No surprises as “Tommy Robinson” turns up at the Old Bailey – and a motorway service station
The Lady Justice that sits on top of the Old Bailey carries a sword in her right hand, and a pair of scales in her left. Unlike other representations, she is not blindfolded. The reader may have heard that this has something to do with “blind justice”, but it’s not. It’s an idea that appears to be ancient (Egyptian, superficially), and it’s one about two sets of eyes – the esoteric and the exoteric. The physical eyes in the head are the exoteric ones: these are open when operating on the level of the profane, or amongst those who are not initiated. When the exoteric eyes are closed, then vision is exclusively esoteric – or in other words, relating to ideals that the profane are not deserving of. The Lady Justice of the Old Bailey is an exception to the usual rule whereby “justice is blind”, and as such is making an especial statement: it publically announces to those aware that the justice meted out is that version which is fit for the masses according to the supremacy of Government. The Old Bailey Lady Justice also wears a corona on her head – this is in fact a halo representing, as haloes always do, rays emanating from a sun disc. Put simply, this is indicative of divine and absolute power: that of kings who are the sons of god (for a full explanation of this, see FBEL’s Mystery School Christianity, here). The scales of course represent the act of weighing the guilt of the accused, and the sword represents the judgement for the guilty. Naturally, the whole concept comes from Osiris’ court in the underworld, where the condemned’s heart of the soul is weighed to discover worthiness of immortality (an initiation ceremony). When Lady Justice is equated with Ma’at, the goddess of truth, justice and harmony, a participant in Osiris’ initiation of the dead who is symbolised by the feather against which the heart of the soul is weighed, then she becomes the entity by which the accused is balanced: Lady Justice has power of life and death (represented by the sword) as she sees fit, not least because she is arbiter and guarantor of cosmic destiny by which the profane are constrained. She will keep the people in their place.
“Tommy Robinson”, of course, is a tool of the order (with tool being the operative word), and the “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop, as his most recent legal troubles have been called here at FBEL, fell forward in quite an explosive fashion this week when the actor who plays the principal part, Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, posted imagery of himself with what the British Army itself has described as “a group of Army personnel” – although many think that those whose likenesses appear with the “Robinson” character in the particular photography are in fact of the Army Cadet Force, and are therefore civilians. However, that the British Army appears to be disciplining one of these individuals with discharge from the ranks indicates ownership – unless, of course, the corporate-media that has reported this development is lying for the purposes of extending what appears to be another operation stemming from, or related to the central exercise of causing tension after provocation by the “Tommy Robinson” industry. In other words, it is yet another formation in an ongoing excretion of horse-crap.
Evidently, after a number of episodes that failed to gain any traction (a girl was thrown out of college and a fireman was suspended from his job for expressing support for “Robinson”), our hero felt it necessary to take to the road to drum up some scandal, and “accidentally” met with British soldiery – which brings us to the first discussion point: location. Some corporate-media (Sky and the Daily Mail) reported as fact that the meeting took place at Watford Gap motorway services on the M1, although the Mail piece did contain the disclaiming text whereby the rendezvous was only “believed to be at the Watford Gap motorway services”.
Fascinatingly, it is in The Times alone, of all corporate-media, where it was reported that “two dozen young soldiers” were “travelling from Catterick in North Yorkshire”. That’s a long way away from Watford Gap. And then the writer of The Times article, a Lucy Fisher, Defence Correspondent, writes something very strange, and alludes to a “service station near Watford”.
She could only have meant the town in Hertfordshire; no one who knows better calls Watford Gap “a service station near Watford”. Now, one could put this elementary mistake to the writer being a special kind of Londoner of the sort who are amongst Britain’s finest, and therefore clueless about the geography of England, along with many other things; on the other hand, when the corporate-media cannot get a basic fact straight in this kind of circumstance, it’s more often than not because the fact isn’t real.
If the soldiers were trainees, as they are described in corporate-media, then could it actually be the case that they were from the Army Foundation College at Harrogate, returning from a weekend exercise? In that case, “Robinson”, supposedly based in Luton, would have had to have gone a long way for a chance meeting. Of course, this is not proof that the meeting had been arranged. However, if one is to think critically about this episode, one must consider that what has all the appearance of a clear provocation, in the midst of an exercise in the criminal courts that is fuelling both notoriety and support for “Tommy Robinson”, did not happen by coincidence.
For the same reason, one must also notice and be suspicious of the immediate escalation of the meeting into a scandal. In itself, the incident amounted to a gaggle of adolescents getting excited about seeing a TV personality. “Robinson” then politicised the event by posting about it on the apparently well-followed social media facility he uses without, we should notice, the so-called censorship that the Alt-Right/“Tommy Robinson” industrial complex is always complaining about. The meeting could have remained private; arguably, it was made public because “Robinson” (and his producers) wanted to exploit it.
As for the reaction, it appears to the author that the Army may well have done so, initially, in quite a measured way which was tampered with by Government (corporate-media) to provide excuse for the irascible “Robinson” industry to retaliate. The best way to illustrate what is meant by this is to reproduce some quotes. The following is accredited to an “Army spokesperson” in certain corporate-media:
We are aware of a photograph and video of a group of Army personnel on social media and are investigating the circumstances surrounding this.
Anyone who is in breach of the Army’s values and standards will face administrative action.
This is reasonable; there should indeed be an investigation to discover why a bunch of school-age children appear to be wondering around a motorway service station without any adult supervision.
However, the Army’s deadpan expression was masked with something more animated when the following was published in addition to, or in substitution of the basic statement:
Far right ideology is completely at odds with the values and ethos of the Armed Forces.
The Armed Forces have robust measures in place to ensure those exhibiting extremist views are neither tolerated nor permitted to serve.
Please note that now the “spokesperson” is talking on behalf of the Armed Forces. The author suspects that this is material fed to corporate-media for an exacerbation of ill feeling and a sense of grievance, all to be conducted by the “Tommy Robinson” industry. For what is introduced here is an assumption of guilt by association – and “Robinson” and his producers were quick to exploit it. In fact, they pre-empted the eventual announcement by the Army that a recruit would be disciplined with dismissal:
When news of the investigation emerged Robins[on] (sic), real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, wrote on his Instagram page: “Watch the backlash if the army attempt to discipline these young recruits for expressing one of their very freedoms they are expected to fight & die for”.
And then there was this:
He said he had received calls of support from many soldiers and criticised ‘top brass’ for being ‘out of touch’ with the rank and file army members.
The far-right activist claimed ‘morale was low’ and accused military officials of coming ‘crushing down on a young recruit’ who had been prepared to ‘give his life to the armed forces.’
‘Some privileged man at the top has decided that because he shared a selfie, he can take all that opportunity, all that life he was going to lead away from him,’ Robinson said.
The 35-year-old declared there was bad feeling and the issue over the photograph could be ‘the final straw’ because many troops might not go into any future wars ‘because they have had enough.’
Some issues raised here are too important to pass over, so they will be revisited (if not as fully as one would like). At this stage, notice the claim to speak for British soldiery disgruntled by its top brass, and the veiled reference to a mutiny that would, presumably, become incorporated into the “Robinson” industrial complex. It is incredible stuff, but it’s not actually all that it appears to be, as we shall see. The objective is to rabble rouse the citizenry by playing on its sentimental attachment to the armed forces, and the gross delusion that killing women and children in north Africa and the Middle East is an heroic defence of the nation.
Which brings us to the issue at the heart of everything to do with this incident: the continued fostering of hatred of Muslims to justify foreign wars, and also to implement security apparatus at home. For as well as providing “Robinson” ammunition regarding a perceived injustice of a supposedly politically persecuted recruit, the corporate-media also provided sterling service by universally quoting Imam Asim Hafiz, the Islamic religious advisor to the Armed Forces:
Any form of racism, discrimination or extremism is taken extremely seriously and will be dealt with accordingly.
Bingo! Now RebelMedia could make a video claiming “Imam has British soldier fired for standing with Tommy Robinson”. And so, being concocted is the idea that Muslims are to blame for getting a white man sacked from the Army.
It’s all very clear. The corporate-media, for which we should read Government, has clearly fed a fishing line to the Alt-Right/ “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex whereby it can become hooked to flap around in the brine, and agitate thousands of plankton (brained) who feed on it. In other words, the corporate-media certainly did not pour oil on troubled waters. Indeed, at no time did the entire incident stink more of an operation to manipulate then when “Robinson” released a picture on his social media facility that appeared to be promoting a campaign to encourage serving military personnel to protest about the discharging of “soldier x” – see below (obtained from a reddit discussion thread, here).
What struck the author in particular as very suspect about this image was the various at-ease hand-clasps: evidently, the right hand is uniformly supposed to be placed in the left, and thumbs are supposed to be interlaced. Therefore, in the author’s opinion, “Robinson” has faked a parade of serving soldiers – and on the back of this he threatens “Coming to a barracks near you!”
If we think that the British Army’s initial public statement was embroidered by other Government agencies to provoke, it doesn’t make that institution innocent of being party to what would be an engineered scheme to manipulate. The British Army is suffering a recruitment crisis – news of which the corporate-media more often than not mentions in its reporting of the “Tommy Robinson” incident (and one has to wonder why) – and there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Ever since 9/11, the US/UK military industrial complex has drawn justification for existence and funding from a scenario that relies entirely on distrust and loathing of Muslims; arguably, it is in the British Army’s interest to have “Tommy Robinson” empowered by his publicity seeking activity. And of course, the way the Army has allowed scope to be accused of pandering to the feelings and interests primarily of Muslims in the course of this incident is not unique in the British Establishment; the sense of being second class is meant to trigger resentfulness in the majority – all in the aid of that foreign conflict and domestic tension mentioned above. Clearly, “Robinson’s” latest activity is about reinforcing a perception, not of the military rank and file against the top brass, but of the armed forces as bastion of whiteness against the Muslim infiltration. If morale is low in the Army, it should be due to the realisation of the great scam of Islamic terror, and the fabricated casus belli by which British Armed Forces have killed innocent people (not to mention the fact that the British Army, incognito of course, is getting a good kicking in Syria). “Tommy Robinson” assists the British Government in this case by presenting a fake diagnosis for the unhappiness. Of course, treating the wrong symptom never cures the ailment – and as “Robinson’s” Facebook post suggests (taking it on face value that he has had respondents from the military), there doesn’t look like there is any courage to force treatment of the diseased part.
It’s not just the unfortunates in the British Army over whom the British Establishment has a death grip – everyone in the country suffers from it. The latter could help, however, not by giving “Tommy Robinson” money and influence, but by understanding that its long-fostered and misplaced affection for the armed forces, reinforced yearly with the Remembrance charade (a sacrificial rite re-enactment), is actually for creating support for war in the narrow interests of the City of London. The British Army does not fight for the country, and no individual in it fights for their mother, their wife, or their home. The British Army fights for the Crown (i.e. the City of London). It is a mercenary force that can be peopled with foreigners and people from minority groupings that have little or no affinity with the country precisely because loyalty is only demanded for the Crown. So, what is it to the Government if the majority population of the country feels aggrieved about Army recruitment policy? Let them – it only feeds support for war against brown people. See how it works?
And it is with great interest that we should note that the “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop has been moved to the Old Bailey to play out, for the Old Bailey is an instrument by which the City of London abuses England. The detail was missed by the author when he previously read the judgment at the Appeal Court in the case of “Robinson’s” alleged contempt of court. In their ruling, the officiating judges said that a new hearing didn’t have to be at Leeds (one can see that the safety net of local jurisdiction was abolished with the creation of the Crown Court system in 1972), and that any location would do to hold the rehearing: although it had to be the Old Bailey, or the Central Criminal Court, as it was referred to in the Court of Appeal judgement.
The reader might not be aware that the Recorder of London is the senior circuit judge at the Central Criminal Court, and that he is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the City of London. However, judges at the Old Bailey defer to the Lord Mayor of the Corporation if he ever decides to execute his right to sit on the bench during a hearing – the judge vacates from the central seat to accommodate his master. It is said that the Lord Mayor, or the Corporation Aldermen, who are also allowed on the bench, do not participate in the proceedings – but so what? The undue influence of the City of London over a criminal court that has effective jurisdiction unlike any other criminal court in the land would explain exactly why the Old Bailey is such a black hole of justice, where the State can write its crime into the record books as that performed by a patsy (see Thomas Mair, Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, Ahmed Hassan). And this is where “Tommy Robinson” is going to be held to account?
When the rehearing commenced in September, things did not perhaps proceed as some of us thought they would:
The Recorder of London, Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, invited parties in the case to make written submissions on whether there should be a “substantive hearing” and how it should proceed.
It had appeared to some of us that the Court of Appeal judges had suggested quite plainly that a rehearing was necessary because “Robinson” might not yet have been suitably treated by the law in terms of extracting a debt to pay on his side. However, the first act of the City of London’s man was to remove the certainty of the necessity of further process. And what we might very well see going forward is the case against “Robinson” dropped entirely without any arguments for and against being supplied for public consumption. It would make sense, given the “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop failed miserably in its primary objective, which was to provoke riots in the streets of England during the summer of 2018.
The City of London has a flag, and it is a sword in the top left quadrant of a cross of St George. There is an official explanation for the meaning of the flag, and it is very telling in itself, but what it explicitly shows is the sword of power over life and death dominating the symbol that represents the country of England. It is way past time that all of this stopped.
Update, 16th October:
Today there was a 30-second long hearing at the Old Bailey where the Recorder of London appears to have set the date of 23rd October for a hearing in respect of “Robinson’s” alleged contempt of court. From the Guardian:
Judge Hilliard, the recorder of London, said at the hearing: “This is just to indicate that I’m not referring the matter of possible contempt of court by Mr Yaxley-Lennon to the attorney general for him to consider whether or not to institute proceedings. I will hear the matter myself on October 23 as ordered by the court of appeal.”
30 seconds is not very long to speak much more than that indicated above, and so this may be all the Recorder said in the matter. In that case, there was no imparting of any sense of relation to the “written submissions” by which Hilliard previously stated he would decide the need for a “substantive hearing”. We must wait to see what transpires.
