Published On: Tue, Aug 7th, 2018

Social media purges & the operation to place controlled sides for and against the undermining of the Establishment

Share This
Tags

“Had a great meeting today” tweeted the UKIP leader, Gerard Batten, Friday just gone, “with UKIP’s leadership team, Paul J Watson & Sargon of Akkad planning our joint strategy.”

Paul Jospeh Watson & “Sargon of Akkad” planning UKIP strategy. Obviously, the notion is so ludicrous that it must signify that sort of mockery which the British Government (meaning the government in its broadest sense) now evidently likes to weave into its operations to manipulate and deceive the public – like having the Amesbury poisoned discovered at Muggleton Road. It’s a rubbing of the noses of those being duped in to how incredibly stupid they are.

As has been explained previously hereabouts, there was a time in Watson’s career when he couldn’t muster a good word for UKIP, even at a time when the party shared the libertarian values that Infowars was espousing (naturally, an act). The author has not followed the career of Carl Benjamin, aka “Sargon of Akkad”, so closely, but the Independent informs that he “rose to prominence for his anti-feminist videos”. Feminism. Of all the issues to get upset about and take to YouTube for. In any case, the Independent continues:

He was later accused of promoting a series of rape threats from Twitter users against Labour MP Jess Phillips.

After Ms Phillips said: “People talking about raping me isn’t fun, but has become somewhat par for the course”, Mr Benjamin tweeted: “I wouldn’t even rape you, Jess Phillips.”

Mr Benjamin’s followers went on to repeat his statement and Ms Phillips later tweeted: “600-odd notifications talking about my rape in one night. I think Twitter is dead.”

If Carl Benjamin tweeted what has been claimed, then clearly he was intimating that he considers this Jess Phillips to be too unattractive to force himself upon. The nuance comes from the inclusion of the word “even”. It’s quite clear what was meant. And he’s planning UKIP strategy? It’s a joke.

People will no doubt say in Benjamin’s defence that he himself was “joking”, and there is no offensiveness that he produces in social media that reflects any inclination in a real world scenario – but that doesn’t matter. He is pantomiming being an opinion-former of a certain broader political persuasion so that the politics he can be identified with suffer a tarnishing by association. And it shouldn’t escape our notice that the incident under discussion prompted calls for the end of anonymity on the internet (via the Guardian):

The Labour MP Jess Phillips was bombarded with more than 600 rape threats in a single night, she has revealed, as she called for online trolls to no longer be allowed anonymity.

Benjamin is a provocateur for change in a problem-reaction-solution dialectic. Watson is the same, but with a different speciality. Whereas Benjamin offers an opportunity to brand him a particularly nasty sort of misogynist that shouldn’t have the influence that social media affords him, Watson works to create a perception that he spreads the hatred of Muslims through the vast numbers that supposedly follow him. Indeed, as these very words are being typed, Watson’s employer, Infowars, is getting help by social media providers in reinforcing its reputation as a hate speech outlet by being pulled off of, or censored by several platforms all at the same time. Of course, this will elicit a reaction: howls of outrage, and accusations of denial of free speech – but once again it must be pointed out; when a service provider claims policy infringements, there is no issue of free speech‡. If the government were to close your own independent platform, then that would be a clampdown on freedom of expression (as is the banning of certain types of clothing, incidentally).

So, what is happening to Jones’ Infowars (which bans users from its own platform with ne’er an outcry about injustice) is part of an ongoing operation to have people falsely perceive that corporate-government has some kind of total power over expression on the internet. While this is clearly not the case, the perception of it, at least, will lead people to consider themselves very poorly treated if they have their Twitter account suspended. Such people can then be caught up in a revolt against the “denial of free speech” – when there has been no such thing. Trying to provoke mass panicked reaction is Jones’ raison d’être.

And who else has been a “free speech martyr” recently? The character who goes by the name of “Tommy Robinson”, of course. It was interesting to note that during the time that “‘Tommy Robinson’ was in prison” a lot of print space was dedicated to stories about him in corporate or alternative media that is diametrically opposed to him as far as the false left/right spectrum is concerned. In fact, most of the “Tommy Robinson” awareness was coming from quarters that do not support him. Obviously, there has been a concerted effort to organise thought in the audience of such outlets for political self-definition in reaction to “Robinson” and all the ideas that are associated with him. This is quintessentially what the “Robinson” arrest psyop is all about, as FBEL has been tirelessly warning.

A very recent headline above a Times opinion piece summed the operation up to a tee: “We ignore Tommy Robinson at our peril”. We’ll return in a moment to look at the greater objective indicated in this headline, after dealing first with the ideas presented in the same article’s sub-headline:

Rather than anti-migrant rhetoric, the message that ‘MSM’ are concealing the truth is fuelling his right-wing populism

First of all, “Tommy Robinson” isn’t anti-migrant; he’s anti-Muslim. All Muslims are only a hair’s breadth away from joining a jihad according to “Tommy Robinson”. We know that this is his position because of his exploitation of the Westminster Bridge false flag in 2017: “The reality is these people are waging war on us… The truth is Islam is at war. The truth is Islam is a fascist violent ideology”. As FBEL has previously explained, this is a race war component – entirely fabricated by Government – and is supported by people who rationalise their stance as being opposed to a religion, with each stance, furthermore, coming from a rampant ignorance about Islam and the variations within it, and the wilful refusal to acknowledge that the British Government has promoted the most vile type. And so, we can see that it is easy for corporate-media to produce content whereby stoking race war becomes conflated with being against mass immigration. To serve as a trigger for the dangerous conflation is the job that has primarily been allocated to “Tommy Robinson”. It is also the same function that UKIP is now providing – and the reader should note that its not just FBEL that is accusing UKIP of doing this:

Speaking to Sky News in Grays, Mr [Tim] Aker [MEP] accused Mr Batten of blurring the distinction between concerns over immigration and his anti-islam stance.

He said: “The two things are completely different. Under Farage, when UKIP were riding high, the talk was about the Australian points based system – people want controlled immigration….

“Because everyone here drives on congested roads, has to wait longer for GP appointments, and sees council house waiting list soaring by the week – now that’s not pointing fingers at any one community, it’s saying the numbers of people coming into this country are too high and we need to control that and the only way we can control that is by leaving the European Union that’s the message that UKIP should be talking about.”

The reader must see that it’s easier for the Government to dismiss and not have to act on real concerns about the complex effects of mass uncontrolled immigration when they have been rolled up into a package labelled “evil racist ideas”. Making immigration a toxic issue is a function that “Robinson”, and now UKIP serve.

The second issue that we have with the Times sub-headline is the notion that the corporate-media is responsible for “Robinson’s” right-wing populism because it has been seen to be concealing truth about him – presumably in relation to his arrest. The truth is that the support claimed for “Robinson” is illusory – several protest marches up and down the land that flopped spectacularly are testament to this.

We have also learnt that “Robinson” received a hefty payment of £5,500 in bitcoin on the very day he was arrested in March. The author was immediately suspicious of this transaction for reasons that are not to be gone into here. Suffice to say that if what constitutes over a quarter of all bitcoin donations to “Robinson” was paid by a single contributor, then it is likely indicative of most of his support actually coming from a few rich individuals and organisations.

Moreover, “Robinsons” online presence is bound to be astroturfed – rather like that of Paul Joseph Watson and “Sargon of Akkad”, which we might have a better understanding of in terms of extent, ironically, because of the their joining UKIP to be seen bringing along that vast support to the party.

On the 26th June, the Independent reported:

UKIP has gained around 500 new members since allowing three far-right activists linked to the so-called “alt right” movement to join the party.

The party has opened its doors to three controversial YouTubers – Mark Meechan, Carl Benjamin, and Paul Joseph Watson – all of whom have substantial followings on the video streaming

Evidently, Watson et al joined UKIP on 18th June. It has to be said that UKIP might have expected more than 500 new memberships in a week following the admission into the party of a number of internet personalities whose followers number in the millions.

More information has been supplied by Sky about numbers moving to UKIP in the month after 6th July (just over a week after 26th June):

It comes as Sky News obtains detailed membership figures showing more than 3,000 people have joined UKIP in the month since the prime minister’s Chequers agreement on Brexit.

The membership figures given to Sky News show at least 3,031 new enrolments since 6 July – with nearly 500 coming from the South East of England, the region where UKIP has enjoyed some of its strongest support in the past.

Sky goes on to reveal that UKIP “has around 23,000 members but is aiming to raise its membership above a previous high of around 40,000 in 2016.”

Quite clearly, there has been no great charge to UKIP caused by the likes of Watson et al leading the way – not if, nearly two months later, UKIP membership is still a long way below a previous peak in popularity. Again, what is possibly being demonstrated is the reality of the astroturfed support of Watson et al.

Secondly, one must ask how Sky managed to get given an accurate breakdown of UKIP’s membership figure; the answer is simple. UKIP is now a fully fledged part of the full spectrum dominance LibLabCon, and Government wants to use it to create the illusion that there is a rise of Alt-right “far-rightism”. It’s the exact same operation that National Action was invented for (see here, here and here).

Of course, because the “far-right” revival is fake, corporate-media has to implore its audience not to ignore it – which brings us back to the Times opinion piece introduced above.  It continues (at least for as much as a non-subscriber can view):

…many have argued that the BBC should not host [Raheem] Kassam at all. To interview him or Robinson or Steve Bannon, with whom both are working to build a trans-European far-right movement, is to legitimise hatred, normalise fascism and draw Islamophobia into the mainstream.

Basically everything here attributed to Kassam, “Robinson” and Bannon is the objective of the Government – so that it can marginalise, persecute, and criminalise millions by association. Of special interest is the reference to the “trans-European far-right movement”. This reminds that part of this grand operation is to taint Brexit, and this is ultimately why UKIP has been infiltrated and deployed in the strategy. As the reader will be bound to know, certain countries in central and eastern Europe are revealing true colours in their opposition to the EU with regards the immigration of people of colour. Moreover, Breitbart, when it commandeers the likes of Orban of Hungary for anti-EU expression on its pages, is linking what amounts to a demonstration of cultural racial prejudice related to national messiah complexes and Kurganism (which is FBEL’s name for Eastern European Aryanism), and it’s entirely for the purpose of associating the British nationalism of Brexit with white supremacy – an endeavour that perversely has produced condemnation and criminalisation of non-white Britons for their reaction to the cultural distortion that the Eastern European invasion has brought about.

As FBEL will reiterate over again, the purpose of the demonisation of those who support reasonable measures to control immigration and retain sovereignty is to guard against the breakup of the 200-year-old political environment, as Britons are faced with new realities on the ground, and new perceptions of them, and old fallacies that previously locked people into irreconcilable opposition with others are revealed for what they are. The Salisbury poisoning hoax was a prime example where Government by Deception was rejected across the false political spectrum. Salisbury brought the Government within a few steps of a situation whereby there is a full break down in trust, and a universal realisation that there is no choice offered at the ballot box, neither Corbyn’s Labour, nor May’s Tories, that represents an occasion for real republicanism (which is the real name for government of and for the people).  And when we look at the writing of Establishment figures, the extreme concern for the new zeitgeist is expressed directly and overtly. The following is from Matthew d’Ancona, writing in the Guardian:

What Robinson knows, or at least senses, is that our traditional institutions have been radically weakened in the past 20 years: public trust in parliament, government, traditional media and the financial order is in the gutter. The immune system of our old-fashioned political structures is well and truly shot.

To be accurate, “Robinson” knows or senses nothing, what with being a fictional character and all. Nevertheless, here we get right down to the nitty-gritty of it. The Establishment recognises that a development is imminent whereby it is going to be irrelevant, because enough people are going to withdraw from its control systems. And so, it wants to create a reinvestment in a revamped controlled opposition – built through the manipulation of the public through cut-outs like “Robinson” – that will appear to be taking on the traditional institutions, but won’t actually constitute any danger to them. What was the first thing that happened to the person playing “Robinson” as he appeared to leave Onley Prison? He was confronted by Sky News – who once again, in order to have been on the spot, appear to have been in possession of a piece of data that one might not have thought was necessarily straightforwardly available. In any case, “Robinson” complained about the corporate-media. Did he call on people not to vote? No, because to do that would be to present a real threat to the British Establishment, and “Robinson” wouldn’t do that because he is part of the operation.

Moreover, because the pretend movement against the Establishment is headed up by the likes of “Robinson”, who bashes Muslims, and allows this to be portrayed as widespread inherent white British racism, then another swathe of public can be motivated to “defend” the institutions. This is why the “left” is being scared to death with constant tales of the threat of “Robinson”.

It’s all revealed in d’Ancona’s piece:

Why should we care? Because of the volatility of the times. Because the political context may soon be alarmingly propitious for the populist right: a hollowed-out Conservative party, vulnerable to seizure by charismatic leadership; a proliferating legend of “Brexit betrayal”, according to which the wicked elite denied the people the glorious fresh start they voted for in 2016; a bleak economic outlook; and the possibility of a genuinely leftwing government in contrast to which a far-right alternative might ruthlessly define itself…

The correct response to this preening jailbird is not to ban him but to beat him at his own game with better networks, better arguments, and a progressive politics that speaks to the public and not to itself. Robinson’s phoney legend is just a warning. We must be ready for what comes next.

Furthermore, from the d’Ancona’s piece we perhaps get a glimpse of the ultimate objective: a realignment of ballot box politics which keeps a “genuinely leftwing government” in office. What this means is a socialist governance that appears to have the consent of the people. This is different than having a Tory party in office, with traces of the old Liberal values within it, which must be seen to live up to subsequent expectations in order to maintain the illusion of representative democracy. It is different than a Labour party that has made itself look like the Tories. It’s about the reestablishment, after the Thatcher interruption, of unmitigated socialism. (The reader is advised to look at the following FBEL articles in order to understand the grounds for the above political analysis:

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

Old lessons found in surprising places: Sitcom, Aristotelian liberalism, and social engineeringlink ).

Naturally, people will ask, if the Government is rolling out such an overarching operation, and the opposition to it is controlled and will be ineffective, then what is there to do to stop it? The answer is clear. As has been explained, the Establishment is worried about its relevance and therefore its ability to control. That this is a truth is demonstrated in the appearance of a direct appeal by the Guardian to its readers to supply data about the extent of their distrust in the Establishment:

From the Brexit campaign, to Tommy Robinson’s conviction and the Grenfell inquiry, it seems many people don’t know who to trust – and conspiracy theories are flourishing…

The Guardian wants to hear reader’s views about trust in authorities. Do you have faith that the government will do the right thing, and that those tasked with holding them to account will do so?

It goes on in the same vein, and then there is an extensive form to fill in with answers to questions such as “How has your confidence in different public institutions such as government, media and banking changed overtime?”

When the enemy has a weakness, then that’s the point to attack. So, firstly, don’t vote – unless there is a local party to support at council elections. If one votes, however one votes, it is an expression of consent for the government†. Indeed, if you are a member of any national political party, then terminate that membership. Don’t worry, by not voting, about causing a situation whereby the EU layer of legislation and jurisdiction is not removed from British Government – it was never meant to be anyway. Other measures will need to be taken to penalise the Government for that. An entirely new approach is required to gain the upper hand over Government. Secondly, stop feeding the system with your money; later on, in a Brexit betrayal situation, pressure will probably have to be exerted through non-payment of taxes too. In the meantime, apply some thought to the matter, and decide where you should stop spending so as to weaken the control grid that the likes of d’Ancona are desperate to preserve; e.g. the TV licence.

Further reading here:

A dose of Gandhi’s Swaraj to cure the British Government (link)

Coming soon: The Cheated (link).

 

‡ There does, however, appear to be a problem with social media according to smaller users who accuse it of routinely flouting its own policies to suppress or outright remove information that damages or undermines official narrative. Conversely, Jones and his operation – along with other big alternative media names – are said not to have ever suffered proportionally in the same way, if at all. Naturally, what is perceived as being unfair treatment doesn’t generate a corporate-media circus hullabaloo – obviously because then attention would be given to media producers who aren’t agents in a scheme of public perception management, and therefore must remain obscure.

 

† This is part of a response to a Freedom of Information request from the Ministry of Justice. The petitioner wanted to know how to withdraw consent to be governed:

Parliament itself draws its legitimacy from a number of sources, not least of which is the participation of the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom in its operation, through exercising their right to vote or by paying taxes.

The lesson is quite clear. If people do not vote, parliament lacks legitimacy. By voting, even for a minor national party, one supports the status quo. Now, if the State did not cheat at elections so that a minor national party looking to challenge the status quo is prevented from becoming a major one (see Thanet South, and the FBEL investigations here, here and here), then that would be a different matter. However, it is clear, from the extensive evidence of the “rule by deception” that most Britons are unable or unwilling to appreciate they suffer under, that there is no chance that a minor national party that isn’t controlled opposition will ever be allowed to be voted into parliament in significant numbers, let alone into office.

More coverage at FBEL here:
The police as militia, and the “policing by consent” deception

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 2 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Phil M says:

    It is incredible the lengths to which the establishment will go to maintain the ‘status quo’ even more incredible is the number of times the same ‘dirty tricks’ have been used and yet people still fall for it. I suppose we have to thank the barely adequate education system and MSM for that. I worry the task of awakening of the general public or, as the establishment prefer to see us, the ‘unwashed, uneducated cannon fodder’,as an almost impossible task. I suppose it requires ‘an incident’ of monumental proportions, a ‘Pearl Harbour’ if you like, although the mere suggestion of such would, undoubtedly, put me firmly in the sights of the intelligence community, so I must clarify that is not my suggestion but a quote from an American to garner public support for an agenda that lead to 9/11.

  2. Not voting indicates support for the statos quo. You should find a suitable minority party to vote for.