You know their name: but what's the game?

Written by: Miri
November 27, 2023
 | No Comments

You may recall, a few months ago, the papers were buzzing with the news that "Madeleine McCann had been found" (possibly), courtesy of a German girl named Julia Wendell, claiming to be her.

Julia's story was that she had been kidnapped as a young child, could not recall her earliest childhood, and had been a victim of sex trafficking. She did not believe the couple who had raised her were her true biological parents, and when she read about the Madeleine McCann case, concluded "it all fits" - that she was truly the daughter of Kate and Gerry McCann, swiped by a paedophile from their holiday home back in 2007. She even claimed to have the tell-tale eye defect that the newspapers put so much emphasis on at the time, as a surefire way to identify the missing little girl.

When this story broke, a lot of people alerted me to it, knowing that it has been my contention for some time that Madeleine is alive and well, living with a different family under a new name, and that "the parents killed her and covered it up" narrative is a red herring, intentionally planted by the establishment for reasons I will elaborate on shortly.

My immediate reaction to the Julia story, however, was "that's not her".

Why did I react this way?

Because, if it was, it could have been confirmed in a matter of hours with a simple DNA test. That's all that needed to happen, there was absolutely no need for the press to be preemptively alerted to the situation at all, let alone to turn this story into global headline news and its protagonist into an international celebrity, touring the world and appearing on talk shows, when a DNA test could have put the story to bed instantly.

The reason this didn't happen, and the reason the impostor Madeleine was given so many column inches and we were encouraged to hotly debate "is it her?", before it was finally revealed that it wasn't, was to prep us for her eventual "real" return: it was to sow the seeds that it is a realistic possibility she's still alive, when, for years, the dominant belief has been that she's "obviously" dead, and moreover, that she was killed by her affluent, well-connected parents who covered it up.

As I have been saying for some time, however, if this is what happened - if wealthy parents accidentally killed their child and used their high-ranking contacts to cover it up - then it would actually have been covered up, not made into international headline news immediately, and still be garnering plenty of press attention 15 years later.

The vast majority of missing child cases never make international headline news even once, never mind repeatedly over decades. Some "cover up" - Madeleine is as famous as a Hollywood celebrity!

If she'd been killed and the parents wanted it covered up, the press would never have been informed at all, or would have been slapped with a D-notice telling them not to report on it (as they were when then Prime Minister Tony Blair's teenage daughter, Kathryn, tried to kill herself).

The establishment deftly wove the narrative that it was being "covered up", to entice those of a conspiratorial disposition to blame the parents, parents who have intentionally been cast as deeply suspicious and unsympathetic characters.

The reason for this is that when Madeleine is found alive and well, the establishment has an excuse to further villainise "conspiracy theorists" and clamp down further on free speech - "you crazy cranks with your wild theories, victimising innocent, grieving parents, when she was alive all along!" - that will be the line.

So, the German girl was instructed to set the stage and prime the public for "real" Madeleine's eventual reappearance, by ensuring the debate has been successfully reframed. Before this Julia turned up, the overarching view on Madeleine McCann was, "she's dead and the parents did it, it's so obvious". Now, however, the conversation has shifted to "well, it is possible she's still alive, living under a new name...".

I bring this up now to illustrate how the legacy media operates, and how it uses planted theories and carefully scripted story arcs to manage perceptions and reframe expectations. They've kept Madeline in the headlines for all these years, whilst barely mentioning any other missing child, to keep building the tension and the speculation, so that when she is finally found, it represents a startling and dramatic crescendo that will reverberate all over the world. If she hadn't remained in the press all this time, if there hadn't been a "false flag" event introducing the possibility of her return, her reappearing wouldn't wield the same immense emotional power that it subsequently will.

Similarly, at the current time, the press is hard at work introducing and normalising the notion of a "pandemic that disproportionately affects children" an idea that was first introduced to the public consciousness by the then-PM, Boris Johnson, who warned us back in 2022 that the UK would only lock down again "if there was a new variant that affects children".

As soon as he said that, I thought, right, so there will be a "new variant that affects children" - they will engineer this situation, to give them an excuse to go through the whole 'pandemic" rigmarole all over again. They know people wouldn't play along again if it was merely another seasonal flu that mainly affected the elderly, it has to be something that packs more punch than that and that instils more fear - it has to affect children.

And it will have to be "real" this time, in terms of people having to actually see an active uptick in illness in children, not just normal colds and flus rebranded, as per "Covid".

So, I thought, how could they engineer what appears to be an epidemic of novel illness in children that doesn't much affect adults? It would have to be way of something that can create illness, and that children are routinely exposed to, but adults aren't.

And what do millions of children receive annually that no adults do?

The nasal flu spray (there is an adult flu vaccination, but it is an injection, not a spray).

When I heard back in July that the UK government had suddenly decided, for the first time ever, to extend this school nasal flu spray programme to include all three million of the nation's secondary school pupils (traditionally it has only been offered to those primary school aged), I thought, "right, that's it, that's how they're going to induce what appears to be an epidemic of illness that only affects children. They're going to spike the already dangerous spray and a lot of kids are going to get ill".

The UK flu spray programmed commenced in September, and is still ongoing (it officially concludes December 15th), and this concoction is also offered in other countries, including China.

And, lo and behold, in the past week we have started seeing the following headlines:

'Chinese hospitals 'overwhelmed with sick children after surge in respiratory illness' (The Independent)

'Chinese hospital overloaded as child respiratory illnesses surge' (The New York Times)

'China pneumonia: Hospitals packed with children, WHO asks for more data on illness' (NBC News)

In other words, the global legacy media is going lockstep on reporting exactly the same thing and fanning the flames of anxiety and concern - is this another pandemic? Will it come here? Should we be worried?

The media that intentionally created this panic, then attempts to pseudo-soothe, telling us "not to press the pandemic panic button".

Whereas, obviously, if they didn't want that panic button pressed, the entire global media wouldn't be breathlessly reporting on the China situation, sensationalising cases as much as possible, striking fear into the hearts of parents everywhere etc. The whole scenario would simply have been kept out of the papers entirely.

Yet it is there, just like the impostor "Madeleine returns" story, to introduce this situation as a plausible possibility - that it's possible for there to be a "new variant that affects children" (something that actually isn't possible, even if you believe in standard virology - children are constantly around adults, how could it be that "a virus" could affect them and not the rest of their families?).

But now it's out there, that this is a thing that can happen. So, even if this China story fizzles out, like the Madeleine one did once the German girl was revealed as an impostor, we've nevertheless been primed and programmed to accept the "new variant that affects children" narrative as real. So, when the 'real thing' happens, we're more receptive to it.

To reiterate, there is no "new variant that affects children", and there never will be. But there is a poison - the flu spray - that is only offered to children, and when you poison people, they tend to go on to exhibit symptoms of illness. Poisons can be slow acting, and it is well known that vaccine reactions don't always manifest immediately, so if a child develops an illness weeks or even months after flu vaccination, there's enough plausible deniability for the establishment to say these events are not connected - including and especially if the ill child didn't actually receive the flu spray.

This concoctions is known to 'shed' its toxic particles even to those who didn't directly receive it, but are in close contact with those who did - and of course, school children are in constant close contact with each other. So, this again provides perfect cover for the establishment - "well, it can't be the flu spray, as children who didn't receive it are ill too".

There are many reasons "they' want to stage another pandemic, and in particular one that affects children, and a number one agenda item is to terminate traditional education and move all curriculums online.

That is why, suddenly and out of nowhere, we were fed the "collapsing concrete" narrative back in September, alleging that multiple schools are now desperately dangerous and could fall in on their inhabitants' heads at any moment.

Consequently, we have a control group, of those children whose schools were deemed too dangerous to return to, learning at home online. The immunisation teams won't be visiting these homes, as they do the nation's schools, to dispense the flu spray, so most children learning at home online won't get it, nor will they be spending all day around others who have.

Therefore, we will have further 'proof' that schools are too dangerous for pupils to learn in and learning at home online is safe.

This has all been too conveniently set up for it all to be "just a coincidence". Why was the "collapsing concrete" narrative suddenly introduced, at exactly the same time the flu spray programme was extended to include three million extra children? Why have China's children suddenly developed an alarming new illness that isn't affecting adults (except, the press notes, teachers)?

As I say, this particular China story may fizzle out, or it may pick up pace, but in either case, it's set the stage. That's how the establishment moulds our minds and perennially manipulates us and our understanding and expectations of 'reality'.

A month ago, people would have dismissed the idea of a "new pandemic that affects children" as nonsense - paranoid conspiracy theory rubbish.

Now, however, they won't.

Just like they won't so readily dismiss the next "Madeleine McCann" who turns up, and who's proven to be the real thing (and then agitates ultra-emotionally on the world stage for "a better way of keeping children safe, something that means they can never be lost like I was, something like a chip to track them...").

This is how they play us. The rules of the game are devious and not obvious, but once you learn them, you can make sure you're always one move ahead.

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

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...

SubstackFacebookInstagramYouTube and Twitter (posting there as my other resource, Informed Consent Matters).

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:
[wpedon id=278]




[wpedon id=278]
©2024 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram