Published On: Sat, Jun 16th, 2018

Reflections on a by-election: another charlatan claims to represent the people, this time of Lewisham East

The Lewisham East parliamentary constituency, after the by-election that took place this Thursday gone, is now represented by a Labour MP who said that the result showed “we will not tolerate an extreme Brexit in Lewisham East”.

She (for ‘tis a woman, selected to be the Labour candidate from an all-woman, all-black and minority ethnic shortlist) went on to say:

I will oppose an extreme or a hard Brexit… I will consider people’s jobs, the economy and people’s rights, and that will dictate to me the precedent in how I will conduct myself both within parliament and out of parliament.

The issue of this new MP, Janet Daby, being a “black and minority ethnic woman” we will let slide (almost completely) without comment, given that, these days, being an MP – an EU legislation rubber-stamper – has nothing to do with actually being capable in a job of work. We’ll also leave aside the fact that the only Brexit on the cards is the Fake Brexit (as FBEL predicted before the 2017 General Election), and all Westminster politicians are lying about it one way or another; all that aside, let the reader understand something correctly. As of 14th June, the entire constituency of Lewisham East (regardless of if and how they voted in the EU Referendum) is represented by an MP who would block Brexit; moreover, this individual has decreed that Brexit is not wanted by the people of Lewisham East (making the mistake of equating her parliamentary constituency with the body politic of the town). It’s quite the claim to make on the back of being elected on a turnout of 33%. Moreover, of 22,056 actual voters, 11,033 people who expressed a preference, did so for the Labour candidate (which doesn’t mean that they understand Labour’s position on Brexit – who does?) Therefore, about one sixth of all the registered electors in Lewisham East (which isn’t all the people in the constituency – some people choose not to register to vote) voted for Janet Daby. In what remotest way can it be claimed that she represents Lewisham East? Well, as has been said in these pages before, MPs are not representatives:

It has never been more apparent that Westminster is more like an Electoral College, rather than a house of direct representatives, which is empowered to do as it sees fit when the people unburden themselves of their own duty to ensure good government. The change that is needed requires folk to take their responsibilities seriously, and to take back that sovereignty that is surrendered with a vote.

Even if all 66,000 people, who are registered to vote in a Lewisham East parliamentary election, chose Janet Darby, she still wouldn’t represent them, because she got her pay-off for being owned in her parliamentary career when she got selected as a candidate. When Janet Darby pronounces that East Lewisham won’t tolerate Brexit, she means that her operators won’t tolerate it.

Now, most MPs these days are foisted on local associations without their having any say-so, but there is something particularly offensive and in-the-grill about an MP being selected by winning an affirmative action beauty contest. And imagine how dumb people are that they would vote for a candidate to whom the central party had been more than usually helpful, and had assisted to the extent that it had cleared the field of most of the competition. You don’t have to imagine, dear FBEL reader, just have a look around you when you walk down your high street, and puzzle over the conundrum of the age: how do all these people manage to stay in gainful employment?

Of course, in the old days a report on a by-election at FBEL would focus on the UKIP performance. Well, there is no need to keep up that tradition, given that UKIP has been infiltrated to death, and so what follows is a statement that will apply to future UKIP failures as it does to the one that occurred at Lewisham East. A tiny minority of albeit very vociferous extremists who think that every Muslim is always on the verge of making a bomb (this is what someone actually wrote in a comment at Breitbart – or it could have been UKIPDaily) does not election winning support make. As the author has warned (in other places) before, and as UKIP candidate David Kurten found out, there are no votes (380, to be precise), and there is no future in fighting elections with a brand that so easily invites accusations of racism, and expresses itself in a way that enables the accusations to stick. The general public wasn’t bright enough to separate out fact and fiction when UKIP was called racist and it wasn’t overtly anti-Muslim (which is interpreted, by dint of conditioning and dysfunctional thought processes, as hating brown people). It’s not that people now at the top of UKIP don’t understand this – the choices have been made in order to run the party into oblivion. UKIP could have gone in a very radical direction that would have scared the Establishment to death: it could have got into vaccine safety; it could have opposed the systematic demonization of Russia; it could have questioned British military activity in the middle east – but instead it decided to bash Muslims, and to assist the British Government’s strategy of tension.

The one encouraging aspect of the Lewisham East election was the turnout, because widespread withdrawal from participation in national elections is going to be the only way to impress upon the EU vassal government at Westminster that it cannot act according to any agenda that is not consented to by a majority of the people (which voted to leave the EU), and it certainly cannot act in the same way to the detriment of a people – majority or no – who have certain birth rights, and whose interests and livelihoods are consequently and irreparably damaged; it is what real anti-Establishment activists must now promote.

So, compare the latest turnout at Lewisham East of 33% with the figure in the previous election (2017): 69%. In the history of the seat, the turnout has never been below 52%. It is true that Lewisham East has seemingly never had a by-election before now, but it doesn’t follow that by-elections automatically fail to engender general election level participation. Of the ten other by-elections held in the UK since 2015, only three had turnouts less than 40%.  [Edit, 13th April 2019†: Two of these were Stoke on Trent Central, 38.2%, and Sleaford and North Hykeham, 37.1%]

The one freak turnout figure was for Batley and Spen (26%), which was uncontested by the main parties because of the Jo Cox incident. If the reader wants to understand the real value of “representative democracy”, and the British Government’s contempt for your attempt to pool sovereignty via the ballot box, then there was no finer example than that by-election. Even if one doesn’t think that the Jo Cox incident was a false flag, the state of things in the UK, as evidenced by the fallout from that incident, have reached a new level of appalling. Apparently, whenever an MP is removed from post because of an incident that is deemed by the Establishment to have been politically motivated, then the vacated seat is to be handed to a successor from the same party.

Returning, however, to the matter more at hand, when one peruses the results of the Lewisham East parliamentary elections from the 1970s to the present day, one feels that one is sampling a recent history of the entire British political experience in microcosmic form. To best appreciate the data, however, one needs to contemplate the nature of the Conservative Party in the 20th century. At long last, a decade after the prefixing of the word “Progressive” to the party’s title, and years after the creator of FBEL (yours truly) started pointing it out, a realistic understanding of the nature of the Tory Party as a Marxist entity is more widely held. But even then, this doesn’t get to the bottom of the issue (and the author has not always possessed full knowledge of the definition by which he could have identified the Tory Party in its true colours).

The Tories have always been the party of the King and Church. This boils down to believing that an elite should wield authority; i.e. the entitled from within their own ranks should rule. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Tories were the medievalists, and the Liberals (Whigs) were the classicists. The Tories were of Imperial Rome, the Liberals were of Republican Greece. Empire versus Republic is the very simple abstract concept that explains the fundamental conflict at the bottom of all human experience. As we well know, in practice Republic might manifest in degrees along a scale that ranges from limited plutocracy to parliament of representatives, but arguably the closest any country came to anarchy (no government) was in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Tory Party was the home of the reaction to this. Additionally, we can well imagine that Masonic secret society, which is about preserving ancient rights to rule, would have fared well in the medievalist political psyche. To be fair, there was many a society formed by the Georgians by which the membership shared knowledge that, by definition, would not be available to outsiders, so it wouldn’t be strange that even classicists would keep ancient occultism to themselves (John Robison seemed to enjoy Masonry like a social club). On the other hand, and speaking of John Robison, liberal classicism was the means by which there was light thrown on a good deal that we now know was hidden, and had been retained through the Church, the connections between royal courts and orders of knights, and medieval trade guilds. In short, the Tories have always been Marxists if you understand that Marxism is merely a reinvention of the means to preserve and promote antique elitism and technocracy.

In the 20th century, the Liberal party disintegrated (surviving to serve as a safety valve, serving the purpose of keeping on the reservation those who wouldn’t opt for the main choices). At that point, politics split into two camps, neither of which would present a desirable choice for a proper liberal. Both Tories and Labour are Statists, and always have been. The only difference between them resides in who holds the reins of power (a whole essay needs to be written on the factions, but briefly, one can’t help but notice that the prime-moving socialists tended to be lower-rung aristocracy. We might even propose that the Labour movement was an inter-Tory civil war – but that is for further study). For many proper liberals, the Tory Party would have appeared the lesser of two evils when compared with what would have appeared to be the overtly anti-individualist Labour Party. So, the party of the ruling class would have become the party of the middle class, and inevitably, because the upper councils of the Tory Party couldn’t control grass roots Conservative associations (not like they can now), middle class values were expressed by the Party when those advocating them were selected for candidature for office.

Arguably, there was a liberal break-through when Thatcher, shopkeeper’s daughter, beat the odds stacked against her to become the leader of the Conservative Party. The party was in opposition at the time, so she had another obstacle to overcome, and it would be a good bet that the Tory Elders couldn’t envision a victory in the ’79 election – which would put paid to the imposter [although more reading is necessary before committing to this idea]. Thatcher is hated by large swathes of the British population, but then the British population is generally perpetually bamboozled. Her reputation suffers because she came to office during an ongoing programme that aimed to denude British power and influence. Be of no doubt, reader, she oversaw the hollowing out of British industrial capacity (to weaken the country for subsuming into the EU superstate), and she gets the blame for it. But, crucially, the Thatcher period represents the efforts of the vast constituency of Britons who were middle class, and working class aspiring to middle class, to slow the managed decline. This is why Blair had to be engineered to appeal to this very constituency. He was to be the Judas Goat that would continue the dismantling underneath a disguise of new priorities for success. In short, this means that the British middle class and aspiring working class also had to be assailed with cultural re-education. There was also, under the Blair regime, the start of an unprecedented program of immigration to dilute the electoral power of that one body of British who had proven that they could reverse the destruction of their country.

Everything was in place so that the British could not surprise their ruling class through the ballot box – until UKIP, a party that called itself libertarian (for which, read old time liberalism): a potentially huge headache that would be dealt with by cheating with rigged elections, and a huge campaign of disinformation, denegration, defamation, and disparagement. The EU Referendum was merely a ploy to kill off the threat of UKIP. “Remain” was supposed to have won, but for some reason it didn’t (and the author is open to the idea that too many people voted, and enough with a pen, instead of the issued pencil, so that the planned cheating couldn’t take place). But we’ll take up the telling of the ramifications of the Brexit vote after our examination of East Lewisham election history.

The seat was reinstated in the 70s, and throughout that decade, and the 80s, turnout did not fall below 69% (we’re rounding up from the half percent upwards, and rounding down from below the half percent). The seat was Labour in the 70s, and it switched to the Tories in the 80s. Here is indication of that reaction in the nation against the wilful destruction. In 1992, Labour regained the seat, but it was a close run thing; the majority was just over 1000 (turnout 75%). After that, the Tories never won the seat again – and the reasons why are abundantly clear.

The reader may well remember that at the time of the (now openly pro-EU) John Major administration, inner divisions in the parliamentary Tory Party about the EU were amplified in corporate-media coverage to create an impression of an impotent government paralysed by in-fighting. Perhaps now we can understand what happened to the Tories as the splitting of the factions that have been mentioned, with the outcome providing evidence that in ultimate control were the King and Church types (we can call them Masonic globalists), and that the Tory Party never was the home of people who understood British national interests to coincide with their own individual ones. It is the view of the author that Blair got elected as the result of a huge psyop that, with sustained and unrelenting demonization of the Tories in the corporate-media and also in entertainment programming, conditioned people to think that even expressing support for the Tories was socially unacceptable. [P W Laurie would like to point out that he has never been psychologically manipulated into voting for Labour]. In 1997 in Lewisham East, the Tories, who since 1979 had always scored between 40 and 45% win or lose the seat, suddenly saw their support drop to 25%.

In all the following parliamentary elections held in Lewisham East (bar this most recent by-election), the Tories have regularly notched up between 22 and 24%. What strikes one as most strange is that the Tory support didn’t recover when the nation had become sick of what was the most overt government-by-deception the British had experienced to date. However, all is explained by a boundary change that occurred in time for the 2010 election. All of a sudden, 10,000 more people were registered to vote in Lewisham East. The constituency has been gerrymandered, not only so the Tories could never win it again – that’s not important in itself – but so that the constituency could never again organise through the ballot box to stage the sort of intervention against ruling elite engineered national suicide that it participated in during the 80s.

As was mentioned, East Lewisham could serve as an illustration in microcosm of what has been perpetrated generally in the UK by a persistently Statist, globalist, technocratic and authoritarian ruling class. If we took the time, we could probably find similar engineering up and down the land. When the Government imports immigrants on an industrial scale, then it would not be hard to incorporate new and large numbers of a client population into troublesome constituencies in order to have them vote to further the Government’s agenda. At the last resort, as Thanet South showed us, there is always cheating. The EU Referendum of 2016 threatens to be the last time in their history that the British people have been able to take a stand, through the ballot box, against the evisceration of their nation. That’s why the new MP of Lewisham East, with a forked tongue, claims that her constituents support a form of Brexit that is in fact no Brexit. Indeed, while the operatives of the British Establishment that sit in the Palace of Westminster are allowed to claim that they represent their constituents, then the will of the people as expressed in June 2016 will never be acted upon.

And generally, if you are in that portion of the British, middle class or working class aspiring to middle, then there is no party for you to vote for at a national election. The British Government has closed down that avenue for you. And the Government ultimately doesn’t care how you vote, as long as you vote, and you feel that you are participating in representative democracy, and it gets to count your vote. It relies on your misapprehension of a deck stacked against you as your having tried your best, but to no avail, in a system that nevertheless offers a level playing field. The playing field is not level, and you are constantly being cheated.

The Government does care, however, if you do not vote. If you don’t vote, you don’t consent to the Government. If you don’t vote, then the likes of Janet Daby have no right to act on your behalf, nor even any right to claim power as a representative, and anything that a charlatan who claims to represent you in Westminster subsequently does, without your consent, to endanger your livelihood will be unlawful, and constitute a crime against you. And when that crime is committed, not just against you as one individual, but against hundreds of thousands, so that a tipping point is reached whereby the State, already delegitimised by mass withdrawal of consent, is not able to maintain a monopoly of force, or unable to wield it because to do so would be to commit more crime, then that’s when you all will be able to act, quite lawfully and reasonably, to realise justice.

Further reading
So, the British Government is entirely corrupt. What happens next? (link)
A dose of Gandhi’s Swaraj to cure the British Government (link)


† Update: 13th April, 2019: This part has been revisited and corrected: the author must have been writing with his eyes closed at the time. Previously, at this point in the article it said:

One of these, Sheffield Brightside and Hilsborough (2016), had a 33% turnout. The other two, Ogmore, and Oldham West and Royton (both 2016), were shoe-ins for a Labour candidate – as was Lewisham East – but at these there was a showing of above 40% for both elections.

The above paragraph has been deleted from the article because of the muddle it was in. Sheffield and Ogmore scored more than 40%. Oldham was in fact the first by-election of the 2015-17 parliament – so it shouldn’t have counted in the range “since 2015” anyway (although the turnout was 40.3%).  Incidentally, FBEL covered the Stoke and Sleaford elections here and here.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image