saw the official birth of Agenda 21) will be terrifyingly accelerated under Keir Starmer (or Keir Stalin, as I prefer to call him).

I am certainly no Tory, but a Conservative government has to present at least a veneer of being pro-individual rights and anti-nanny state - hence why the only "opposition" Starmer's Labour Party provided throughout the Covid episode was to relentlessly claim the Tory government had not been strict enough.

We should have been locked down for longer!

Dissenters should have been punished harder!

There should have been more masks, more tests, and of course, more vaccines.

That's what Starmer will bring in, with the (as Patrick Vallance described it in yesterday's press) "inevitable" next pandemic. Please note that the explicit political agenda of the ludicrously high-profile TV drama, 'Breathtaking' - written by hard-left activist, "Dr" Rachel Clarke - was to declare so many lives were lost in the pandemic - not because of Midazolam murders, death-trap ventilators, or killer vaccines - but because of Tory disinclination to be sufficiently draconian with implementing restrictions.

This was deftly timed propaganda, screened just a couple of months before a general election was announced, to spur people to vote for Labour who will handle the next ("inevitable") pandemic "properly" (read: tyrannically, despotically, oppressively etc - but "all for your safety", of course).

Other key agenda items, that could never be brought in under a Conservative government, such as UBI and assisted dying, will also be ushered in under Starmer, and - as has been widely predicted - he will very likely lead the country into war.

However, Starmer is not Prime Minister yet. The future is not preordained, and the overlords most certainly are not omnipotent. Therefore, the worst possible thing those of us who oppose the sinister agenda Starmer will be used to unleash can do is literally let him win.

The system wants Starmer to saunter into number 10 virtually unopposed. That is why it is orchestrating a blatant controlled demolition of the Conservative Party, who have not only been made to appear as inept as possible in recent years ('bumbling Boris' who doesn't even know how to brush his own hair, etc), but are now undertaking preposterous political stunts which have no other objective than to lose the Tories votes hand over fist, such as Rishi Sunak's announcement today that, if elected, he would force all 18-year-olds to do a year's national service.

Moreover, whilst Labour has just 13 MP candidates left to find before the election on July 4th, the Tories have a staggering 190. Why on earth would you, as the leader of a political party, call for an election so soon that you are blatantly not ready for, unless you are very obviously and openly trying to lose it?

Furthermore, we have literally only just had the local elections. Not even a month has gone by since the local council and Mayoral elections on May 2nd, in which many genuine grassroots and independent candidates made huge efforts to gain ground, and were in many cases successful: Labour lost control of my local council, as well as nearby Oldham council, with many independent candidates gaining seats, and if not seats, taking huge numbers of votes from the legacy parties.

The system does not like this, which I - as an "infiltrator" having stood in local elections four times - have written about at length.

So what does the system do to counter a rapidly growing, genuinely impactful independent resistance movement?

Calls a general election just weeks after a local election, a local election which has drained the resources - money, energy, time - of many independent and smaller party candidates.

Standing as a candidate, if you are actively campaigning (rather than just functioning as a 'paper candidate') takes enormous commitment, tenacity, and drive, and at least some money.

Having ploughed all of the above into the local elections, independent candidates - who are often "one-man bands" and who therefore lack the enormous resources of the legacy parties - have been exhausted, and have not been given the time they need to regroup, nor the notice they require to rebuild an optimal support base (including funding) for an election that is just a few weeks away.

This is all entirely intentional, of course. It's about using every tactical advantage the establishment has to neutralise the genuine anti-establishment opposition (that being grassroots independent candidates, and the smaller parties who get virtually no press attention - so not Reform / Reclaim).

So, this is how they "rig" it. Not by shredding votes. Not by adding them. But with stunts like this. The establishment is trying to ensure there are no viable alternatives to Starmer, by 1) making the Conservatives un-vote-able, and 2) by not giving the smaller parties and independents the time they need to be ready and resourced to contest another election so soon after the last one.

But hang on... Wouldn't trying to dissuade voters from voting for certain candidates, or trying to prevent certain candidates from standing altogether, suggest that voting does actually matter?

If it's "all rigged anyway" in the sense that many anti-establishment people believe - e.g., that the winner is already a foregone conclusion, which has nothing to do with the number of votes they receive, and therefore going to the polling booth is just meaningless theatre - then why go to all the expensive, time-consuming hassle of trying to sway voter behaviour, and stop people voting from for certain candidates? Why not just rig it at the end to ensure the desired result, regardless of who people have actually voted for?

Because that's not how it works. Your vote does matter, and that's why "they" try so hard to sway who you vote for, including and especially encouraging you not to vote at all, because this is the top way of ensuring their desired candidate (Starmer in this instance) walks in.

Directly rigging an election by removing or adding votes is highly illegal and therefore very risky. Convincing people not to vote, however, is neither illegal nor does it carry any risk.

So that's the "rigging" strategy they opt for - because convincing someone not to vote has the same effect as ensuring an additional vote for the lead candidate.

Let me explain how:

Imagine you're with a group of five friends and you want to have a meal together (you rarely meet up and so don't want to eat separately). But you can't agree on which theme of cuisine to go for, so you put it to the vote. Three friends vote for a burger bar; two for a curry house. You don't like burgers, but also don't believe in voting, so you stay quiet.

What food are you all therefore going to end up eating? Burgers, because you not voting functioned in exactly the same way as if you had cast an additional vote for burgers.

But imagine that instead of abstaining, you had platformed a third option, and what you actually wanted - Chinese - and in so doing, won over both curry voters and a burger voter: now you're not having burgers any more.

So, what made more of a positive difference in that scenario: abstaining, or participating?

Participating, because that - being active rather than passive - always makes more of a difference.

That's why such a monumental psy-op has been sewn in convincing you not to vote. It's because the group the establishment wants to neutralise the most, are the anti-establishment activists (the "anti-vaxxers", the "conspiracy theorists" etc) - so, the establishment has successfully prevented these groups from having any formal political influence by entirely excising them from the political process.

The establishment has always wanted to exclude such people from politics, and they used to do it by force - when only a tiny percent of the population was allowed to vote, essentially only wealthy establishment men - but they've since realised it's far more effective not to use explicit force, but rather, to get you to exclude yourself by making you believe that is the radical, subversive thing to do

Actually, you're just letting their chosen candidate walk in.

The phrase repeated ad nauseum in the conspiraverse is "if voting made a difference, they wouldn't let you do it", but the reality is the opposite: "if NOT voting made a difference, they wouldn't let you do it."

Read that again.

If not voting had the effect its advocates claim it has - undermining the system, delivering a seismic blow to the evil overlords, putting pressure on them to replace the current system with something better, etc - do you really think it would be so easy to do?

Not voting is literally the easiest thing in the world, which takes no energy, no effort, no time - nothing.

If not voting made any meaningful difference, it would not be so effortless and so easy.

The right thing to do is very seldom the easiest thing.

The right thing to do during 'Covid' was not take the vaccine: was it the easiest thing to do, or did you have to resist one of the most aggressive and totalitarian propaganda pushes ever unleashed?

The right thing to do was not wear a mask: was it the easiest thing to do, or did you have to continually battle against expectations and demands you wear one?

The mask, you will note, was at times "compulsory", because the overlords wanted you to wear one.

Why isn't voting compulsory?

Why have they actually made it harder for you to vote by introducing voter ID (which has had the absolutely predictable effect of diminishing an already low voter turnout yet further)?

Because they don't want you to vote.

They don't want you to, and that is why you must exercise some healthy scepticism about anyone high-profile loudly telling you not to.

This is where controlled opposition will really reveal themselves, by using their large platforms to neutralise the resistance by aggressively instructing you not to vote. Not just "don't vote for the uni-party" (Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Green), but:

*Don't vote for a genuine pro-freedom party like Heritage

*Don't vote for a real independent candidate, even if you know them personally

*Certainly don't stand as a candidate and vote for yourself

They are telling you to do NONE of these, not even to spoil your paper, and to instead remain completely inert and inactive, therefore - let's repeat it one more time - allowing Starmer to walk into number 10 unopposed.

The people pushing the "don't vote" psy-op will garner mass approvable with ReTweetable soundbites like "voting just legitimises the system".

Well, I sincerely hope you haven't shared that pearl of wisdom on a social media platform owned by an elite oligarch, on your iPhone, that you pay for via your bank account?

Surely you wouldn't be such a ludicrous hypocrite?

We're in the system and we're not getting out of it (not unless we're prepared to sacrifice our bank accounts, tech devices, mortgages, cars, etc). Nobody telling you not to vote is an off-grid pioneer living in an electricity-free shack they built themselves, living off the land and making their clothes from the hides of wild boars.

They all live in houses full of mod cons, go on the internet daily, use banks and shops and other public and state services, so they're entirely reliant on the system, just like everyone else - regardless of whether or not they vote (and if they have an actual, tangible plan to fully extricate themselves and the rest of us from this system, I'd sure like to hear it, but one hasn't been forthcoming as yet).

I don't think it should be compulsory to vote and people should certainly be free not to do it, as they are. So (unlike the "YOU MUST NOT VOTE" brigade), I'm not telling you what you must, or must not, do.

But as much as I believe in freedom of choice, I also believe in informed choice, so if you're not going to vote, understand what you're doing and the actual, real-world effect your choice will have.

As I explained earlier, to not vote has the same effect as voting for the leading candidate.

So, there is an argument to be made that non-voters will be just as complicit for Starmer's victory if he wins as those who directly voted for Labour.

You will not be able to immunise yourself from the effects of Starmer's tyranny by declaring "I didn't vote". You're not going to stop him from plunging the country into hard lockdown or dragging us into brutal war by simply stating that you declined to make your mark on the ballot. The jackboot will be just as firmly on your neck as everybody else's. So it's time to get active now, before that happens.

That fact is that you're in the system and can't fully opt out of it, unless you're prepared to sacrifice all the perks it offers and live as the boar-attired wilderness pioneer I previously described (and if you are, call me! Or rather, send your carrier pigeon). Therefore, what you choose to do come elections has an effect on that system, and the effect not voting has is as I have said.

Not voting most certainly does not have the effect of making the overlords think, "hm, the masses clearly don't like voting. Let's replace it with something better!".

If and when voter turnout becomes low enough (and remember, they have just implemented a further step, voter ID, to ensure it continues to decline), they will simply use this as an excuse to scrap democracy entirely and replace it with a more explicit form of tyranny, where there is no suggestion you have any choice (such regimes exist in many other parts of the world).

Here's the reality: if every "anti-vax", "conspiracy theorising" anti-establishment activist went out and voted on July 4th, Starmer wouldn't get in.

He's not popular. He doesn't have a mass mandate. The only reason he will get in is voter apathy, and the fact that on election day, vast swathes of people will sit at home doing nothing, therefore allowing him to get in by default.

If you don't want to see that happen, it's time to stop writing smug soundbites on social media which simply lead people to a disempowered dead end, and actually do something.

Get active in your local community and find out what political resistance there is. Is there already a candidate who shares your beliefs, who opposes the WEF agenda and is pro-freedom and anti-tyranny? There very well might be. Contact them and see how you can work together (these genuine grassroots candidates are always hugely under-resourced and so incredibly grateful for any support).

If there's genuinely no alternative where you live, why not offer an alternative yourself (or encourage a friend you trust to offer one)? It's relatively straightforward to stand as a candidate and offers you an incredible opportunity to platform pro-freedom beliefs, even if you don't win - the Royal Mail will deliver your campaigning leaflet free of charge to every house in the constituency for a start. Imagine what conversations could be started in your locality if every single household knew what the overlords have in mind for the next few years?

You can also set up stalls in town centres, disseminating leaflets and other information, talking to passers-by about their concerns, and further explaining to them why a Starmer win would be such a disaster. As well as raising awareness of key social and political issues, you also can and do take votes away from the "uni-party" this way.

In addition, such campaigning gets us out of our social media echo chambers and into the real world with real people - something which we know the overlords are desperate for us not to do (they want us all existing solely as avatars in the Metaverse, whilst "reality privilege" is available only to the moneyed elites).

There's so much we can do to actively oppose the agenda and if you still really believe "voting makes no difference, it's all rigged anyway", I have one word for you:

Brexit.

Everybody thought Remain would win. Everybody on our "conspiratorial" side was absolutely adamant it would be rigged for Remain so - even though some did vote anyway as a protest - nobody thought Brexit would be "allowed" to win.

And what happened?

I got the biggest shock of my life on the 24th June 2016, and it was the very first thing to begin to shake me out of my defeatist apathy that "voting doesn't make a difference, it's all rigged anyway".

They want you to believe that so you don't vote, and they get their desired outcome. It's as simple as that.

To repeat, the establishment needs Starmer in number 10 to accelerate the agenda at the ruthlessly rapid pace it desires. Therefore, the last thing the establishment wants is people getting active and taking votes away from Starmer, just as the last thing they wanted was people voting for Brexit - so they sewed the belief that "it was all going to be rigged for Remain so there's no point you voting".

We, many of us, fell for that once: shame on them for fooling us. But if we fall for it again, when the stakes are so much higher, shame on us.

To find out more about how to get active in the run-up to the elections, and do everything we possibly can to Stop Starmer, please visit:

The Vote Freedom Project

The Democratic Network

The Heritage Party

Freedom Alliance

We really need to wisely implement the time we have left to make every reasonable attempt (and possibly some unreasonable ones) to oppose the agenda, throw spanners in the works, platform pro-freedom beliefs, and ultimately make every last effort to disrupt the hideously dystopian vision "they" have in mind for our future.

If we all pulled together, we could and would do it.

The establishment are desperate for you to believe otherwise, because they are terrified of the day you realise just how much power you really have - and use it.

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)