Published On: Tue, Jun 12th, 2018

“Tommy Robinson” psyop escalation falls at first hurdle; expect whip to be applied to dead horse

Share This
Tags

At the risk of boring the frequent visitor to FBEL, there is a need for one more article devoted to the same subject as was the topic of four previous others, and the attempt by the British Government to foment tension during the period in which the character who goes by the name of “Tommy Robinson” is perceived by the public to be in prison. Rest assured that the author is anxious to give the issue the coverage it deserves, and retire from it to let the tumbleweeds do their stuff down the deserted street of “Tommy Robinson” significance. There is plenty else to cover – and not according to the agenda being set by the Establishment†. The reader will get a hint of what is to come at the foot of this article.

On Saturday 9th June, a crowd assembled in London to hear speeches from the likes of Geert Wilders, Gerard Batten, Raheem Kassam, and Anne Marie Waters, and generally to demand the release of “Tommy Robinson” – at least as it appears to a vaguely interested observer. Police have been reported as having counted between 5000 and 7000 people at the rally. Others claim a number of 20,000 – one example being the writer of an article appearing at what is probably the main UKIP-supporting blog on the internet:

The police were out in numbers appropriate for a crowd of perhaps 5,000, but not the 20,000 that I estimated were actually there.

One wonders how an individual in a crowd can estimate its size at 20,000 without (for instance) four ends of a football stadium to gauge it by. Maybe the police were manned to deal with 5,000 people because that was how many were in the crowd? As an aside, the article is very disconcerting because it would ask its readers to believe that a massive crowd is the answer to their problems. An “army”, is the word used. There is no apparent appreciation of the possibility of it being provocateured into terrible trouble. Any ill discipline would be explained away by high jinks: “Tommy Robinson is the only man who can turn the drunken hooligans into disciplined protesters – which is why he is in prison”. It is, of course, arrant nonsense. The dishonest message is this: we’ll get what we want by the silent threat of violence, and then everyone will go home for tea. The reality will be prison, or worse, at the end of the day – and demonization for the real opposition. The Establishment is not frightened when people march, because that’s where it wants them. Instead, it is frightened by people who decide not to pay their taxes. UKIP is raddled with wrong ‘uns (and is going to die because of it).

Speaking of which, below is an image tweeted by the ringleader: Gerard Batten: “Massive crowd in Whitehall at the Free Tommy Robinson rally.” The author just cannot see this “massive” that is being spoken of. It looks like just another cunningly framed photograph to conceal real numbers.

Of course, we understand that there would be an anxiety to inflate the crowd size to give the impression of a popular movement – so as to get the gullible but tentative to join the “army”. As such, we also understand that the cabal of stirrers at the heart of this psyop cannot admit to a reality of a relatively small turn out – and this is why they are fundamentally not to be trusted, whether they write for Government agit-prop mouth pieces dressed up as political party fanzines, whether they are contributors in corporate-media comments space, or whether they are the main players on social media.

Indeed, all of the imagery of the event that the author has seen is rather like Gerard Batten’s, and it leaves one struggling to understand where the claims of 20,000 come from. The media, of any type, isn’t helpful for a proper understanding in this matter – because it is primarily engaged in fostering a them-and-us attitude, so for instance the INews presents this:

Police estimates put the crowd at around seven thousand, though speakers at the rally made fake claims of much higher numbers.

On the other hand, this stuff is very helpful when the pro-“Tommy Robinson” agitators want to claim anti-Establishment credentials: the corporate-media is covering up, would be the accusation. And the co-operative efforts at deception get yet more complicated. As reported by the Liverpool Echo, an image of a football crowd in the streets of the Merseyside city were posted on social media and passed off as a true representation of the huge mob in London. It went viral before people started condemning the misrepresentation, and the “far-right” were deemed caught in a fraud – not to mention a bit thick.

As always with these things, a closer look causes a good deal of doubt. The text that accompanied the image read like this:

The left want this picture taken down because it shows the whole of London calling for Tommy Robinson to be released so please don’t retweet it.

The gut says that there is something not quite right – and it is confirmed by the littlest bit of analysis. There is no sense that the image is being presented as definitive, unarguable evidence of a sizeable crowd; instead the stress is on a reinforcement of the idea that the enemy – “the left” – is suppressing the truth. It’s completely unintuitive, and it is obviously emphasising the overall talking point of the threat to freedom of speech, which has been a driving motif of this psyop. It’s written from outside the theatre of experience for a pro-“Tommy Robinson” useful idiot. It is expressly for the purpose of providing the anti-“Tommy Robinson” social media contingent with arms for the fight, and that means ultimately it must come from the people directing the psyop.

In the end, the reason why we should understand the turnout at London to have been low is because it would match a trend. A pro-“Tommy” DFLA march in York on the same Saturday was, apparently, an abject failure, as a YouTube channel owner reports:

9th June 2018 – DFLA – attempt march through York in support of Zionist and racist leader Tommy Robinson, but after only 11 showed up for the march and over 100 Anti Fascists attended, the march was called off and police escorted the Fascists out of York under heavy police protection.

Furthermore, a planned march to take place in Newcastle was postponed, and the given excuse was that the police were too busy. How about no one was interested? How about the police would not be available to protect the pro-“Tommy Robinson” “mob” from “Anti-Fascists” who would have outnumbered them?

The London, York and Newcastle protests were the ones that were known of by the author, in the course of his research, through announcements by the likes of the Socialist Worker in calls for the attendance of oppositional crowds. There doesn’t seem to have been any others. [Update: “hundreds” apparently rallied in Belfast (again, a hotspot for inter-community tension; in fact, the most infamous place in the UK for it – see footnote ‡ to the article here, to see what is being implied), where one fellow helpfully got himself photographed doing a clear Nazi salute.  Images of the event wouldn’t confirm any claim of a large crowd – not even one of a couple of hundred. Reports on the internet of a rally in Leeds seem to be unfounded. Leeds-Live reports that the next pro-“Tommy Robinson” rally is planned to also memorialise the 7/7 false flag attack (like good Government puppets would), and that the last one in the city was 1st June].

As for the one that did take place [update: let’s call it the main event in the light of the new information above], what happened in London was all too predictable. There was a run-in between “boot boys”, which is a descriptor we came across in a previous FBEL article, and the police. Arrests were made. Some people were hit with batons, giving the likes of Raheem Kassam an opportunity to tweet about the “face of the police state”.

On the other side, the corporate-media was given the opportunity to write things like this:

Tommy Robinson supporters perform Nazi salutes at violent London protest, amid warnings of return to racist street movements

There were also lessons in good citizenship to be learnt from surprising quarters:

We all agree that these criminals [“Muslim grooming gangs”] need to face justice. The problem arises when people take the law into their own hands.

Ivan Humble, from whose pen this supposedly came, was at one time “a regional organiser for the English Defence League before he renounced his far-right views”. Now reformed, he evidently wanted to let people know that it was bad not to let the State monopolise law and order. But wait! A regional organiser for the EDL? The reader’s alarm bells should be going off. Cast your mind back to the previous FBEL article where it was speculated that the EDL was formed by “somebody with a lot of money [who] paid people to move and organise other people to make it happen”.

And what of the accumulative message that this ex-regional organiser for the EDL is therefore helping to transmit? It is none other than this: if you are thinking of taking the law into your own hands, then you are a Nazi.

It is very dangerous stuff indeed. The law is absolutely yours to take into your own hands. It is legislation that only the State can enforce. It is legislation that the State enforces when you go into the streets and get into shoving matches with police and subsequently volunteer yourself into their power to arrest. And of course this is exactly what happened to some people in London. The Independent gleefully covered the apprehension of one particularly useful and blubbery idiot who “cries and wails uncontrollably as he is handcuffed by police at far-right rally”. Read on, and notice how he could have been entrapped:

Early in the clip, the man is seen at the Whitehall protest holding a banner reading: “Free speech, free Tommy, f**k Islam”…

It is not clear why he was pursued and handcuffed, but one of the officers can he heard speaking to him about the Islamophobic banner and asking him for his details.

“That was not my flag, I didn’t turn up with that,” he replies. “Someone stood in front of me and I put my hand on it.”

This is what being led up the garden path looks like.

Now, Raheem Kassam is not wrong; Britain is a police state – but it isn’t one because of some street theatre staged by some actors in uniform, and others in bovver boots. Britain is a police state because of legislation that criminalises companies who want to compete with corporations by making healthful alternatives. Britain is a police state because of legislation that criminalises parents if their child isn’t in school or in work at certain ages. This stuff, and plenty more like it, is what needs fighting.

 

 

† The “Tommy Robinson” affair is not the only ongoing major operation to affect the psychology of the British public during the Summer of Tension, 2018. The crime wave in London is boiling to the point where the likes of the BBC’s Newsnight are noticing it, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick is blaming shortages in police numbers. If the reader can’t see where this is heading then follow the above link to the Huffington Post and stay there.

Unsurprisingly, a little digging reveals that there is more to it than meets the eye: consider the following from Breitbart:

London crime gangs are becoming more organised, ruthless, and are increasingly driven by illegal drugs profit, with some gangs forming alliances the way businesses sell franchises.

As many others have noticed, street gangs are surprisingly business-savvy if they are able to offer franchises and the like. How likely they picked this up during their chequered career at the local comprehensive (now rebranded an Academy of Science and Technology)? We could hazard a very good guess who it is that provides the sophisticated leadership.

Secondly, there is a perpetual promotion of the Royals in the British corporate-media. This would be an attempt to recast the illusion that a King or Queen is something quintessentially British, and thus something to reassure about the safety of the national identity in the context of the Fake Brexit. One headline caught the author’s eye: Who Gets to Stand on the Buckingham Palace Balcony (the question mark not supplied).

Who indeed? It is a better question than it first appears. Who, in these days of equality and inclusion, gets to be a royal parasite? We now have a state of affairs where two commoners, one of them not even British, have become entitled to the bountiful rewards of the Crown (the fiction that obscures the reality of the Commonwealth – which, essentially, is what it says on the tin – for the purpose of stealing it). And they are elected to it through marriage – but why should they be? In an age where marriage is no longer the means by which the privilege of British nationality is bestowed upon a foreigner – instead, it is gifted by the Government as it sees fit – why should the Royals maintain private control over who is appointed to a position whereby they enjoy the privilege of being the ruling elite? The elevation of Joe Public into Monarchy (unthinkable even 30 years ago) isn’t a demonstration that the Royal Family is an anomalous institution in modern post-normal, Marxist/Luciferian, World State principality Britain; it shows that the very rich and powerful opt in for the sake of optics and politics, but mostly are not subject to the conditions by which everyone else’s lives are ruined (they legislate for themselves – when is it going to end?) We would gauge the real tolerance of the Establishment in terms of convoluted constitutional excuses for why Meghan Merkel should not be Queen if the situation ever arose whereby the younger son of Charles’ ever became heir to the throne.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>