Published On: Wed, Sep 19th, 2018

The vilification of civil disobedience; Part One: the second referendum

Share This
Tags

There has been some talk recently, by quite senior politicians, about the possibility of civil disobedience arising from an attempt to hold a second referendum on the UK’s EU membership. It doesn’t matter if this talk appears to be mostly coming from “Remainers” of the so-called “left” as much as it is framed in terms of being a far-right reaction. On examination of this blaming, it becomes absolutely clear why there was an attempt by the Establishment to provoke street protests on the back of the “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop: this turbulence, which in fact did not materialise, was meant to educate a public, largely unaware of the concept, as to what “civil disobedience” looked like. That being said, we are still seeing the rise of a type of street activist political criminal that reinforces the same characterisation [more about this in Part Two]. Thus, great measures are being taken to teach that, what is supposed to be a form of lawful self-defence, and does not have to involve disruptive mass assemblies in the streets, and definitely not destruction of property, is an act of terrible extremism.

For a complete picture, the reader should be aware that “Remainer” prophesying of civil disobedience is also countered from the same side: the rubbishing of the idea; an activity likely borne out of concern that support for a second referendum, being called by its advocates, the “People’s Vote” (as if somehow the first one wasn’t), would be affected negatively by a looming dark cloud of social upheaval. Kier Starmer, none other than the “Shadow Brexit secretary”, has poo-pooed the prospect of “social unrest”: poo-poo is the official Labour Party position on the issue. Taking to Twitter, the Labour MP, Chuka Umunna, who is a leading light in what is, effectively, an effort to mobilise pressure against a “no deal” Brexit  – or a failure of the Article 50 negotiations, (which were undertaken for the benefit of the EU – see FBEL’s many “Fake Brexit” articles), made a comparison to trigger left/right associations:

It is deeply disappointing to hear a Labour Shadow Cabinet member parroting the claims made by Nigel Farage and others that there will be civil disobedience if there is a People’s Vote. We are the Labour Party not UKIP.

Umunna was referring to Barry Gardiner – more on his “parroting” momentarily. Firstly, we should follow the lead Ummana has supplied to whom he apparently considers to be the source of the civil disobedience talk.

Farage was speaking at a private speaking engagement in May, 2017:

But if they don’t deliver this Brexit that I spent 25 years of my life working for, then I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines.

It has been said hereabouts before that Farage tends to be hyperbolic; in this instance, clearly he was talking completely figuratively: using the imagery of being a solider to express his determination to force his will. On the other hand, there would be no grist for the mill if Farage ever presented anything sensible for the corporate-media to associate with civil disobedience. Indeed, the Independent article from whence the above extract came claimed in its subheadline that “it is not the first time the former Ukip leader has threatened civil disobedience over Brexit”. The reference is to something the man said in 2016:

I think it’s legitimate to say that if people feel they have lost control completely, and we have lost control of our borders completely as members of the EU, and if people feel that voting doesn’t change anything then violence is the next step.

While Farage might talk about a certain reaction caused by Brexit going bad, whether meant literally or not, what we need to notice that on neither occasion does he appear to express his concerns using the term “civil disobedience”. The association between it and violence comes entirely from the journalist.

Turning to the infamous utterances of Barry Gardiner, made on an August 2018 edition of some BBC radio programme or other, these are they:

“You never give as much succour to the extreme right as when you cut off the mechanism of democratic change.

“If people want to be able to achieve change through democratic means, if they feel that that is being denied to them, they then turn to other more socially disruptive ways of expressing their views, and that is the danger here.”

Holding another referendum would be “playing with the foundations of our country in a way that is really, really damaging,” he added.

“We have to respect people’s vote in that referendum. We told them we would, we must do it.”

Pressed on whether he believed another referendum could prompt violence on the streets, Mr Gardiner insisted he “didn’t say that” but added: “In any situation, if people feel the route to change is no longer a democratic route, then you look to social disruption, perhaps civil disobedience in a different way”.

First thing to notice: who is it that is going to be provoked into social disruption if the “democratic route” to change is rendered redundant? Why, it’s the extreme right, of course – according to Gardiner. In reality, it won’t be extremists that will resort to “extreme” measures, but normal people, who will nevertheless be easily identified as extremists because of the conditioning of the general public vis-à-vis engineered far-right terrorism and activism that has been going on for several years. (Warning of this activity has been the persistent objective of many an FBEL article: see here and here [and some people don’t like it]). What Gardiner is in fact doing here is pronouncing that the “law-abiding” half of the population (i.e. the “Remainers”) can expect the other half to be far-right extremists.  As we know, once a lot of people are demonised as such, then any measures to subdue them, and to dismiss their point of view is perfectly acceptable. And notice, Gardiner is telling his BBC audience (and guess which side they would be on) that the reaction isn’t going to come from street violence, but from social disruption of another kind: civil disobedience. Thus, the message is this: the people who stop paying their Council Tax and TV licences (an obvious thing to do) and utility bills and stop shopping for anything other than essentials (to provoke a reaction on the boards of directors for pressure from within corporate-government upon itself), and empty their bank accounts (because the last thing the corporate-government wants is instability in the financial sector) – all these people are Nazis, whose activity will constitute a “danger”.

Of course, because quiet civil disobedience doesn’t create screaming headlines, the threatening public face of extremism was supposed to have come from the masses who took up with marching with “Tommy Robinson” and Gerard Batten at the start of the summer – except the British Establishment failed to provoke vast armies of people onto the streets with its “Tommy Robinson” psyop (which has been left flapping in the wind for now). Plan B – have “Tommy Robinson” join UKIP; have Gerard Batten attend Democratic Football Lads Alliance parades (have the anti-fascists also attend so that there can be tension, “menace and aggression”).

We can’t leave off Gardiner’s remarks without dealing with the line: “You never give as much succour to the extreme right as when you cut off the mechanism of democratic change”. Perhaps there has never been a more ironic set of words strung together in the history of the English language. Beyond the fake left-right paradigm, the extreme right is anarchy – what care anarchists for elections for government? Gardiner is talking about an imagined totalitarian, authoritarian “right”. But what are they reacting to? Why, only the authoritarianism of the “left”. Ironic, isn’t it. There is no doubt that people are meant to conjure up ideas about the rise of fascism in 1930s Germany – which happened through elections, and in fact created outright socialism. Democracy only leads to socialism.

What is going on here, as a result of an expression of the post-science, Globalist-aspirant-progressive runny-brained political perspective Gardiner shares with so many in Britain, is the truth coming out. Democratic change belongs to those who want power and capital in the hands of a few, with everyone else being socialised (the difference between this system and the (crony corporatist) capitalism is that the power and capital is in the hands of a Government that doesn’t outsource its administration).

Democracy always leads to socialism – because the people vote themselves free things promised to them by charlatans, which must be paid for by taxes, and the end of the middle class. Ultimately, democracy leads to slavery, because when the workers eventually cannot afford taxes there’s no point paying them. What Gardiner meant in his statement (whether he was aware of it or not) was trouble will happen when the illusion that democracy can reverse progress to socialism and slavery is finally shattered. This is the great fear of the British ruling class. The shattering is nigh.

The solution, which is republicanism – or the commonwealth (the country, the people, their sovereignty) – and true capitalism (where many private individuals own capital, and they aren’t socialised), would mean the end of the British State as we know it. How we find the beginning of the process whereby the progress into slavery can be reversed is subject matter for another time (and has, indeed, been written of before elsewhere hereabouts) – but suffice to say, it has little to do with voting in “democratic elections”.

Let’s examine another example of the ruling classes fear relating to its current predicament. Andrew Duff is apparently “a former Liberal Democrat MEP turned EU expert” according to the Yahoo News page whence from the following extract is taken:

The [second referendum] campaign would not turn on the quality of Mr Barnier’s treaty. The argument on the streets, in fact, would be about nationalism, xenophobia, and democratic betrayal.

“The pound would tank. The fragile UK constitution would be put under further immense strain, with the certainty that parliament at Westminster would again emerge emasculated and its discredited political parties split asunder.

“The nation would end up even more divided in terms of social class, generation and province, potentially pitching into a revolutionary situation.

“Instead of toying with populism, it would be better for politicians of all persuasions to shoulder their responsibility for the national interest.”

Duff’s appraisal, made not long after Gardiner got the ball rolling, is realistic – barring the appeal to the racism of those who would not stick to the “rules” during a second referendum campaign regarding the UK’s exit settlement with the EU (a divorce without a divorce). This is to forget that lots of people who don’t want to live under EU rule would have Mr Barnier stick his treaty where the sun does not shine: FBEL readers do not need to be reminded that the Article 50 negotiations are completely for the benefit of the EU, and for tying Britain to parallel development with it. So, not being tricked into supporting various degrees of continued vassal status is xenophobic; wanting sovereignty in its entirety is nationalism – in the nasty racist sense that Duff means it.

Duff is right, of course, to say that Government will be accused of having referenda until it gets the result it wants: he calls this an issue of democratic betrayal. Again, the truth of it is this: with the EU referendum result, democracy has betrayed those who expect it to inevitably lead to the eternal permanence of their elitism. Democracy can never betray voters investing in it for change for the better, because – as explained – things just don’t work like that. This is what the British Establishment is fearful of folks finding out. The tanking pound (a vast and complex issue, but not necessarily bad), the UK constitution weakened (England, or even the bulk of it, shedding the socialist dead weight), Westminster emasculated (it needs to be), political parties discredited (yes please): the end of the British State as we know it. That doesn’t mean the end full stop. Restoration, not revolution is the objective; people won’t stop going to work (especially if the job creates wealth). Local empowerment and commonwealth with the empowered locals in the town next door would be the basic rule. Towns and counties, ruling themselves – with a national government only to take care of the commonwealth’s foreign interests. If we don’t know completely what the environment will look like yet, it definitely does not automatically constitute a catastrophe.

Unless you are the likes of Duff, for whom a terminal case looms: the “national interest”, then, is about the continuation of the stinking status quo, and all politicians working hard, together, shoulders to the wheel, to continue to pull the wool over the eyes of millions (so as to remain their prey): fudge Brexit as planned; deliver the Fake Brexit (as predicted by FBEL before the 2017 election), and do it quietly: here is democracy betraying people as the British ruling class would have it! Moreover, contend with the inevitable resultant discontent by demonising those who would resort to their right to self defence (in order to not be made slaves), and frighten all the others who won’t with tales of the disaster to which such disruptiveness will lead; induce the desire to help persecute the malcontents. This is the design of the British “Spartan” State for to cling to its decrepit existence.

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