So, I rubbed my crystal ball once more, gazed off into the swirling mists of time, and mystically predicted... the perfectly bleedin' obvious. That the "adopt a pet Ukrainian" scheme wasn't going to work.

The Guardian reports this week that: "Community leaders said such incidents were happening among typically well-meaning hosts who may have failed to anticipate the enormity of the commitment until refugees arrived in their homes, adding to the stress and trauma of the newcomers. Other factors cited include costs, personality and cultural clashes, hosts not setting house rules, misunderstandings and communication problems."

Miri AF reported two months ago that: "To live with a traumatised foreign stranger who can't speak English would require years of specialist training and multi-level support to have any hope of being functional (to say nothing of safe) as an arrangement. To dump such people with random, unskilled members of the public - members of the public who are themselves traumatised after two years of living under draconian coronavirus restrictions and all that these have entailed (including many premature "sudden deaths") - is abhorrent. A lunatic, dangerous aberration, that, frankly, can only be described as the Government taking the p*ss."

I detailed all the ways this wasn't going to work back in March, since this was a) obvious, and b) had already been described in characteristically brilliant and excoriating detail by the nation's novelist (he should "write for England", as was once accurately observed), Nick Hornby. As I said at the time:

"It seems that we have seamlessly made the transition from living in the middle of a plague movie, to inhabiting the narrative of a Nick Hornby novel. Housing total strangers to show how "good" you are is the literal plot of the 2001 Nick Hornby book, "How To Be Good".

In this book, the righteous virtue-signalling middle-classes (whom nobody depicts with more excruciating accuracy than Hornby) challenge each other to prove what morally upstanding beacons of superiority they are by letting complete strangers from troubled backgrounds come and live in their spare rooms.

Inevitably - and as would be obvious to anybody with the merest modicum, the slightest sliver, of common sense - this quickly spirals into disaster."

That the outcome of this ludicrous scheme was always so absurdly obvious AND that an actual book has been written about it - that anyone who participated in the scheme has almost certainly read (the types of people who would get involved with this being the types who would pretend to read obscure Eastern European literature about existentialism, but in reality read Nick Hornby - and that is not an affront to Hornby, nor indeed to existentialism) - just goes to show the extraordinary, awe-inspiring, and absolutely terrifying power of the mainstream media.

All that is behind my "mystical powers of prediction" is an ability to read the media, from the perspective that it is not there to report "the news" - to give informational coverage to events of local and national interest - but rather, is there to shape the national psyche and to control perception, emotions, and behaviour on a huge scale. It is very, very good at this.

The media often covers topics which have strong and emotional personal resonance with people, such as: domestic violence, cancer, abuse, war, infertility. Whenever the media gives significant coverage to these types of issues, it is always part of a larger narrative and to push an agenda - and to understand what it is doing and why, you must never allow your own personal experiences to cloud your judgment.

When I said the media was pushing a domestic violence narrative because it wanted to demonise men and turn the sexes against each other, I got many outraged rebuttals from people saying, "but domestic violence is real! I've been affected by it! Loads of people have!"

Yes, of course it is real and yes, of course many have been affected by it. The point is that when the mainstream media covers it - when the mainstream media covers ANYTHING - it is never benevolent, it is never impartial, it is never about philanthropically raising awareness of worthy causes - it is ALWAYS about pushing an agenda, it is ALWAYS about furthering the narrative, and so in order to insulate yourself entirely from what the media - as a military-grade psychological weapon - is trying to do to you, you must always and exclusively analyse it from a dispassionate wider perspective of, "what agenda are they trying to push now?". Do not let your personal feelings or experiences sway you into believing the media has become enlightened and now really cares about women's rights / refugees / chronic illness sufferers / whatever. The media simply uses things it knows will get a powerful emotional response from people in order to manipulate them. Take a look into the extremely powerful and wealthy interests who own all mainstream media vehicles and you will be left in no doubt that these people are not philanthropists.

The way the media got thousands of people to participate in one of the most reckless, dangerous, and downright stupid schemes in recent history - "adopt a pet Ukrainian" - was by expertly manipulating their emotions with carefully chosen language, heart-rending photography, and a sense of urgency (which is what scammers use to get you to agree before you have time to properly think). This is all tried and tested behavioural psychology, of which the media are past masters.

Many people say to me, "I don't read the papers. They're full of rubbish". I can understand that perspective, and they are full of rubbish if you are simply looking to them to keep you accurately informed on what is going on in the world. But if you read them at a different level - as extremely sophisticated psychological weaponry that form part of a powerful arsenal to shape collective consciousness (Hollywood, Netflix and other big TV/film producers being other key parts of the artillery) - then they become very interesting indeed.

Every morning whilst I am drinking my coffee (and yes, I know coffee is also a psy-op pushed by the media: even Mystic Miri is not immune to all of them), I scan The Daily Mail, The Guardian, my local newspaper, and the local paper where I used to live (and then I read some real news at the "conspiracy" sites). If there's a really "big story", I'll look at some other papers, too. And, in so doing, over time, you start to build up a very clear understanding of what the social architects are trying to construct - and (hence my "mysticism") what they have in store next.

Whenever the overlords want to push something new, or they want a dramatic "plot twist" in the narrative, they have to get the masses onside, as it's much easier to impose your will on a people when they think they're in favour if it, than when they're fighting against it. This concept is called the "manufacture of consent", a term which was first coined by Walter Lippman in his 1922 book 'Public Opinion'.

In this book, Lippman basically argues - in very nice and articulate language - that, as most people are far too stupid as to even begin to comprehend what is best for them, intellectually superior authorities should decide for them, but trick them into thinking they've made their own choices via media manipulation to manufacture their consent.

We saw extraordinary examples of just how successful this century of media mind control has been when healthy people started prancing around in face rags, avoiding all human contact, and refusing to sit on park benches. All these people believed they had made these choices thoughtfully, rationally, and out of their own free will. Same for those adopting hoards of Ukrainians.

So, now what we must focus on is, what is the media trying to do to us next? What agenda items is it pushing? How is it shaping the narrative?

I covered this in depth in a piece last year, and I see all the themes I identified then rapidly gathering pace.

A month or two ago, there was a major media furore over William "Lia" Thomas, an allegedly "transgender" athlete, who was competing against women. A very mediocre male swimmer, Thomas decided to identify as a woman and then instantly became an inter-state champion, easily beating all actual women he swam against.

This situation got major media coverage all over the world, and the interesting thing was how powerfully it united people. Those who had always opposed the trans trend were able to say, "see? This is what it leads to. Is this fair? Is this right?" - and all the "I'm not transphobic but..." crowd (including many who had previously uncritically supported trans issues), all responded with, "no. This is wrong".

After years of intensely divisive political confrontations over Covid, Brexit, and so on, finally an issue had arisen that people can agree on.

Well, why? The media is usually a fervent champion of stoking arguments and promoting the divide and conquer agenda, so why was this scenario - where people almost all agree - given such heavy coverage?

The reason is, as I detailed in my piece linked above, that we are meant to go to "peak liberalism" - where the liberal climate is pushed so far it becomes absurd beyond defence, to even its previous most staunch champions - so we all unite in pushing back against it, and then the pendulum swings dramatically back the other way. As I have advised before, please watch The Handmaid's Tale, because that is a piece of powerfully predictive programming (all big-budget, well-known productions are) showing us how the social engineers intend to completely flip the cultural switch.

You will notice, if you look, that the media is now laced with stories about serial infertility and late miscarriage. Global superstar Britney Spears allegedly "had a miscarriage" recently, and I would ask you to question if she was ever pregnant, or if this was staged to normalise the miscarriage agenda. You must ask these questions whenever a huge star participates in pushing an agenda, because the more coverage something gets and the more "big names" are involved, the more likely it is to be faked. The renowned journalist and author Naomi Wolf has stated, "We have entered an era in which it is not crazy to assess news events to see if they're real or not real… In fact, it's kind of crazy not to."

Infertility and miscarriage are being given blanket press coverage - not because the press cares about these issues - but because the jab has seen a huge increase in them, and so to obscure the jab link, they will be pushed in the media to manicure the public psyche to accept mass infertility as normal.

In The Handmaid's Tale, mass infertility suddenly strikes in just the same abrupt and "inexplicable" way. The social architects in The Handmaid's Tale blame this on God's wrath for all the wickedness and degeneracy of the West - especially abortion, which is immediately outlawed.

And what's going on in America right now? Roe vs. Wade is being overturned.

Equally, The Handmaid's Tale outlaws adultery, fornication (sex outside of marriage), and homosexuality - all of which are punishable by death. You can't have missed the news stories about the latest putative pandemic, "Monkeypox", which is said to be spread via sexual contact and particularly affects gay and bisexual men. (Needless to say, there is no "new plague" and this is just a smokescreen for vaccine injury.)

Obviously, we can see where this is going. Any kind of "liberal" attitude to sex will be portrayed as disease-ridden and dangerous, spreading the terrible Monkeypox plague, and so anything but the most orthodox and conservative attitudes to intimate relationships will be outlawed.

It's not a coincidence that a primary part of "plague 1" was forbidding people from leaving the house, forcing the covering of the face, and strictly prohibiting fraternising with anyone but household members - because this is exactly what the most oppressive and ultra-conservative regimes on Earth do. But the West has made it clear it intends to massively outstrip these regimes in terms of severity, as the Taliban and so on only impose these restrictions on women - the West will (and has) impose them on everyone. Just like The Handmaid's Tale does. Men who break the ultra-strict rules in 'Gilead' are dealt with just as severely and unforgivingly as women who do. In fact, it is very likely, based on current trends (demonising men as abusers and murderers, cf. Sarah Everard etc.) that men may fare worse in any new ultra-repressive regime.

The point here is to see how the establishment is manufacturing your consent for this next stage in the narrative. It has pushed "peak liberalism" - obviously male swimmers (William "Lia" Thomas is about 6'4" and very muscular) claiming to be women - to engender a pushback. It is currently foisting disgusting agendas on children in schools to anger people and induce revolt. A new "plague" spread by liberal Western attitudes to personal relationships is upon us.

People are disgusted and outraged, and that is the point. That's what the establishment wants. They want to manufacture a clamour for a brutal dismembering of the current order to bring in their "new" one. Their New World Order one.

Of course, many aspects of the current agenda ARE disgusting - what is being pushed on children in schools is reprehensible and - frankly - demonic, and those behind it should currently be in prison - but it is designed to be. The establishment is not pushing this expecting you to accept it. They're pushing it to get a pushback.

They pushed the Ukrainian scheme knowing exactly what would happen, knowing that it would immediately spell disaster and result in wrecked families, homelessness, trauma and worse, and, equally, they know exactly how people will react to what they are pushing now.

So please remember to never consult the mainstream media as a source of accurate information or advice, and always see it for what it is: an ultra-sophisticated, highly-advanced, and very, very dangerous military-grade weapon.

We are at war - and the greatest trick the enemy ever pulled was using the media to convince the public that they are on our side.