Published On: Mon, Jan 28th, 2019

Of Integrity Initiative, the Soubry incident, the SRN, Brexit, and control of the message on the internet; Part Two

Share This
Tags

Back in December 2018, and completely out of the blue (as far as those who aren’t pushing a sinister political agenda are concerned), a Welsh MP called for the banning of the System Resistance Network (SRN). If the reader has blinked in the last 12 months, and missed the emergence of the SRN, then please read the FBEL article: The vilification of civil disobedience; Part Two: the System Resistance Network.

With the same stroke that reported this news, the BBC and the Daily Mail – the two national state-propaganda outlets that the author could discover to be retailing the story (here and here) – were working hard to establish connections between the SRN and National Action (NA) – connections which may or may not be real, although no serious evidence appears to exist by which any links can be made (except that the two are of the same “far-right” extremist/proto-terrorist genre). And both “organisations” are complete non-entities, of course; the SRN being so much so that casual association must be made with NA in order to make it more substantial than it is – obviously, this was the objective of the abovementioned reporting. That being said, National Action is a complete phantom menace (and a creation of Government to boot, showing signs, as it does, of having been cultivated in the British Army), which would make SRN a mist drifting off a puddle of urine on a cold night.

Indeed, it occurs to the author that National Action is so piffling, that any new FBEL reader may not have even heard of it, and if that be the case, please read the articles in the series produced on this site, as listed at the bottom of this page. By way of a brief introduction, National Action is a group that is banned by the British Government, and any sort of profile it has achieved has actually been through the jailing of membership for no other crime than being membership. Or, to put it another way, there have been a few cases of guilt by association, and it should be quite clear to a thinking human being that the group has been criminalised precisely in order to project an entirely bogus impression of a “far-right” threat into the consciousness of the British public. In other words, it is a Government psyop.

Stephen Doughty, MP for Cardiff South and Penarth (and seasoned campaigner, so it appears), is now calling for the SRN to be banned just like National Action is – and this is only to be expected in the Government’s scheme of promoting the “far-right” to stigmatise reasonable viewpoints of which these phantom menace organisations exist to represent as being extreme. For the disadvantage of criminalising NA is that it must frighten off useful idiots who would try and get involved if it wasn’t for the potential jail sentence. Moreover, as far as a wider public appreciation of National Action is concerned, it would strain the limits of credibility to see membership continue to go to jail for no apparent furtherance of the cause other than making National Action become a household name. Therefore, a new trap must be set.

The SRN are not a solid organisation to which any membership can be deduced, for the simple reason that thus far, it has been associated with only one man. Be that as it may, the BBC and the Mail refer to the SRN as “they”, as if it was legion. The “SRN man” (note the quotation marks) referred to is Austin Ross, who was jailed for a bit of hate-crime aggravated arson and graffiti in Newport, Wales. However, this one known instance of SRN-related anti-social behaviour was not mentioned in either the Mail or BBC articles – which is very odd given that the obvious point of these pieces was to build a case and provide justification for a call for a ban.

On the other hand, supporting material comes in the form of the retailing of a seemingly unresolved case of graffiti that occurred in Cardiff in March of 2018 ahead of an anti-racist march in that city. A 19 year-old man was eventually arrested and bailed (in September 2018) in relation to the incident, after which the case disappeared from the public record as constituted by corporate-media articles. However, back in March, the WalesOnline website claimed that the SRN, on social media, had admitted to the Cardiff graffiti, and it is this solitary allegation, dear reader, that forms the entire basis upon which the BBC and the Mail build the threat of the SRN. Serving as padding around this very minimal and bare set of bones is the story of a BBC Wales “investigative journalist” (who doesn’t get a name), who spoke to unnamed people on social media who, in turn, told him what he must do as, presumably, some kind of initiation for gaining trust with whomever he was communicating with. The BBC man was “asked to carry out acts on their behalf – putting up SRN posters at night and taking pictures of them to prove he had done it. He was also told to read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and other extremist literature.”

Presumably, the proofs were never realised, because the BBC would surely not allow its employees to commit the same acts that have had others arrested and jailed, and yet the claim is that a “BBC Wales Investigates undercover reporter gained first-hand experience of how SRN operates.” Indeed, the material that the BBC produces so that a reader can assume some real deep-cover infiltration has happened entirely suggests the opposite; in fact, it is quite superficial and what anyone with only a slight acquaintance with the notion of SRN (for it is no more than an idea), and who wanted to invent a story might be expected to come up with:

“They talk about smashing the establishment,” he [the ‘undercover man’] said.

“They want me to break the law – to get their name in the headlines – they don’t care who gets hurt.”

And so, although the extent of the BBC’s infiltration is evidently non-existent to meaningless, it finds that it can make the following pronouncement:

The group has been targeting Welsh communities to recruit members.

Naturally, no evidence is offered.

Because there is no evidence, the BBC article (from whence the Mail gleaned most of its content) actually mostly relies on guilt by association (supposedly) with NA:

One of National Action’s founders, Swansea-based Alex Davies, has been giving his support for the group [SRN] on Neo-Nazi radio station, Radio Aryan…

BBC Wales Investigates listened to Mr Davies on neo-Nazi station Radio Aryan, where he said he was encouraged by racist posters and graffiti daubed on walls in Cardiff earlier this year.

The first thing to point out is that Davies has never been charged of membership of NA. Secondly, that SRN were active in Cardiff is an entirely unproven allegation. The result is that none of this BBC reporting constitutes a factual representation of an intrinsic relation between NA and SRN. There is no other intention in it than to mislead readers – and of course, create awareness, which is why the BBC identified a “radio station” (in fact, an internet production with a ludicrously clownish appellation which is called a radio station to produce an impression of it having more reach and influence than it actually does) that, until it did so, must have been unheard of by the vast majority of the public who are routinely deceived by the Corporation.

In fact, this “radio station” and the appearance on it by Alex Davies is more significant to Government’s wider-reaching purpose because it represents one of the many little Rubicons over which free speech has impinged too far. The main intent, to be discovered at the heart of the conflation of the SRN with NA, is related to the policing of the internet – as the following BBC reporting demonstrates:

Stephen Doughty, MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, said SRN – like National Action – should be outlawed.

He also wants the police to investigate Radio Aryan and comments made on it by Alex Davies and Ben Raymond [another alleged founder of NA].

Ben Raymond denied any wrongdoing and declined to be interviewed. The programme [BBC Wales Investigates] also made repeated attempts to reach Alex Davies but he did not respond. They believe they have a right to their views and free speech.

“This is free speech that is too damaging for the rights of others,” said Mr Doughty.

“You cannot have liberty to impinge on the liberty of others and a lot of these organisations hide behind that when in reality they are allowing disgusting and hateful content to exist.

“It is also about the penalties for technology and internet companies that continue to host this content when it has been reported to the authorities.”

…followed by this…

Security Minister Ben Wallace said: “The government will not hesitate to proscribe any organisation that poses a threat and work is underway with tech companies to combat extremist propaganda online.”

He added that new proposals to combat the threat of online radicalisation are due to be published this winter.

To summarise, the “main event” constitutes the Government psyop, National Action, supposedly having been shown to be hiding under a new guise, SRN (to demonstrate that banning an organisation doesn’t deal with the “ideology”) is to be used to impress upon the public that internet providers should be made to crack down on producers of views that the Government deems to be extreme, or to put it in the Orwellian terms of Doughty, “free speech that is too damaging for the rights of others”. Note, this is not just about the big social media platforms – the two MPs featured in the BBC reporting are talking about “technology and internet companies”. The reader should also note that, ever so conveniently, appropriate legislation is being lined up at the same time as the supposed triggering events take place (the author has not checked to see what, if any of the promised “new proposals” has been published thus far into January). The reader should also pay particular attention to the particular words of Doughty, and think about the recent case of James Goddard and Anna Soubry, and the former’s consequent removal from PayPal and Facebook:

It is also about the penalties for technology and internet companies that continue to host this content when it has been reported to the authorities.

What this means is that internet service and media platform providers must abide by a certain set of principles (to be introduced here in a matter of moments), and that when they don’t, then they must be penalised through specific legislation. Doughty is talking about penalising internet companies for hosting content that the Government deems it doesn’t like. The way things are put, it sounds as if the offended public (who would be lodging the complaints – or “flagging” online content) is protecting those “rights of others”, but it is Government which sets the benchmark for offense, and therefore for crime, through its legislation – as we shall see.

Back to Goddard, very soon after the SRN/NA material appeared, his was a new case of a social media platform closing an account because of so-called violation of policies (which stem from those principles that are soon here to be discussed). Facebook released a statement:

We have removed James Goddard’s Facebook pages and groups for violating our policies on hate speech. We will not tolerate hate speech on Facebook which creates an environment of intimidation and which may provoke real-world violence.

Here was an example of a technology and internet company refusing to continue to host content when it supposedly overstepped certain bounds. So, Goddard’s case was wonderfully timely as a demonstration of the ideal scenario for “anti-hate” cooperation between Government and internet service providers: another reason to suspect him and his Soubry run-in as an engineered incident. In fact, the operation certainly did re-rehearse a method that we have noticed and discussed before at FBEL for making the public associate an infringement on a social media platform with a real crime – as a way of making it appear as if the big social media platforms are the arbiters of what is permitted expression. Goddard was arrested by police “on suspicion of public order offences committed on 7 January” that were transmitted online. In the dimension of cyberspace this kind of stuff is a mere peccadillo, but when the police get involved, then it creates and reinforces the impression of a more serious infraction.

Now, as has been pointed out hereabouts before, a social media platform removing a user is not, in itself, an attack on free speech. However, it does – and it is designed to – give the impression that there are no other avenues for free expression online, especially with the assistance of police getting involved in an incident. We can expect to see this “colour of law” definition of internet space, and freedom within it, become the predominant perception in the public, because the British Government is very concerned about what truly independent internet content producers are doing to damage the survival of the “rules-based international order”, by which is meant the New World Order. This has been revealed in the House of Lords Select Committee on International Relations’ publication, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order (pdf).

Summarising the issue best is a piece of evidence cited in the paper:

One senior [US] official expressed concern that a significant minority of Western citizens was increasingly believing in conspiracy theories about their own governments and adversaries, which affected the Administration’s ability to achieve broad public support for aspects of its foreign policy.

The Lords’ Committee, speaking for the British Government, expresses the concern this way:

We conclude that new technologies, particularly relatively low cost cyber capabilities, have created an asymmetrical shift in the balance of security considerations. The nature of defence and security threats mean that significant harm can be done to a nation without the use of traditional weaponry. Digital communications tools have also intensified public pressure on governments, and increased the audience for foreign policy making.

The reader needs to understand that foreign policy is all important to the self-anointed Wizard/Morlock/Spartan parasite Anglo-globalist class that rules the West, for it relies on smothering competition (the first main victim was the English-speaking middle class) and turning widespread capitalist real wealth into socially democratic poverty. If it cannot control the whole of the system, then it will be out-competed; it is a class with a fundamental belief in Darwinism, but it is mortified by a realisation that on a level playing field, it doesn’t have the capacity to survive. And so what this particular portion of the House of Lords’ Committee document signifies is an expression of remorse, frustration and anger that government-by-deception for the purpose of tipping the scales, and the means by which the ultimate ambition of British foreign policy, war, can be waged, is being seriously undermined by not having full control of the internet.

Now we get to the key information. The Lords’ publication recommends a number of principles supposedly coined by ex-Tory leader, William Hague (if that is who “Lord Hague” refers to), in 2011 for “underpin[ning] future international norms about the use of cyberspace”. Two of these are as follows:

The need for users of cyberspace to show tolerance and respect for diversity of language, culture and ideas;

The need for us all to work collectively to tackle the threat from criminals acting online;

These principles are what have been termed “behavioural norms in cyberspace”; note that the first is the old method for controlling speech by prioritising hurt feelings, and the second applies more to the subject of this article. Remember the words of Ben Wallace: “The government will not hesitate to proscribe any organisation that poses a threat and work is underway with tech companies to combat extremist propaganda online”. The case of National Action is proof for what Government is planning to do. Anyone who is declared a criminal by the Government – any idea that is deemed politically incorrect – must be “tackled”, meaning purged from the internet. The author believes that for “internet” we must read social media platforms which are regularly supposed to be the entire internet, for the Government will get itself into very sticky territory (at the moment) if it tries to criminalise companies that host mom-and-pop media sites. But then, it doesn’t have to go after these companies if big social media is the major traffic driver on the internet, and independent media is banned from using that.

There should be no doubt that all that is described here will come to pass because of the degree of the concern expressed in the Lords’ Committee document about the impact that truth telling media has on all-important British foreign policy (emphasis added):

 The active engagement of technology companies in establishing behavioural norms in cyberspace, and in any potential enforcement of those norms, will be crucial. The Government should seek better to engage technology companies and international partners in developing rules on cyber security and governance, and solving the challenge of attribution.

When we read this, we hear an echo of the words of Stephen Doughty, and we must realise that the NA/SRN psyop is all part of a Government design to implement full control of the internet. “The challenge of attribution”, if the reader is wondering, appears to be about deciding if an internet content producer (or a “private actor”) is a shill for a government – and the concept throws up another avenue by which Government may be able to go after that mom-and-pop service provider and content producer: by deeming it to be hosting an agent of a foreign state. The Lords’ Select Committee publication talks about making international treaty on “cyber security”, and as experience tells us, international treaty is stuff that the “rules-based-order” can break at the drop of a hat, but that always applies to its enemies. In short, it doesn’t take too much imagination to predict a situation where individuals in Britain are accused of being shills for certain countries who won’t sign up to the global compact (or will, and get accused of breaching it for their trouble), and thus a pretext is created to “tackle” independent content producers.

Remember, that a culture has already been created in policing the internet whereby there isn’t a necessity for an open and fair process by which to establish guilt: there is only an expectation that a punishment be exacted upon the reporting of a supposed infraction. On social media platforms, the false witness rules supreme. And the use of a marginalised minority as a pretext for broader scope of penalisation is always straight out of the text book for tyranny.

Incidentally, and ironically, it is Government alone that is at total “liberty to impinge on the liberty of others” – so all of this needs to be turned around. “We the people” should penalise media – internet, television, real radio and all – which hosts content that we decide is dangerous for our rights (meaning most to all of it) – and yet the sad truth of the matter is that while very many are aware of this duty, very few act on it. Perversely, such people will pay copious amounts to the media producers who help to enslave them, and take the material, of those who would have them be free, for nothing in return. It is behaviour that is ultimately going to realise a solidified total authoritarianism, and it will be regretted.

 

Of Integrity Initiative, the Soubry incident, the SRN, Brexit, and control of the message on the internet; Part One (link)

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

National Action series; Part Two: the Army and the “Midlands” Five (link)

National Action Series; Part Three: honey trapped, and tarred by the same brush (link)

National Action series; Part Four: more Army connections, confirmed and suspected (link)

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

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>