As regular readers know, my general opinion of 'newsworthy' world events is that they overwhelmingly aren't "real". That is to say, they don't happen naturally nor spontaneously nor (most of all) as is depicted in the newspapers, but rather, they are scrupulously scripted, diligently directed, and effectively acted, by theatrical professionals.

We're very familiar with the latter portion of that performative triad - the actors - because we see them on our screens all the time. Whether it's high-profile politicians and film stars, soap actors and royalty, or news media talking heads (both alternative and mainstream), we focus all our attention of the performers, because they are who we see.

Yet ultimately, when it comes to gaining a meaningful understanding of what's really going on in the world, we shouldn't be fixing our focus on the actors, the puppets, the empty-headed dummies - but rather, on the ventriloquists who operate and control them, and who, therefore, ultimately control the whole world stage show.

When I wrote my last article, 'Things can only get better?", discussing my theory that the Royal Family are soon to be dismantled, a few people asked, "but why would the Royals permit this? Why would they cooperate in their own destruction?", and I think the answer to this can be found in understanding that the Royals - like all instantly recognisable faces who predominate on the world stage - are just actors. They don't script their own destiny and they don't have any real power over what happens to them, no more than Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc got to choose whether their characters would have a fling in 'Friends' (apparently, the whole cast was against it, but were overridden by the scriptwriters).

I have noted before that it's not incidental that Prince Harry has married an actual, literal Hollywood actress - and I have predicted that she will prove instrumental in the "big storyline" that is clearly soon to be sprung on us about the Royals: because she's a more experienced and accomplished actor than the rest of them, so she’ll pull it off better.

Hence, the others are generally encouraged to just smile and wave, and issue statements through their publicists, rather than embarrass themselves by trying to speak. Remember that gaffe William made, when announcing George's birth, that "this is the first time we've really seen him", thereby appearing to tacitly confirm the swirling rumours that Kate didn't give birth to him - potentially because she has the same "anatomical issues" as Emmanuel Macron's "wife" (remember that historically on the stage, female characters were always played by men).

So why would the Royal Family be actors, controlled by a series of much more powerful hidden hands?

Well, think about it: if you were a supremely powerful, immensely wealthy, ruthlessly evil world stage player, would you allow yourself to become an international household name, a tabloid regular, a face instantly recognisable to every average Joe in the street?

It's much safer and wiser to be discreet, to stay in the shadows, and to employ actors to be the public face of your various schemes.

We all know the famous photograph of a Rothschild poking the then-Prince Charles in the chest, and that one image tells us everything we need to know about how power really works. As I like to say, if you know their name, they're in the game... but, I might now add, if you recognise their face, they're not that high-placed.

If they're easily recognisable to most people, then they are almost certainly an actor, reading from a script to push an agenda, and so in order to find the real power - the ventriloquist pulling the strings - you need to look deeper.

A perfect example of this, and something that merits much further exploration, exists in our own conspiratorial quarters, in the form of one Mr. Jeremy John Hosking.

Can any of us conjure up an instant mental image of this man in our minds?

Even I can't, and I've written about him on several occasions.

(Here he is.)

Yet if I asked you to pick Laurence Fox, or Andrew Bridgen, out of a crowd, you'd likely be able to instantly.

That's very strategic, smart manoeuvring on Hosking's part, because that means all scrutiny and subsequent criticism is aimed at these two stooges, whilst he - the real money and power behind what they're doing - slips by virtually unnoticed, enabling him to continue increasing his very significant influence and power without being held to account.

Jeremy Hosking has a long-standing history of trying to subvert and control politics - and therefore culture - by way of making huge donations to The Conservative Party and certain favoured causes, and now he has turned his attentions to the so-called alt-right and conspiracism.

Since 2020, Mr. Hosking has lavished enormous amounts of money on Laurence Fox, and his defunct fake political party, 'Reclaim', funding the party to the tune of around £5 million, including paying Fox an annual salary of £250,000. This is significantly more than any other politician in the country is paid, including the Prime Minister (not incidentally, it's the same amount Bill Roache earns for playing Ken Barlow in Coronation Street).

As well as this, Hosking has "loaned" Andrew Bridgen multiple millions, most of it supposedly for legal fees, even though Bridgen continues to tap up the public for these via his fundraiser on the dodgy-celebrity's-platform-of-choice, Democracy 3.0.

I've done a piece on Democracy 3.0 before, scrutinising their very questionable (and completely non-transparent) fundraising practices, as well as their ties to some very sinister operations, such as Jordan Peterson's ARC.

I also remarked upon the bizarrely incestuous relationship between Democracy 3.0, The Reclaim Party, and The Bad Law Project, all of whom seemed to incessantly Retweet each other, whilst ignoring every other (genuine) project and enterprise.

Well, that relationship has taken on an even more twisted shade of intimacy now, as Democracy 3.0 has just been bought by Reclaim The Media - the media operation fronted by Laurence Fox, but actually controlled by Jeremy Hosking.

Reclaim The Media's profile on Companies House shows us the operation has only two active directors, Hosking and an individual named Edward Pugh (someone else we've never heard of), and that Laurence Fox has never had a directorial role.

So, there we have it explicitly: Fox acts, Hosking directs.

What Hosking appears to be attempting to do is dominate the full spectrum of the conspiratorial wing - media, politics, and law - by setting up shopfront operations that appear to be distinct and separate entities, but are actually all tentacles of the same thing.

He's bought himself a politician (Bridgen), he's contracted an actor for various PR purposes (Fox), he's got a legal advisory site, The Bad Law Project (which, interestingly, is currently "set to private"), and it would seem he's funding it all via Democracy 3.0, which, frankly, looks like an elaborate form of money laundering.

If you look carefully, the large majority of fundraisers on the Democracy 3.0 platform - certainly all the most high-profile ones, and the ones that have raised the most cash - are all hot-button issues for the, shall we say, "conspirati" (that's us).

You've got the people's politician, Andrew Bridgen, suing the dastardly Matt Hancock!

You've got free speech heroes, battling the evil establishment!

And you've got a veritable plethora of trans-themed campaigns, fighting for women's rights and to protect kids.

These are going to push all the right buttons with the dissident alt-right, and as savvy a businessman as Hosking (current net worth: £375 million) knows it.

The problem most of us face with the aforementioned listed issues is, "yes, all this is terrible, but what can I actually do?"

And Handy Hosking is there with a solution - fund his shady, opaque, unaccountable campaigns, because then you feel like you've "done something to make a difference", whilst he can hoover up all your cash and thereby ensure you don't give it to legitimate causes who might actually do something that works.

The lack of transparency where it comes to Democracy 3.0's fundraisers - especially compared to other fundraising platforms - has already attracted the attention of investigative journalists, with the website Open Democracy reporting:

"Our investigation has also revealed that, unlike funding drives on other online platforms, several Democracy 3.0 campaigns do not specify precisely where and how donations will be used. Of the 23 campaigns hosted on the site since its inception, five do not name a recipient for the money...

The site’s policies also state: “Where monies have been raised to cover legal costs, in the event that those monies are unspent… Democracy 3.0 reserves the right to reallocate surplus net funds to other similar cases.”

How this ‘similarity’ is determined is not clear, and [the then-owner] has not responded to openDemocracy’s request for comment."

It is further noteworthy to consider that Andrew Bridgen's crowdfunder - the most successful campaign on the site to date - has raised over £113,000 to "sue Matt Hancock for defamation", yet - even though that trial is now underway - Bridgen has only withdrawn just over £4,000 of it for legal fees.

So, to sum, it very much appears that Jeremy Hosking has used his money and clout to buy up multiple people and platforms, in order to use them to his own advantage to control the narrative and suck up money - money which his platform's own policies make clear he is not obliged to use for the purposes it has been raised for.

It should be made absolutely explicit that The Reclaim Party, Reclaim The Media, The Bad Law Project, and Democracy 3.0 are all directly owned and operated by Jeremy Hosking, and that they are not separate and distinct entities that merely "support each other", which is the PR mirage we are supposed to invest in.

They're all just different arms of the same thing - there to cynically mislead and exploit the conspiracy class, to mollify us that "something's being done", so we don't get active and organise our own genuine grassroots projects, away from establishment multi-millionaires and their sinister agendas.

What's more, Laurence Fox and Andrew Bridgen are just front-of-house showmen for the real power players, performing to contract and reading from scripts. They're handsomely paid as well-known "faces" of the movement - just as prominent actors always are (it's not a coincidence that Coronation Street's Bill Roache and Laurence Fox are on the same wage) - but they have no more control over the storylines than any soap actor.

The useful thing about Democracy 3.0, however, is that it's now become a bit of a litmus test for controlled opposition. Anybody who chooses to use this platform - which, as I covered in my initial article, is not just deeply dodgy and lacking in transparency, but also ludicrously inept - over any of the other far more established and credible platforms, is either a) not very bright (so it's probably not a good idea to give them your money) or b) compromised and "in on it".

Note that celebrity multi-millionaire, Dan Wootton, used Democracy 3.0 to fundraise for his personal lawsuit (which he could easily have afforded himself)... and then his crowdfunder, and the more than £35,000 raised, abruptly disappeared. What happened to the fundraiser - and to the money - remains unknown.

This serves to illustrate why we must always do our due diligence (and why eternal vigilance really is the price of freedom) before investing in any project or person, merely because, superficially, they appear to be on our side - that they "tell us what we want to hear".

Laurence Fox and Andrew Bridgen might "say all the right things" - but that's because Jeremy Hosking has paid them to, so we must ask, who is Jeremy Hosking and what is his real agenda? Why is he using actors, smoke and mirrors, and subterfuge to conceal the extent of his influence?

Please note that this kind of approach to controlling culture is nothing new: on the contrary. It has always been the case that the ruling classes employ the power of illusion - of actors and performances - to deceive us, keeping our attention on the puppets and the show, whilst the real string-pullers, the ventriloquists, operate in the shadows.

It was noted in ancient text the I-Ching, some 3,000 years ago, that:

"At times, one has to deal with hidden evils: intangible influences that slink in dark corners and affect people by suggestion. One must trace these back to the most secret recesses in order to deal with them. The effort required is enormous, but worthwhile, for, only when such elusive influences are brought into the light of day and branded do they lose power over people."

And that's what it all comes down to: that we must stop giving our power away to these establishment ventriloquists and their stable of bad actors, and instead, once and for all, reclaim it fully for ourselves.

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)