As regular readers are aware, I recently wrote an open letter to resident big hero daddy of the day, Andrew Bridgen, asking him if he - as a public servant elected and paid to address public concerns - would be so kind as to address a few concerns of mine - shared by many others - regarding his recent alleged "conversion" to all things conspiratorial.

He has not been so kind (despite acknowledging on video he has read the letter - see 1:11:00), although his own dear leader, Laurence Fox, has at least directly addressed the letter in a way, by dismissing my concerns as "soundbites from a puritanical right-wing wokie".

One key concern that both Bridgen and Fox were particularly enthusiastic to ignore, was the curious case of Bridgen's crowdfunder, alleging to be raising legal fees to "sue Matt Hancock for defamation".

Apart from the extraordinarily large sum being sought (a quarter of a million pounds), apart from the fact Bridgen has many fabulously wealthy donor friends who could easily foot the bill, oh, and apart from the fact that - as Abi Roberts said - "suing Matt Hancock for defamation is like pulling Ted Bundy over for speeding"... is the very strange website Bridgen chose to use as a fundraising platform.

There are legitimate and transparent platforms to fundraise for legal fees, where it's made explicit from the outset what the money's for and who the solicitors are, and where it's made very plain that the money generated really is to power a legal case, it's not to enrich the coffers of those commissioning or hosting the fundraiser (though obviously, all platforms will take a small percentage of funds to cover their own costs).

The most well-known and well-established of these platforms is CrowdJustice, which has been running for nine years, and has successfully assisted a wide range of people to fundraise for - and win - key court cases.

It immediately struck me as curious, therefore, that Andrew Bridgen would entrust his fundraiser - not to a credible, established, and highly visible platform, with a sturdy history of legal victories - but to the very new platform, "Democracy 3.0", which only launched in 2021, and which has only supported a very small smattering of campaigns - with very little evidence any of these campaigns have actually achieved anything (including their own targets).

Indeed, the platform's first-ever listed campaign, to help support the Democratic Network initiative, raised a total of just £70 - out of a whopping £50,000 goal - and seems to have lain dormant ever since.

Other campaigns are equally unprepossessing, with the 'Ditch Double Tax on Fuel" endeavour raising an almost unbelievably measly £10 (the goal was £30,000).

In fact, not one of the listed campaigns at Democracy 3.0 has met its fundraising goal, with the vast majority being a staggeringly long way off.

So what on earth would cause Andrew Bridgen to believe that this clearly inexperienced and inept new platform, had the resources he needed to succeed in such a bombastic, high-stakes campaign? Especially when it is made quite clear on the platform itself that Democracy 3.0 doesn't specialise in legal campaigns at all?

As I wrote in my letter to Bridgen:

"I am unclear on why you are using the "Democracy 3.0" platform to fundraise, rather than a recognised legal fees platform, like Crowdjustice. Crowdjustice explicitly names the solicitors behind every funding drive, and makes it very clear the money really is only for legal fees and going straight to a law firm - that the person or entity behind the fundraiser will not directly benefit themselves.

Yet, try as I might, I can find no information on who your solicitors are (they are not named in the fundraiser), nor any clear confirmation that the £250,000 is indeed solely and exclusively for legal fees. It does seem a very large amount to be seeking, given the average legal costs for a defamation case are between £2,000 and £20,000.

Indeed, from my understanding of the Democracy 3.0 platform, based on their own FAQs, the platform does not specialise in legal campaigns at all, but rather, in public relations (PR). To quote from the website:

"What is the money raised by campaigns spent on? Democracy 3.0’s mission is to democratise political influence by enabling grassroots campaigns with a good cause to be as well resourced as big corporate campaigns. We engage a network of public relations professionals, lobbyists, pollsters and marketers who work on behalf of our platform’s campaigns, helping them achieve their goals. Funds raised here pay for this expertise, transforming those campaigns into engines of real change rather than languishing on an online petition site gathering signatures."

There is no mention of paying lawyers or legal fees. It very much appears that Democracy 3.0 is not geared towards raising legal fees, but rather, to covering PR and marketing costs. Indeed, when he learned of your "defamation case", Matt Hancock dismissed it as having no credible legal basis and being a "publicity stunt", and I'm afraid the fact you are fundraising through what appears to be a PR platform, rather than a legal one, does lend credence to his remarks."

Of course, Bridgen hasn't addressed this as he hasn't addressed any of the other queries I put to him, but a new development has caused me to re-focus my curiosity on this issue particularly, given that none other than scandal-soaked GB News talking head Dan Wootton is now using the very same platform to fundraise to - so he alleges.- "stop the hard left cancelling him" (in reality, to stop the independent press reporting on his "allegedly" seedy and abusive past).

So immediately, I wonder all the same things about Wootton that I do about Bridgen:

*If he has a legitimate legal case, then why don't his very wealthy employers, funders, and backers pay his fees? Why is he tapping up the public?

*Why is he using the opaque, inept, and inexperienced Democracy 3.0 platform to fundraise, rather than a specialised and well-established legal fundraising platform with an easily verifiable history of successes?

Obviously, the fact that two fake establishment controlled opposition "heroes" are using the same very shady platform to fundraise for very dubious causes, makes one's proverbial spidey senses start to tingle, not least when you delve a bit deeper and notice what seems to be - frankly - a bit of an incestuous relationship between fake shopfront political party, Reclaim, fake shopfront legal platform, Bad Law Project, and then "alleged" legal fundraising platform, Democracy 3.0.

See here, way back in March 2022 - long before Andrew Bridgen "defected" and began his fundraiser - The Reclaim Party already expressing support for the Democracy 3.0 platform.

See here also, Reclaim sharing other Democracy 3.0 fundraising campaigns on their social media. Of course, there are many worthy fundraisers out there, but does Reclaim share any others... or only those hosted by the Democracy 3.0 platform?

On the subject of this platform, which claims professional-level expertise in PR, which obviously in the digital age includes social media, they have a grand total of... 441 followers on Twitter.

Your average school kid with an iPhone could get more Twitter followers than that in an afternoon, so it somehow doesn't quite ratify the claims of the Democracy 3.0 platform that they will "help you get the same lobbying power as those with major financial clout – multinational firms, global NGOs and wealthy individuals".

Democracy 3.0's visibility over other social media is equally unimpressive, with less than 200 followers on Facebook (for reference, even the unknown puritanical right-wing wokie over here - that's me! - has over 9,000), and a frankly pitiful 22 on Instagram.

Does this strike you, in any way, shape or form, as being the performance of a platform that is capable of facilitating "the same lobbying power as... multinational firms, global NGOs, and wealthy individuals"? For reference, multinational firms typically have hundreds of thousands or millions of social media followers (Bill Gates' Microsoft has 13.2 million Twitter followers; food giant Nestle has 286,600, and so on) - and legit legal fees funding platform, CrowdJustice, has over 11,000.

So, in contrast, if Democracy 3.0 can't even get as many social media followers as random unknown amateurs (and they cannot: Democracy 3.0 has 441 Twitter followers, whilst the average Twitter user has 707), to suggest they have the wherewithal to compete with big power players who shape national narratives, looks like a complete joke - and the absurdist comedy is further punctuated by the pitifully poor performance of their "campaigns" - which, to reiterate, have all failed to meet their targets, with some making less than 1% of the stated goal.

All this being the case, why are well-connected, well-off, big name "heroes" of the conspiracy community, using this platform?

What is actually going on here?

Well, it very much appears to this author that Democracy 3.0 is about as legitimate and serious a campaigning platform, as Reclaim is a political party and Bad Law Project is a legal resource (note Bad Law's own website disclaimer that, "Nothing that is on the website constitutes formal legal advice and should not be treated as such. No relationship between a legal practitioner and client is created through use of this website and users pursuing a cause of action should contact a registered legal services provider". And, try as I might, I can't find the name of a single barrister, solicitor, or legal professional associated with The Bad Law Project. The only name I can find is - wouldn't you just know it - the actor Laurence Fox).

Rather, all these things look more like shop fronts, hastily cobbled together websites meant to give the illusion of representing real initiatives, but actually, are not at all what they seem - and are all inextricably linked. Note that The Bad Law Project's Twitter feed seems to almost exclusively consist of Retweets of Democracy 3.0 campaigns (whilst not promoting any other fundraising platforms), Andrew Bridgen, and Laurence Fox.

Democracy 3.0 as an initiative seems to have no transparency at all regarding what the money being raised is really being used for. And given that, to date, not one of its campaigns has achieved its stated target, where is all the money that has been pulled in so far?

Is it just sitting in an escrow indefinitely (what's the point in that?)

Has it been refunded as the campaign failed to reach its goal (this should be declared if so)?

Or has it been used for something - and if so, what?

For instance, this campaign, regarding assisted dying and launched in 2021, raised £16,685 of its £25,000 goal.

So, two years later, what has happened to the £16k?

This campaign, set up in 2022, has raised nearly £20,000 of its £50,000 goal.

So where is the money now?

And while the beleaguered Mr. Bridgen is still a long way off his colossal £250,000 target, he has managed to generate almost half of it - £102.715 - so what is that money actually being used for?

There is no explanation, no paper trail, no meaningful updates - nothing. This is simply not how a fundraising platform operates if it wants to build trust, legitimacy, and credibility. So why is Democracy 3.0 operating this way?

Moving on from that (for now), if we really wanted to get conspiratorial (and why wouldn't we, after all), we could get into the very "interesting" links of Democracy 3.0's founder, Andrew Hawkins.

As well as running Democracy 3.0 (which is a trading name of 'Remake Nation Ltd'), Mr. Hawkins is also an active director of AD OMNIA RENOVANDA TRUST (which is described as a "charity equipping Christians for cultural renewal"). Also a director of this trust is member of the House of Lords, Baroness Philippa Stroud.

Baroness Stroud just so happens to also be the CEO and co-founder of ARC (the 'Alliance for Responsible Citizenship'), which has already been exposed by Amazing Polly as "Jordan Peterson's 'ARC' For Billionaires" - essentially, an alternative global control forum to the WEF which functions.. exactly like the WEF (as Polly says, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss").

Scrolling through ARC's advisory board, we see some very "interesting" names indeed...

There's Danny Kruger, who - what a coincidence! - has used the Democracy 3.0 platform to fundraise (for the 'assisted dying' campaign mentioned earlier, which did not meet its target but did raise over £16,000).

There's Louise Perry, alleged grassroots feminist campaigner, who I have been calling out for months as a prominent controlled opposition change agent.

And of course, there's Jordan Peterson.

We've all heard it and said it a million times but it deserves one big resonant repeat...

It's a big club and we're not in it.

"Anti-establishment heroes" like Laurence Fox, Andrew Bridgen, and Jordan Peterson are in exactly the same club as Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau et al. The only difference is, they're scripted in order to appeal to a different demographic - the "dissidents", us - but ultimately, are funnelling us all in exactly the same direction as Hancock and co are the normies.

That's why all these supposedly independent anti-establishment figures and platforms interlink, and why, ultimately, they all coalesce with the same establishment agenda (and its money), as is irrevocably clear by the names listed on ARC's Advisory Board. You've got "anti-establishment rebels" like Peterson and Perry, right there with as-establishment-as-it gets Tony Abbott (former PM of Australia), various members of the House of Lords and assorted other billionaires and big cheeses.

I will say it again: these people, all prominent people who get substantial mainstream press attention, are all in the same club working towards the same goal. They simply play different roles, wear different hats, that's all, in order to appeal to different sorts of people - but they are all, ultimately, trying to corral us in exactly the same direction.

Democracy 3.0 appears to be a shop front, just as Reclaim and Bad Law Project do, to manage and direct the "conspiratorial class" - to mollify them by making them feel like "something's being done" about the things that concern them (notice how nearly all the "campaigns" on Democracy 3.0 are triggers and buzzwords for so-called "right-wing conspiracy theorists"?).

The purpose of this is to direct dissident attention away from real grassroots initiatives - or from forming one themselves. The message is, "these big name heroes are finally speaking up and doing something! Yay! That means I don't have to."

Essentially, Democracy 3.0 appears to be an elaborate sham which, when you do a little digging, you find leads to the same names, projects, and fortunes as all the mainstream establishment initiatives do.

When understanding how this works (and how it has always worked), always remember the two key phrases which encapsulate how the establishment manages the dissident class:

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." (Vladimir Ilylch Lenin), and

"Whenever the people need a hero, we shall supply him." (Albert Pike, 33rd degree Mason)

So what the devil is the deal with Democracy 3.0? As always, the devil - too clever to ever make himself immediately apparent - is in the detail.

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)