Published On: Tue, Feb 12th, 2019

Taking down the BBC: another “Tommy Robinson” psyop gets essential help from the Establishment enemy?

The people who pull the strings of the actor who plays “Tommy Robinson” have had their marionette jigging around and leaping about on the set where a BBC television crew were due to interview him. With a trail of failed attempts behind him, all featuring the “Establishment” as bad guy and all clearly intended to provoke the public to take to the streets in bouts of disorder to be blamed on Brexit, “Robinson” is now taking on yet another institution – ultimately to provoke the public to take to the streets. “Robinson” is nothing if he is not predictable. Later in February there is to be a “takedown” of the official state broadcaster when “Tommy Robinson” screens, to an evidently hoped-for throng assembled outside the corporation’s Salford offices, an exposé of the bad BBC journalistic practices employed to create a “hit-piece” on him – or at least, this is what many a Twitter idiot believes after “Robinson” posted two clips to YouTube of  confrontations between him and BBC “journalist”, John Sweeney, and also producers of the BBC programme, Panorama.

Sweeney and the BBC were accused of being all sorts of things in the “promotional material”, but the most significant for the operation was that of being “classist elite”, because the “Robinson” industrial complex is evidently getting into the business of Class War, and is apparently hoping to exploit the cultural alienation that exists between the Metropolitan, “Notting Hill”, BBC-staffing, Guardian-reading type, and “Robinson’s” “white working class” following. “Robinson” used an appointment with a Panorama production unit to confront Sweeney with secretly filmed footage in which he demonstrated – as “Robinson” would have it – Sweeney’s loathing of that sort of people who are so often euphemised these days as “having been abandoned by Labour”; an apt descriptor for the particular demographic, as will be seen. The details of this meeting between the BBC and “Robinson” will be discussed momentarily, but first the issue of the contention that arose during its course needs to be dealt with.

The reader should appreciate that when he has called “Robinson’s” following “idiotic”, either in this piece or any place else that the term (or something similar) has been freely and unapologetically applied in the pages of FBEL, the author has committed a far worse offense than anything John Sweeney has been accused of. Moreover, the author does not even attempt to claim that he has been misunderstood or misrepresented – as Sweeney appears to start to do in one of “Robinson’s” clips. However, there is a slight qualification to make: saying that “Robinson’s” following on Twitter are idiots is not to insult them, but to criticise. Moreover, it is a criticism that is levelled at the wider and vast British underclass – not the working class, please notice, which, in its properly defined form (whereby it has middle class aspirations, and as such can read a book), is arguably very nearly disappeared entirely. The target of the author’s reprobation, as a result of his bitter disappointment for them, is the underclass, which is entirely dumbed-down [and reliant on visual-heavy data and pictures for information] and therefore extremely easy prey for both “Robinson” and state media producers alike.

The reader should understand that part of the social engineering that brought about widespread intellect-lacking cretinism in the British underclass also taught that hard-edged criticism of that or any other deficiency was to be ignored as being the fault of the critic: such is the inevitable result of the philosophy of the Constructivist British educational system involving the inner-knowledge possessing, authoritative-mentor-less child-oriented viewpoint. Such conditioning would necessarily lead to a life without critical thought for all strata of society subjected to it, but particularly those who would never come near the least bit of encouragement to it by thinking adults, and whose lifestyle for easy control by Government could be introduced by smiley-faced television presenters and Jerry Springer style “conflict-resolution” programming. Meanwhile, the critics of new social practices and norms, with the unscrupulous leading of the great unwashed-and-unconscious into partaking of them – people who would come across as “moralists” – could be scorned for wanting to deny a right to be incontinent.

What John Sweeney did, if it truly is him speaking in the recordings covertly acquired by the “Robinson” industrial complex, when he referred to an encounter with a white working class male at the BBC as if coming across a “cannibal from Amazonia”, was comment on the BBC’s alienation from that particular demographic. If the followers of “Tommy Robinson” were not stupid, they would understand that the analogy, from Sweeney’s point of view, is probably apposite, given that Amazonian tribes are renowned for being isolated from civilisation, and their cannibalism a resultant and indicative feature of this isolation. Sweeney (again, if it truly is him doing it) also appears to comment on the failure of the Labour party to communicate with the same demographic. While it is hard to see Sweeney’s point (the footage may have been edited to that purpose), the author’s objective opinion is that Sweeney could be noting that there can’t be communication when the target class is inexpressive and unresponsive to language or the way it is offered. Sweeney either demonstrates this disconnect by using an expletive, or inserts the swear word into his sentence in reaction to something unrelated to his topic. “Robinson’s” apparent problem with this is that Sweeney appears to be saying that the white working class’s vocabulary does not extend beyond the particular curse word.

If all this is real – which is an important proviso – the worst one can probably say about this incident as a so-called exposé is that Sweeney has been discovered as a typical man of his station as far as the classes are configured in the UK today. Arguably, he is a victim of the social engineering too. “Robinson”, on the other hand, is playing the part of the guardian of the right to be incontinent – the defender against a criticism of what he calls the “white working class”; although this is not what Sweeney does outright, because, being a conditioned victim too, he probably understands that plain criticism is just not permitted – whereupon whining about the situation must be resorted to. This is the way of the new order in British engineered society.

On the other hand, if this entire incident is a set-up between “Robinson” and the BBC in order to create social tension, Sweeney might have deliberately loaded his comments in order to be construed as being offensive. That things are definitely not as straight forward as they might appear probably explains why Breitbart reported the story with the following guarded headline: “Top BBC Journalist Allegedly Likens Working Class Men to ‘Amazonia Cannibals’ In Undercover Footage”.

However, it can be said with certainty, whatever the truth of the matter, that “Robinson” isn’t interested in explaining how society has been engineered so that all the factors exist whereby he can exploit Sweeney’s perspective to trigger his easily triggered following. And that, dear reader, is why “Robinson” is a $$$$-stirrer – or, an agent provocateur who is exceedingly well remunerated.

Now, the reader will notice that the idea has been introduced that this spat between the BBC and “Robinson” is not organic. The reason for this suspicion quite easily constructs itself while viewing the two clips that apparently originate with “Robinson”, but yet signal that one of them – the most crucial – might have actually been produced by the BBC. In this, what we’ll call the first clip (although it’s not known in what order they were uploaded to the internet), “Robinson” is seated opposite Sweeney as though they were conducting an interview. TV unit lighting is erected along a wall in the background, and it must inevitably occur to the critically thinking viewer that the two cameras that are capturing “Robinson’s” material are in fact the machines by which the BBC would have recorded their interview, (it should be pointed out that information is revealed in the second clip that tells the viewer that “Robinson” has been invited to the venue where this confrontation takes place in order to take part in an interview – obviously to be recorded for a television programme).

One of the cameras has Sweeney in frame, while the other has “Robinson”, and both shots appear to be steady and therefore indicating that cameras are attached to some kind of arrangement to make them so. In other words, they are not hand-held. The pictures that these two cameras produce are TV-quality in their definition. There are no other cameras visible in either of the two shots produced. Suspicion is inevitably further aroused when one notices that “Robinson” doesn’t only shout Sweeney down, his audio levels are higher. Where “Robinson’s” accusatory tone is distinct, Sweeney’s defence comes across as mumbling and difficult to hear. Potentially, this is achieved by mixing levels through separate microphones – something that the professional BBC unit would have had set up by necessity. It is not understood, but doubted, if “Robinson” would have taken his own equipment to a BBC gig in order to achieve the same production values – indeed, who it was filming “Robinson” remains a mystery into the second clip. As far as audio goes, could it be that an individual wearing headphones and visible in shot, monitoring and adjusting a piece of equipment, is the BBC unit’s sound recordist? Could he possibly be a tell for the more alert viewer?

The second clip shows “Robinson” on his way out of the venue – a bar that has obviously been set aside for the interview. Standing by the door, he berates someone we might assume is a Panorama producer, also along with Sweeney. The scene is being filmed on a hand-held camera – the quality is noticeably poorer than in the first clip. While an exchange between “Robinson” and the two BBC men continues, another cameraman carrying and filming with a hand-held device comes into view. Both are filming from behind Sweeney, who stands with “Robinson” in front of him and on the other side of a row of chairs. Interestingly, both cameras stay in the bar filming “Robinson”, now dressed in a coat and for the outdoors, as he leaves through a glass door, and strides off into an adjacent courtyard heading for an exit presumably onto a street. The question occurs to the discerning viewer: which cameraman of the two is “Robinson’s”, and why hasn’t the fellow left with him? One can’t help but to begin to wonder how, in such circumstances, does the footage find itself on YouTube claiming to be of “Robinson’s” making?

There is one more puzzling detail to deal with – and it means returning to the first clip. We are better armed to understand it now that we are guessing [or rather, allowing] that “Robinson” [must have] brought at least one hand-held camera with him. As part of his confrontation with Sweeney, “Robinson” has someone play the clandestinely obtained material, and the thinking viewer can’t help but wonder how this is achieved. Is “Robinson’s” cameraman – and we must assume he has one as a companion – playing it back through his device? A phone, or perhaps a camera? In the case of the latter, this is one machine that is not recording the actual exchange between “Robinson” and Sweeney – meaning that “Robinson” would have had to bring a three-camera crew with him. Or could it be, given that “Robinson” left without so much as a microphone stand under his arm, that the BBC unit had kindly rigged up some of their own equipment so that Sweeney could observe his putting his foot in his mouth at “Robinson’s” behest: “let me play the next bit for you”, he says, like a TV chat show host wannabe – if such things were bullying thugs.

Breitbart reports that “Robinson” will release video clips every 72 hours, commencing the evening of the 12th February, until the showing of the entire documentary from whence the clips came in that previously mentioned screening in the streets of Salford (Breitbart reports it as Manchester, but the BBC offices are in fact in Salford). Maybe, in the course of this click-baiting, something will be revealed to excuse a viewer of the first two clips for thinking they were produced with the assistance of the BBC. While it’s not difficult to understand why the BBC would not be against cooperation with him, in the end, of course, it doesn’t matter if “Robinson” turned up at the venue of his interview alongside Michael Winner, for instance, one to remake “Death Wish”, the other to critique the beef bourguignon. What matters is that at the end of the process, “Robinson” will have triggered a lot of useful idiots into getting angry, and then be angry in the streets. This is why his psyop-mongering needs to be exposed and the people who would be exploited need to realise that they can do so much better for themselves.


Update, 13/02/19

The “Robinson” industrial complex has released a new piece of the supposed undercover footage, and for the first time it enables a viewer to understand that the BBC may well have been involved in the production of this footage too. The perspective appears to suggest that the operator of any hidden camera is a member of Sweeney’s party. Is it more evidence that the BBC produced the material for what is in fact elaborate theatre, manufactured by Government, for the purpose of agitating the public to street protest? The image is from Breitbart’s coverage.


It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image