Published On: Fri, Nov 30th, 2018

Absolutely no surprises as “Tommy Robinson” set to pied-pipe useful idiots into Brexit trap

Share This
Tags

When Patrick O’Flynn†, MEP, quit the UKIP the other day (joining William Dartmouth, Bill Etheridge and Jim Carverǂ), he cited the relationship between the leadership and the “Tommy Robinson” character played by Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon as the reason for his departure. He said:

Since Gerard Batten became UKIP leader I have tried to use my influence to persuade him to maintain his focus on Brexit and abandon an apparent and growing fixation with Tommy Robinson.

Recently the UKIP NEC came up with what I regarded as a common-sense decision in regard to the leader’s wish to waive a ban on former BNP and EDL members joining the party in respect of Mr Robinson. It decided to kick the issue into the long grass, beyond the deadline for Brexit being settled.

Had Gerard followed the spirit of this decision it would have enabled us to concentrate on making a broad offer to Brexit voters disillusioned by the betrayal of Brexit by establishment parties. That would have enabled us to pile real and meaningful pressure on those parties, especially the Conservatives.

Instead, at this vital stage of the battle for Brexit, he has done the opposite, appointing Robinson as his policy adviser and announcing a plan for UKIP to be centrally involved in a mass demonstration being planned by Robinson on the issue of Brexit. This is despite the last two street demonstrations attended by Gerard ending up with some demonstrators engaging in very ugly scenes.

Without any mandate from the membership or the party’s elected ruling body to go down this path, Gerard is transforming what UKIP stands for and offers to voters. Many longstanding party members have already left as a result.

Today I am joining them because I have reached the sorry conclusion that UKIP under its current direction and at this decisive moment has become an impediment to the Brexit campaigning that I have energetically pursued for many years.

The key question in British politics now is which party are millions of sensible, moderate Brexit voters betrayed by establishment parties but wishing no tie-up with Tommy Robinson supposed to vote for? The answer, alas, is clearly not UKIP.

There are two issues to discuss. The first is O’Flynn’s recognition of the same danger to Brexit that this site has been warning of throughout 2018 in respect of the National Action and “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyops. An integral part of the British Government’s attack on Brexit has been the ruination of UKIP through “far-right” infiltration, which the author has been warning of since the Anne Marie Waters leadership campaign (about which we’ll return to further down the page). The second issue is the violation that Batten perpetrated when he appointed “Robinson” as an advisor – and this is a very important point that confirms suspicions had here at FBEL regarding the fundamental purpose of the “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop (which is, conveniently, still flapping in the wind, unresolved, so that “Robinson” can be active at this time): to wit, it has been, all along, leading to an attempt to crucify, on the cross of an association with racists and extremists, the ambition of having the UK fully withdraw from the EU.

As O’Flynn points out, Batten’s appointment of “Tommy Robinson” to the position of advisor on Muslim grooming gangs and prison reform was evidently much more important than maintaining party unity. Indeed, the appointment is so bullheaded that it indicates that the decision to formally associate with “Robinson” comes from a place where there are no scruples about sacrificing UKIP for an agenda that is beneficial to the British Government. Note this well. Moreover, “Robinson” has been made a UKIP leadership attaché just in time for a “Brexit Betrayal” march in London – which is being attributed to his own strategic thinking: surely a tremendous joke, given “Tommy Robinson’s” sudden great interest in the matter. Of course, the implausibility of the scenario will never suggest itself to the great sea of the idiotic who are so keen to lend assistance to the Establishment’s efforts to irredeemably denigrate their cause.

O’Flynn mentioned that on the two occasions Batten attended a “Tommy Robinson” affiliated march, there was violence. Although these marches were in fact complete flops in terms of numbers, they were still salvageable for perception shaping so that large numbers on the streets in the name of “Tommy Robinson” could begin to have associations with acts of violence. Therefore, what does the reader imagine will happen on a “Tommy Robinson” Brexit march, on top of the easy ability of the corporate-media to brand the participants as being of the “far-right” on the back of the anti-“Mohammedanism” virulently spouted by both “Robinson” and indeed Batten? The author would not be surprised to see actual Roman salutes on the streets of London that day, but more probable will be provocateurs who aim to get entangled with police, for the purposes of allowing comparisons with brown-shirt thuggery to be made: for there are many waiting to frame any aggression as being perpetrated in the name of imposing an outcome in the crucial matter of future national political direction. And being able to see this miles off coming down the road, the following appeared at FBEL in July 2018, in the article National Action Series; Part Three: honey trapped, and tarred by the same brush:

There should be no surprise that a “far-right” taint of Brexit is the exact talking point that the Government now evidently wants to introduce into the public consciousness: “if you want Brexit, you must be some kind of neo-Nazi”, will become the common currency of EU talk.

This is exactly what is emerging, as evidenced by an article that appeared this week in the Guardian CiF, titled The far right is marching for Brexit. Will the left stand against it?:

The far-right activist Tommy Robinson will march on London under the banner of “Brexit Betrayal” on Sunday 9 December – just two days before the parliamentary vote on Theresa May’s deal. The demonstration represents the real-life, undeniable intersection of the Brexit project and the far right. The response of both the left and the anti-Brexit movement could define them for years to come…

We are living through a moment of encroaching darkness and nationalist resurgence – and many, both in the centre and on the left are, despite any electoral advances, in intellectual retreat. In this moment, there is no third way. Either we fight the rise of borders, flags, prejudice, nostalgia and rightwing populism, or we will be engulfed by them.

Brexit, then, is to be styled a left versus right issue, forcing people to pick a side according to a colour that they are asked to pledge allegiance to. Worse than that, the right is to be demonised so terribly (“encroaching darkness and nationalist resurgence” are allusions to Nazism) that moderate well-meaning people will have no choice but to come to the left – foreswearing Brexit if they once wanted it. This is the trap that “Tommy Robinson” represents. And it is quite clear to the author that “Robinson” was to be elevated into an important office in UKIP, one way or another, in time for a vote in Parliament on an Article 50 agreement with the EU; and that these exact circumstantial requirements are now in place at this time can only be due to Government planning (from whence Batten evidently takes his orders). And if the reader has not yet digested enough evidence of a great Government scheme, think about the realisticity of Batten’s appointment of “Robinson”.

First of all, how is “Robinson” going to advise on Muslim grooming gangs? Is he going to explain the nuanced social causes of the phenomenon so that Batten can be properly informed for policy making? Is he going to advise on prevention? How to overcome political conditioning (a subtle subject matter) to gain ability to prosecute? Or is it going to be a case of knowing that Muslim grooming gangs are just a feature of Islam – like terrorism – and triggering the paediatrician-paedophile-confusing, knee-jerk reacting charvers who can’t raise their own children properly? Will it be a measured approach, or a lot of $$$$-stirring to cause social tension? Expect the latter, since “Robinson” is in fact a talking-point fed wind-up provocateur possessing nothing approaching any kind of intellectual capacity to give advice for constructive policy. As for the prison reform, when the actor who plays the part of “Robinson” apparently spent time in jail recently, he complained that not having a TV was mental torture. No further comment is required. If anyone takes “Robinson’s” appointment as advisor to the leader of UKIP seriously, and doesn’t understand that Batten did it only to provoke, then they need to seek medical assistance because they might not actually have a brain in their skull cavity. Either that, or petition Batten to next appoint Ronald McDonald – another fictional character played by an actor in a permanent public role – as an advisor on hospital food, and big bright red shiny shoes.

Furthermore, none of this is actually about the intrinsic necessity of the “Tommy Robinson” character as hate figurehead per se, for there has always been, very clearly, an ambition to have a provocative personality involved in the leadership of UKIP in time for Brexit, or at the very least, a distinct blanket anti-Muslim tone in policy. When he quit as the party’s General Secretary in 2017, Jonathon Arnott‡ claimed that pressure was being put on the then-leader, Paul Nuttall, to take UKIP in the direction it has since travelled.

Arnott also said this:

We have fundamentally failed to make the distinction between the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, honest and good people, including those I am proud to call my friends, and the unutterable evil of the perversions of ISIS (Islamic State).

Tough and robust policies to tackle extremism are absolutely right. The victimisation or demonisation of Muslims and Islam is not.

The objective for those shaping the changes in UKIP was summed up in the June 2018 FBEL article UKIP (now with football fan street-politicking) and the “Tommy Robinson” psyop:

With the metamorphosis of UKIP into something startlingly different through the action of its leadership, we can now understand the attempt in 2017 to infiltrate the party with Anne Marie Waters. The Establishment evidently wanted a readily recognisable anti-Islam party to vocalise, and therefore amplify the message of the street politics that it had organised.

And in September 2017, at the very time Anne Marie Waters was attempting to become the leader of UKIP, the author wrote this:

This comes at a time, of course, when Labour have betrayed their anti-EU support – and where is that now supposed to go? To UKIP where it can be demonised, in all its whiteness, without hindrance?

(From the article More divide & conquer “right-wingery”: National Action illusion; UKIP’s AMW infiltration).

Over a year later, the prophecy is fulfilled: consider the following from Hope not Hate, in relation to O’Flynn’s resignation (with emphasis added):

A Hope Not Hate spokesman said: “Like rats from a sinking ship, the more ‘moderate’ voices are fleeing UKIP.

“Surely this should be a nail in the coffin for Gerard Batten and Stephen Lennon’s dream of leading any mass political movement, hemmed in as they are by Lennon’s criminal thuggishness and his supporters’ love of violence. Once the party of Brexit, UKIP is now hardly better than the BNP.”

As a matter of fact, the Government, of which Hope not Hate is an arm to promote awareness of the “far-right” (it can’t do it itself if it is banned or marginalised), would ideally like moderate voices to stay in the UKIP trap: this project is no longer just about destroying that party, it is also about having one large portion of the populace (that part which wants full withdrawal from the EU) in one place to more easily demonise their political ambition. In fact, Hope not Hate and others of its ilk would probably portray UKIP as having been devoid of moderate voices in the first place: look at the way the word is placed in speech marks above. The danger that UKIP represents, as being promoted by Hope not Hate, is that it is a ship, sinking or otherwise, that plays host to a populist multitude (“rats”) and is now piloted by overt racists – a resurgent BNP.

Of course, this leads us to back to O’Flynn’s question “[who are] moderate Brexit voters betrayed by establishment parties but wishing no tie-up with Tommy Robinson supposed to vote for?” The answer is none of them. To make Westminster implement Brexit, voters should have elected UKIP in the 2017 election. They didn’t, because they are perpetually dumb, and were frightened as they always are by bogeymen on either side of the fake political spectrum. It is too late for national party politics. Now it is the time for every British adult who realises the necessity of it to grow up and assert personal sovereignty, and insist on, and act in, primarily, the right to self-defence. This means not voting (except in local elections for local parties that people form for themselves, and definitely not for national parties), and it means not feeding the Government: both actions signalling a withdrawal of consent for those who govern against one’s best interests.

 

† In the author’s opinion (at least) O’Flynn is actually no angel in the long history of disruption to kill off UKIP – but that is for a whole other article.

ǂ  These three have also cited Batten’s steering of UKIP as cause – see here, here and here.

‡ Jonathon Arnott no longer appears to be a UKIP MEP – the author does not know when he quit the party. Tim Aker, another MEP with a problem with Batten, no longer sits as UKIP on the Thurrock council.

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>