stock here: rarely do I see a series of truths on the Substacks. Seems like there is a lot of either controlled opposition, or “too radical”. I had AI Summarize this length article, and I think it did a good job, printed in my next article.
Home
Here is one for you:
During lockdown, when we all pledged to “learn a foreign language” but instead ended up binging Netflix box sets, I did actually manage to do both… I got really into the Hispanic ‘telenovela’, Jane The Virgin (I highly recommend it – it’s not only very funny, but, unlikely as it may seem, the title actually alludes to a deeply complex and poignant modern moral dilemma… but I guess “Jane the accidentally-impregnated by a drunk gynaecologist who confused her with an IVF patient” isn’t quite as catchy…).
As I got more into the show, I wanted to better understand the impassioned rants of Jane’s “abuela” (grandmother), which were always in Spanish, so I signed up to the ‘Duolingo’ language app to do their Spanish course and got passably good at it… but then ’Jane’ finished (I was devastada), along with the angry Mediterranean monologues, so I lost my motivation… Because, as much as I had enjoyed the challenge of trying to master a new language (and learning Spanish swear words), I thought, what really is the point in learning Spanish when I have no plans to visit Spain or Mexico or any other country where Spanish is widely spoken, nor do I expect hordes of Hispanics to invade and overthrow the UK any time soon…
Miri’s Massive Missives is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
So, more recently, I decided to start learning Russian instead.
I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention, due to the fact that literally everyone in the world is talking about it, that journalist Tucker Carlson has recently interviewed Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
This interview has been publicised by every prominent mainstream news vehicle in the world. The BBC. The New York Times. The Guardian. All of them. And not just a brief paragraph in the back pages, but reams and reams of detailed headline coverage.
For those temped to object, “but they’re not publicising it, they’re being mean \about it!” – please let us be very emphatically clear that ‘being nice’ about something is not the definition of ‘publicising’ it. The official dictionary definition of ‘publicity’ is: “notice or attention given to someone or something by the media.”
There is nothing in that definition requiring the notice or attention to be good, hence the well-worn phrase, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity“.
There really isn’t, and as such, if mainstream media journalists don’t want you to know about something (or someone), then they simply ignore it. They don’t write mean editorials about it, they don’t forensically analyse and attack it, they don’t accuse it of criminal activity…
They ignore it.
If, conversely, they draw attention to something (or someone) then – no matter how “mean” they purport to be – it’s because they want you to know about it.
And there are never (ever) any exceptions to this rule.
Hence, since the performative drama of his being “fired from Fox News“, Tucker Carlson’s career has gone from strength to strength, because the mainstream media continues to give him such extensive publicity, and, in so doing, has conspired to make his Putin interviews one of the most viewed videos of all time.
It’s the same phenomenon as the stratospheric rise of Russell Brand, whose “demonetising from YouTube” stunt has made him richer than ever, because the MSM obligingly told everyone that this had happened to him, and where they could alternatively financially support the poor multi-millionaire instead.
If we’re going to have any hope of immunising ourselves against the endless psy-ops and manipulations the mainstream relentlessly throws at us, we have to be ineffably clear on two incontrovertible facts, that underpin everything the establishment does when managing the masses:
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” and;
“When the people want a hero, we shall supply him.”
The establishment knows, of course, that there’s a dissident class that doesn’t unquestioningly swallow the mainstream narrative, and so, said establishment is not simply going to leave that rebellious faction to it, to organise and fight back with no obstacles or infiltration. Obviously, the moneyed monolith that constitutes our ruling class is going to target and infiltrate any group of people who oppose them, and make every attempt to lead, manage, and control this dissident class, by manufacturing fake opposition and making them highly visible (giving them a lot of publicity).
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in many corners of the “truth movement” regarding what controlled opposition actually is, and as I have heard so many times,
“Well, so-and-so can’t be controlled opposition, because they’re saying loads of stuff I agree with.”
Yes. Of course they are. They wouldn’t be credible “opposition” if they didn’t say things the opposition class agrees with. Pied Pipers don’t get any followers if they don’t play an appealing tune.
The point, when determining whether they’re genuine opposition or controlled, is: are they being suppressed or publicised by the establishment they claim to oppose?
Every genuine dissident is suppressed – never permitted to build very large social media followings (certainly never allowed to get into the millions, as the Brands, Tates, and Carlsons of the world do), and certainly never given any significant coverage in the mainstream establishment media.
Therefore, we can conclude: Tucker Carlson is classic controlled opposition (with the signature establishment, CIA background that so many of these guys seem to have), and that we were supposed to see his interview with Vladimir Putin. But not just see it: we were supposed to draw certain conclusions about it, as well.
We were supposed to determine that Putin is a much more admirable and trustworthy leader than any comparable figurehead in the West. We were supposed to feel anger and resentment towards our so-called “leaders” and their attempts to demonise Putin. We were certainly supposed to declare in outrage that Russia is not the enemy, and that we would never participate in fighting a war against them, were it to come to that.
Why?
Because the third (and final) world conflict is long-since planned and scripted, and the decadent, libertine West is intended to fall, whilst the ordered, conservative East rises.
That’s always been the plan, and the gradual unseaming of the West in the decades since World War II have all been building up to this.
The “liberal” social changes that began in the 1950s, and really accelerated in the 1960s, were a military-intelligence psy-op to ultimately destroy the West – a goal that two world wars had tried and failed to achieve. The social engineers behind these brutal conflicts realised, after World War II, that there is a form of warfare far more deadly and permanent than guns and bombs – and that’s psychological warfare.
When you target a populace with guns and bombs, you may kill a lot of people, but you don’t destroy the fundamental powerful cultural unity inherent to those people, and so, whatever people remain (because you can never kill everyone), will eventually rebuild their culture once the violence stops – and perhaps that culture will be stronger than ever before, once people have had to fight so hard to preserve it.
So in the long-term, in terms of permanently annihilating a people and their way of life, conventional warfare doesn’t work. That’s why the endless raining down of bombs on Islamic countries has not destroyed Islam: if anything, it’s a stronger global force than ever.
Yet if, rather than using physical weapons as an assault, you instead use psychological devices – television, state schooling, drugs, porn – you can annihilate a culture without firing a single shot, through destroying cultural identity and morale. Consequently, once this is done (and it doesn’t take long – experts in ideological subversion estimate about 15-20 years), then, should physical warfare ever break out, the people are already conquered as they won’t fight back – as people don’t fight back if they have nothing to fight for.
So we must ask: what do people in the West have to fight for?
I wrote the below in 2020, reflecting on the apathy and docility we could see in the majority of the populace where it came to fighting against the Covid tyranny:
“In April 1940, my paternal grandfather, a Polish military officer, was very nearly murdered at the Katyn massacre. His brother was. My grandfather escaped by burning his papers, before ending up in a Siberian prisoner of war camp. He was about 25 at the time.
Fast-forward to the present day, and his grandchildren’s generation meekly muzzle themselves up to go into shops in case they catch a cold, and allow officials to destroy their lives on the pretext of said cold, whilst calling everyone who objects Karens.
One reason we’re in the mess we’re in is the demoralisation of society. DeMORALisation. Look at the word. When you strip a society of a defining morality, you produce an apathetic and inert populace who won’t fight for anything – you produce, for want of a better term, sheep. Dumb, herdable animals who will do whatever you want so long as you keep them warm and well-fed.
What has struck me about these “sheep-like” individuals is how genuinely angry they get at other people having principles and standing up for them, and it’s because this is such a foreign language to them. They were never taught it (most of us weren’t, and had to learn). People get really angry, not typically that you might give them a virus, but that you’re breaking the rules and making a scene. “For f***’s sake, just let them take your temperature and download the app, it’s not going to kill you, can’t you just be normal for five minutes?”
These people won’t fight for anything, because they don’t believe in anything. They think life is about TV and home comforts. The office and the pub. Holidays. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the aforementioned (well, maybe the TV….), nothing wrong with life’s little luxuries and enjoying yourself, but it’s got to be founded on something, as otherwise, the instant there’s a threat to it, you will crumble immediately and lose it. My grandfather found himself facing imminent death at age 25 because he believed in something – his country, his culture, his religion, his family – and he fought for it, and would have died for it, as his brother did.
What do people care about today? What would they fight and die for? The answer is nothing, and if you won’t fight, then you’ve lost already, which is precisely what the overlords are counting on. They’ve farmed us to be this way, through their schools and televisions and dumbing-down poisons (IQ has dropped precipitously with every post-war generation, and the drop is so dramatic and so sudden, it cannot have any genetic explanation). It’s not a natural human condition, to be without a defining morality and without the burning desire to fight to defend it, so it took the overlords several decades to inflict it deeply enough on the populace, that they could produce a prodigious pantomime hoax like this, and the vast majority would meekly accept it – because they’ll accept anything to get back to the comfort and convenience they’ve become accustomed to.
Comfort and convenience, however, are death knells for the human spirit and thus, ultimately, for human civilisation and culture. For anything we recognise as human at all. A formidable human spirit is not, after all, forged in the furnace of comfort and indulgence. As they say, hard times produce strong men. Strong men produce good times. Good times produce weak men. Weak men produce hard times.
The architecture of the post-war climate, from the “swinging sixties” onwards, has been deftly designed to be founded on fun, self-indulgence, and hedonism – because decades of that produce a profoundly weak and discordant culture which is incredibly easy to overthrow.
If you want to win a war, it’s easy. Just make sure your enemy has nothing to fight for.”
And now, four years later, we apparently find ourselves on the brink of war with Russia, where we are being told, with sinister black comic effect (Boris Johnson’s Benny Hill impersonation was entirely intentional), that we are all going to be conscripted to “fight to defend our rights” against Russia.
Well, what rights?
The “right” for schools to transition our children into the other sex, and even into other species?
The “right” of hospitals and care homes to murder our elderly?
The “right” of the vulnerable to freeze and starve whilst illegal immigrants are put up in luxury at the tax payer’s expense?
Western countries have nothing in them worth fighting for, and the one remaining thing we did until recently have – the right to self-determination, free from enforced tyrannies from the state – was definitively decimated in the ‘Covid’ chapter. That episode proved that, any time it feels like it, the government can snatch the veneer of freedom away on the flimsiest of pretexts, and – so long as they throw a few appeasing baubles at the population (furlough, Netflix, Zoom) – it will largely be accepted.
The only justification we have ever heard from the despotic terrorists that constitute our governments to explain their endless warmongering is that “we have to fight other countries to defend our freedom”. Well, we don’t have freedom any more, so that’s it – nothing left to fight for, and that is by design.
Whatever conflict goes ahead – and I believe it will go ahead – with Russia, Russia and its orthodox Eastern cousins like China, are meant to win. That’s why the mass mind is being manicured, starting with the dissident class, to look up to Putin.
I’ve written before about the inevitability of a dramatic cultural pendulum swing, from the ultra-liberal insanity we are currently experiencing, to an exaggerated lurch back in he other direction, to extremist, ultra-repressive conservatism (think Iran after the revolution).
Like all social engineering, though, it won’t initially be presented to us like that. It will be attractively packaged as a return to something merely more sensible and moderate – hey, our socially sculpting puppets will earnestly plead, nobody wants to go back to the bad old days where minorities didn’t have any rights and people got executed for being gay, we’re just saying, let’s have some common decency and standards, and protection for the kids.
Which, if you look carefully, is exactly how The Republic of Gilead is ushered in in The Handmaid’s Tale, too. Whenever a televisual offering is as handsomely bankrolled and star-studded as that, you can be sure it’s a key item in agenda-pushing and predictive programming.
Pre-Gilead, women enjoy equal rights to men, and are lauded as some of the great leaders of the impending revolution, with Serena Joy touring colleges giving lecture tours and promoting her book.
Then, once she – as the acceptable, moderate face of the revolution – has made a social swing palatable enough to the masses, she is immediately relegated to domestic servitude and not only banned from writing books, but even from reading them (in Gilead, literate females are punished by the removal of a finger).
This is always how revolutions happen. Extremist forces use appealing moderate voices as the acceptable front of the movement, and then, once they are installed in power, their real agenda is made clear.
I’ve said for some time that these prominent “cool young conservative voices” such as Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, and of course Tucker Carlson, are not what they appear to be, and are simply softening the soil for something much darker.
The extraordinary international media publicity given to Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin solidifies this. The global machine is manufacturing your consent for the next stage of the global agenda, by manipulating you into sympathising with Putin and declaring your contempt for the West.
And hey, I get it. I share said contempt for the West, and, of course, much of what Putin says is very sensible and relatable. Ditto Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, et al.
But that’s the point. That’s the danger. We’re being baited into a trap, and bait isn’t effective if it isn’t appealing.
So that’s why I’m learning Russian… I think Russia is being prepped to play a far more significant role on the world stage than any of us can really imagine at this point, and so if we get to a Handmaid’s Tale-esque scenario where invading armed guards are patrolling the streets barking at us in a foreign dialect, it might be useful to be able to communicate with them…
(Also – owing to the Polish ancestry I alluded to earlier – people often observe that I look Russian, something I aid and abet by frequently wearing Russian hats, so I thought I might as well complete the cosplay and learn the language. Although I guess this won’t do much to dispel the occasional accusations I get of being a Russian agent…)
Seriously, though: I don’t think things will get quite into ‘Handmaid’ territory (although some aspects of “Covid” were pretty damn close), but I do think the West has reached the end of where it can go ideologically, and so a cultural collapse is inevitable – indeed, we are already in the midst of one. As has been observed many times, we can extrapolate from history that, when widespread transgenderism becomes accepted, a civilisation is in the final stages of irreversible collapse.
So, big changes are coming, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed, remembering to never take at face value anything that is coming out of the global media machine.
Russians themselves know this only too well, and there’s an old Russian joke relating to their formerly two biggest newspapers, ‘Pravda’ (“the truth”) and ‘Izvestia’ (“the news”) – “there’s no news in the truth, and no truth in the news“.