Miri AF's original account was banned in the fake plague for wrongthink, so now she Tweets from this account. https://xitter.cf/t.co/I8XpIUneeX

UK
Joined July 2022
The tiger attack is fake and everyone knows it, even the finger wagging “not everything’s a psyop you know!” crowd. But why has the fakery been made so obvious? Is that itself the purpose of the op? Link (audio included) 👇
43
52
4
180
11,482
All bankrolled by taxpayers who will be expected to subsidise the apprentices via employer subsidy and flat out pay those on "work placements" (i.e., working for free in supermarkets) by paying their benefits. But fudges the figures for a while & business gets cheap/free labour.
JUST IN: UK unveils plans for over 62,000 annual apprenticeships & work placements for young people amid the youth unemployment crisis.
4
1
11
466
Informed Consent Matters (Miri AF) retweeted
The Intelligence Curse is happening TLDR: When AIs make humans economically useless, governments and corporations have no incentive to invest in their people For centuries, normal people could withhold their labor to negotiate. That era is almost over. This breaks democracy - politicians won't need the support of the people - and leads to severe concentration of power
The first phases of pyramid replacement are happening at Anthropic
40
159
13
1,232
44,524
Informed Consent Matters (Miri AF) retweeted
the beginning of universal basic income
This is what I will be doing
98
235
32
2,720
186,521
Parents, don't raise your children to expect that they can apply for a job. It's over. Entrepreneurship or being a conditional basic income data serf. It's the 4th industrial revolution. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. No one is coming to save you.
Jack Weis has applied to more than 2,300 jobs since he graduated from Princeton in 2024 with his Ph.D. in chemical engineering. He still doesn’t have a job. on.wsj.com/4sfxSLc
8
12
197
6,005
Informed Consent Matters (Miri AF) retweeted
This ex-MSM “journalist” has been trying to discredit me for months based on my family members’ professional lives. I’ve invited her to put her accusations (whatever exactly they are, which is unclear) to them directly, rather than endless insinuations and smears. Will she?
Replying to @AislingOLoughl1
Hi Aisling, as you’re so obsessed with my dad, why don’t you address him directly? You seem to have a lot of questions about him and I can’t answer on his behalf. You can look him up right here on Twitter. Or shall I tag him?
7
6
42
2,435
Seems totally plausible 🙄
Mom who survived school shooting coaches son through Oregon attack: 'Please be as quiet as possible' trib.al/0dxoVCa
1
22
1,104
This ex-MSM “journalist” has been trying to discredit me for months based on my family members’ professional lives. I’ve invited her to put her accusations (whatever exactly they are, which is unclear) to them directly, rather than endless insinuations and smears. Will she?
Replying to @AislingOLoughl1
Hi Aisling, as you’re so obsessed with my dad, why don’t you address him directly? You seem to have a lot of questions about him and I can’t answer on his behalf. You can look him up right here on Twitter. Or shall I tag him?
7
6
42
2,435
Informed Consent Matters (Miri AF) retweeted
1
1
14
648
Imagine how this plays out for a country that reintroduces the death penalty. There's "video proof" of someone committing a horrific crime and no way to discern if it's AI. Cue mass framing of lots of inconvenient and dissident people.
JUST IN: OpenAI warns U.S. judiciary that there may be “no scientific way” to reliably detect AI-generated images & videos in the future.
10
17
1
55
1,575
Informed Consent Matters (Miri AF) retweeted
The tiger attack is fake and everyone knows it, even the finger wagging “not everything’s a psyop you know!” crowd. But why has the fakery been made so obvious? Is that itself the purpose of the op? Link (audio included) 👇
43
52
4
180
11,482
We saw exactly the same in the "Noah Woods" story.
Every time there's a hoax, staff want to see how they documented it
3
1
26
1,859
Replying to @MattersInformed
@MattersInformed wonder how much she got paid for this lil shill?? There are no kids but of course.....Lucy knows some inside info on the school! 🤦‍♀️🙄🙄
Lucy Connolly reveals parents at school of Prince Harry & Meghan Markle kids want them to P*** OFF #danwootton #outspoken #danwoottonoutspoken
1
2
5
573
This is how the ruling classes want everyone: isolated, atomised individuals with no familial safety net. This is the subject of my latest article, please see pinned post.
Being a single woman over 40 with no parental safety net means knowing that your emergency fund isn't just money in the bank. It's your security, your independence, and sometimes the only thing standing between you and a crisis. There's no one to call when the car breaks down, no parents to help when an unexpected bill arrives, and no guaranteed safety net if you lose your job or get sick. Every emergency is yours to handle. Every decision carries weight. And every dollar you save represents a little more peace of mind in a world where you know you have to be your own backup plan. People with family they can fall back on don't always understand the mental load of knowing that if everything falls apart, you're the one who has to put the pieces back together. It's exhausting having to be strong, responsible, and financially prepared for every possible worst-case scenario. So here's to the women building their own safety nets, saving what they can, figuring things out as they go, and quietly carrying responsibilities nobody else sees. Shoutout to every woman who has had to become her own safety net, her own rescue plan, and her own hero. You deserve more than just survival. You deserve to feel safe, too. ❤️
1
12
58
2,082
A lot of the classical advice on how to become a mature, responsible adult still holds true, and it remains the minimum standard toward which every young man and woman should strive. But in the world we live in today, that is no longer sufficient to ensure success in relationships or even in one's career. What is missing today, and what previous generations enjoyed, is a strong social network. We used to have extensive networks of family, friends, and community members who gave us a competitive advantage in finding good-paying jobs and meeting potential spouses. These networks provided opportunities that would otherwise have been difficult to access. They also offered a degree of social vetting. When someone introduced you to a potential employer or marriage partner, their reputation stood behind that introduction. Nowadays, when people help their friends and relatives, we call it nepotism and discourage it. But only when white people do it. When other groups practice the same thing, we excuse it as part of their culture. Without the natural networks that previous generations relied upon, we are going to have to begin organizing ourselves into tribes and communities again. I am not entirely certain what that will look like. For some, it will mean establishing fraternities and sororities, not in the university sense, but in the older tradition of mutual aid societies. I expect to see families forming extended tribes, communities taking matchmaking seriously again, and successful businessmen using the connections they have developed to help younger men find good jobs and establish themselves. We are going to have to start putting our own people first again. That means helping those closest to us, those who share our values and commitments, and those who stand beside us. Sometimes that means helping a young man find employment. Sometimes it means introducing him to a suitable woman. Sometimes it means helping a married couple overcome difficulties so that their family remains intact. Of course, lasting success in adult life requires maturity. But maturity alone has never been enough. We have always depended upon one another, and the idea that an individual should succeed entirely through his own efforts, without the support of family, friends, and community, ignores how successful societies have always functioned. We need to recognize what we have lost and begin rebuilding those bonds. And we need to stop treating loyalty to our friends, families, and communities as something shameful. Helping the people who have earned our trust is a fundamental obligation of friendship and kinship. It is also how strong communities preserve their advantages across generations. We have always needed each other. It is time we started acting like it again.
11
2
95
9,501
This is the subject of my recent article - see pinned post - and it's endemic. And planned.
EVERYBODY SAYS “IT TAKES A VILLAGE” UNTIL YOU BECOME A MOTHER AND YOU REALIZE YOU DON’T HAVE ONE. no grandparents picking up the kids. no aunties offering to babysit. no family showing up when you’re overwhelmed. no one calling you to say, “go rest, I’ve got the kids.” Just you, figuring it out every single day. Sick? you still have to parent. exhausted? you still have to parent. need a break? there’s nobody to call. & the hardest part?
1
5
28
2,161
How quickly things change. The "slippery slope" argument is always rubbished when critics make it regarding changes in reproduction and family formation, but it always shows itself to be absolutely true.
Replying to @pdoel @Katy_Faust
Fair point. But IVF was promised to be limited to husband’s sperm and wife’s egg and womb. It should be again. I asked Gemini, Did steptoe limit ivf to marriage louise brown? Yes, Dr. Patrick Steptoe and his research partner Robert Edwards did limit early IVF treatment strictly to married heterosexual couples. During the trials that led to the birth of Louise Brown in 1978, the pioneers implemented strict eligibility criteria to make the controversial procedure as socially and morally acceptable as possible. The Eligibility Criteria for Early IVF When Steptoe, Edwards, and Jean Purdy were developing IVF in the 1970s, they faced immense public, legal, and religious backlash. To protect their work and ensure public sympathy, they established rules for their volunteer patients: •Strict Requirement of Marriage: Treatment was only offered to stably married couples. Lesley and John Brown, Louise's parents, had been married and trying to conceive for nine years. •Use of the Couple's Own Gametes: The procedure exclusively used the husband's sperm and the wife's egg. Using third-party donors was publicly avoided at the time to prevent allegations of illegitimacy or adultery (though recent DNA evidence has raised historic questions about whether Steptoe secretly used alternative sperm donors in some clinic cases). •Specific Medical Medical Diagnosis: Patients had to have a clear physical cause of infertility that could not be treated otherwise—most commonly, completely blocked or removed fallopian tubes. [1, 2] •Why Was This Limit Imposed? The limit was a deliberate ethical and strategic choice. Because the concept of a "test-tube baby" was widely criticized as "playing God" or "science fiction," the scientists sought to present IVF strictly as a way to restore the traditional, nuclear family unit. Restricting the treatment to married couples using their own genetic material helped navigate the hostile regulatory landscape of the 1970s. Over the decades following Louise Brown's birth, these rigid criteria gradually dissolved globally, expanding IVF access to unmarried couples, single parents, and the LGBTQ+ community. If you are researching this for a project, I can help you find more information about the ethical debates of the 1970s or how IVF regulations changed after the birth of Louise Brown. What would you like to explore next?
17
1,396
Informed Consent Matters (Miri AF) retweeted
A single 56-year-old woman has become a first-time mother to a child to whom she is not biologically related, and who she may not live to see grow up. Such scenarios are becoming more commonplace. What do they tell us about the future of “family”? Link (audio included) 👇
6
13
1
46
2,479
Informed Consent Matters (Miri AF) retweeted
‘Not all people have children, but all people have families. Everyone is born a son or a daughter, a grandchild, likely a niece or nephew, cousin, and sibling. We must preserve that as the true definition of “family…”’Miri AF
A single 56-year-old woman has become a first-time mother to a child to whom she is not biologically related, and who she may not live to see grow up. Such scenarios are becoming more commonplace. What do they tell us about the future of “family”? Link (audio included) 👇
1
2
222