Published On: Fri, Mar 8th, 2019

“Robinson” shadow theatre bulletin: the interminable play that won’t be deterred by empty house, bored audience

Share This
Tags

Another day, another unfeasible escapade in the soap opera that is the politically intolerable “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex (the problem) versus the arbiters of the politically correct (the reaction) in modern Luciferian Britain (the solution).  There will be no apologies, dear FBEL reader, for writing about the “Tommy Robinson” character yet again, for it has been at the crux of a major operation to attempt to discredit Brexit – and it continues to be. The latest episode has seen “Robinson” allegedly appear at the home of ex-history teacher, now history writer (not that the former in any way qualifies one for the latter), and perhaps also sometime “journalist”, Mike Stuchbery, at two very unreasonable hours of the day, wanting to confront the inhabitant. Stuchbery claims two “doorstepping” incidents that took place at 11pm this past Monday night, and then at 5am the following morning, that caused distress to him and his family. “Robinson” appears to have live-streamed these visits on social media, so on the face of it, Stuchbery’s story is verified by the perpetrator in it.

Stuchbery’s firsthand account appeared in the Independent, and tells of “Robinson”, and perhaps other people who may or may not have been with him, appearing to kick on the front door, and banging on the windows. Subsequently, and according to Twitter, a good number of idiots who have succumbed to a behavioural programming paradigm where “Robinson”, of the patriotic, reactionary right, is in mortal combat with Stuchbery and others, of the right-on, treasonous left, have been up in arms – the latter group for obvious reasons (and we don’t have to be in that number to be reminded of the techniques of gangsters). On “Robinson’s” side, it is said that he was provoked by the manner in which papers connected to a law suit being brought against him were served; Stuchbery having been involved in the coming to fruition of this event in one way or another. It would be a fair assumption to make that there were none, amongst those who would have reflexively taken to Twitter to drop inanities (as do cows with pats) in the pastures of social media, who would have paused to think about the possibility of events being staged to trigger a lot of ruminants into unloading multitudinous stomachs and producing copious amounts of muck.

First of all, Stuchbery (who, it should be noted, appears to have a recent but not insubstantial history of left-right paradigm asserting internet spats with the likes of the preposterous Sargon of Akkad, and Paul Joseph Watson) said that police were called and attended his premises – but not in any timely fashion so as to apprehend “Robinson” in the midst of his acts of harassment. That’s convenient, isn’t it? Lizzie Dearden, a “journalist” for the Independent, who has evidently provoked the ire of “Robinson” in the past (such is the game), tweeted that Bedfordshire police had issued a statement:

We were called to reports of a man causing a disturbance outside a house in Luton at around 10:52 last night and again at around 5:21am this morning…

…Officers attended and we are now establishing the circumstances around both incidents so we can determine whether any offences have been committed.

However, no press release could be found on the internet when the author looked for it. Also providing cause for the author’s suspicion is how Stuchbery has since been tweeting to reduce expectations in his followers (and others who are taking notice) of police action against “Robinson” (hinting instead about having no alternative but to bring his own civil law suit). Amongst a number of Tweets rationalising the prospect of police not proceeding against “Robinson”, the following was quite fascinating:

That’s supposing he [“Robinson”] *is* arrested. Bedfordshire Police need to make a judgement call. Ideally, the law should be blind, but reality is, his arrest would have knock on effects. They need to evaluate possible consequences against the likelihood of a successful conviction.

It used to be that when a victim of a crime pressed charges against a known alleged perpetrator, police would attend on the accused to find reasonable suspicion to perform an arrest, and on doing so, take the suspect into custody in order to proceed with an investigation. Nowadays, apparently, the police decide that there hasn’t been a crime because some knuggledraggers would get angry on the internet. Or, perhaps, as may well be the case here, police have decided that there hasn’t been a crime because that would mean having to proceed in the manner set out immediately above – to the detriment of plans for “Tommy Robinson” whereby he becomes hindered at this crucial time, and unable to perform a role of chief saboteur of Brexit?

Now compare with the experience of real people. Not only has the author warned FBEL readers that police would pay them a visit if they ever took it upon themselves to try and interrogate individuals involved in the various staged-by-the-State false flags and hoaxes that are investigated hereabouts, but now he has actually had a report to confirm that it has always been a sound precautionary notice to issue to the readership. Details will not be gone into. There will only be a reiteration of the advice: approaching individuals, even by email or social media, who are up to their ears in state crime is something that is not going to be tolerated by the authorities (for fear of discovery). Use some common sense, but to avoid trumped-up harassment charges, just refrain. Reverting to general cases, it is true to say that there is a widespread perception these days that police will turn up at the drop of a hat and with collar-feeling-happy alacrity to put the heat on some none-too-bright purveyor of targeted nastiness on social media. And yet, apparently, “Robinson” will not, in any way, have to answer for trying to beat Stuchbery’s door down and broadcasting the act of doing so on live “television”.

Secondly, there is the matter of the circus surrounding the delivery of legal papers to “Robinson”. Although most FBEL readers will know that notice is deemed served when it is sent through the mail – with a signature at the destination helpful for demonstrating delivery – there’s nothing so simple involved in this case. Not only were members of corporate-media present for some part of the process that would lead to a gaggle of gloaters appearing in “Robinson’s” street, but police were also on hand to maintain the peace. “We never doxed ‘Robinson’, or arrived mob-handed at his address”, say the parties bringing the material, “we handed it to police to deliver”. Why? Usually, we might expect police to accompany bailiffs acting on the orders of a court, but delivering routine notices and information pertaining to a suit? Again, what’s up with the postman? As the reader might have appreciated, the author is not convinced that all is as we are being told. There is a distinct smell in this incident of a prologue to a main act: stage-setting for the “Robinson” reaction. But, nevertheless, invitation is made for readers to contact the author and explain how and why it only looks like “Tommy Robinson” is getting assistance from his so-called enemies in order to appear to be controversial and to tempt the shower of idiocy, that is that portion of the general public who might be so inclined, into becoming fully fledged knuckledragging following.

Compounding that which has thus far been compiled, was the announcement, yesterday, by the Attorney General that “Robinson” would face that long overdue retrial for that lingering contempt of court allegation that the Appeal Court ordered should take place many, many moons ago – fundamentally because of how “Robinson” may be liable to even more jail time than he has already served. The following is from the conclusion of the Court of Appeal hearing, and it is clear: “The rehearing will be conducted by the Recorder of London at the Central Criminal Court as soon as reasonably possible.”

Be that as it may, the state propaganda mouthpieces in the corporate-media would have their consumers believe that the Attorney General suddenly decided that it was a good idea to pick on “Robinson” afresh:

Geoffrey Cox concluded it was in the public interest to bring new proceedings against the anti-Islam activist, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, over a video he recorded outside a grooming trial at Leeds Crown Court.

In fact what is happening is a retrial: an old case, being ground out slowly, and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as anything else (and on a totally different level, there is the unhinged lying by the likes of InfoWars that needs a reader to have had a lobotomy to understand it as truth – see foot note)‡. But then, of course, the purpose of the dishonesty would be to give grist to the mill for the “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex to poke a lot of idiots into a reaction. With this in mind, the cherry on the icing on the cake must be the fact that the retrial will commence on 22nd March – a week before the day Britain is supposed to exit the EU. So, dear reader, take note: the Government has had a good many months to create a moment of truth for “Robinson” which could have prevented all the intervening provocateuring that he and his industrial complex has been perpetrating. We could have been spared #IAmSoldierX, and #Panodrama, and “Tommy Robinson’s” Brexit rally, and the leader of UKIP being reduced to “Robinson’s” warm-up act. But what it looks like, in fact, is that the Old Bailey, and then the Government stood down so that time was guaranteed for “Robinson” in which he could be active in a crucial period prior to Brexit. Moreover, after having stood down for 7 to 8 months in total, the British Government has executed an extraordinary piece of timing so that “Robinson” comes up against a prospect of going to jail on the verge of the Brexit that it has been trying so very hard to besmirch through the activity of its main man†.

Now it is true that the British Government is finding the Leave-voting public very much in support of foregoing any Article 50 deal with the EU, and therefore faces very limited scope to operate in terms of persuading then to accept a treaty, but if it thinks that more of the same, with rallies outside court houses inside which the actor who plays “Tommy Robinson” is giving a performance, will make any difference to what has already been an unmitigated failure, then it must have a trick up its sleeves – and in the future, the reader may well be being referred back to this sentence in a “look, we thought something like this would happen” piece of writing elicited by a “March Surprise”.

The one thing that should not come as a surprise is that nothing can come of “Tommy Robinson” that is organic. It is quite clear to the author that his support on social media must be wildly exaggerated because of the dismal showing at the rallies, of actual physical people, in support of him, and especially where he has made a personal appearance. This would be entirely consistent with the myth of the “surging far-right” that the likes of Hope Not Hate (and Stuchbery, evidently) will propagate, but for which there is no substantive proof for beyond astroturfed numbers on social media.  The author believes that promoting “Tommy Robinson” on social media may well have been a job for the 77th Brigade – because the entire operation, commencing with the original arrest provocation nearly a whole year ago, has been huge; maybe so big that it constitutes one of those infamous military psychological operations on an occupied civilian population that we’ve all read about. The concerted effort at the time was certainly something that was noticed hereabouts:

The command has obviously gone out. All of the major Alt-Right agitation-propagandists are singing furiously to the same hymn sheet – and they all struck up at exactly the same time

That is not to say that there are some people who organically support “Tommy Robinson”. For sure, there are some who are invested in a paradigm they have been served, ultimately by Government, for the purpose of divide and conquer, as an elaboration on top of News-at-Ten inculcation for sheeple that they can’t overcome. These people are convinced that Britain is about to become “Islamised”, and buy what “Tommy Robinson” is selling as salvation from this threat – even when he is clearly not actually in that line of work. Lest we forget, however (and thankfully, exemplars by their nature cannot help but remind us) , that “Islamised” is merely code for “arabised” – a term which reveals that the loathing has actually nothing to do with religion; a fact that is not news at FBEL, as this excerpt from a previous article demonstrates:

The truth is that some people just don’t like a brown chap. Grouping such individuals under the umbrella term “Muslim”, and believing that it is a characteristic of all Muslims to commit heinous crime, becomes a rationalisation which legitimises the hatred.

When dealing with obstinately particularistic objections that boil down to colour of skin, without appreciation (and wilful rejection of the same) that it is culture (that develops through experience), and the general adoption of it, that defines national character, it is useless to explain that Islam cannot “take over” Britain unless the British Government allows it to happen. Of course, the FBEL audience, agree with them or not, has lately been given access to the author’s thoughts on this in the article Orcs in the Shire: why the Establishment hates nuanced discussion of immigration and Islam, to which the only addendum that needs attaching is the one that will follow a pertinent extract from said article:

The single most problematic aspect of British wilful ignorance (because that is what it is) is the fear and loathing of Islam, which, after the British Government (in its broadest sense) perpetrated false flag terror and attributed it to the adherents of that religion, is used as the volatile substance to agitate to create social tension and fake problems that must be solved by heavy-handed government. We are seeing, right now, the use of the Islamic bogeyman, as Government mobilises “far-right” assets, infamous in their reaction to Islam (not least having been accused of fomenting (false flag) retaliatory terror attacks against Muslims), to smear Brexit as a racist project.

Moreover, the British Government is completely in control of the negative perception of Islam, having allowed and fostered the establishment and growth of particular interpretations of the religion within the UK for the express purpose of creating a source for controversy. What is more, Islam-hating Britons are never disabused of an imagined unified conglomerate hell-bent on taking over Western society, imposing sharia, while “dhimmi” government is too frightened to act to prevent it. This idea is 100% contrary to reality…

And so it becomes clear that government, with its monopoly of force, can stymie the Islamic tendency to exert a perceived supremacy if it so desires. Indeed, government can do the same against any political movement irrespective of any religion (or none) that it stems from. And if a government that principally rules by sharia can guarantee individual liberties from the worst of Islam, then there is no realistic prospect of sharia ever replacing the English common law as the basis of the British legal system, as many opponents of Islam imagine is going to happen. The only way it could happen is if the British Government institutes it (which would be much too much of a controversial thing to do).

Be that as it may, the British Government still goes so far as to create a strategy of tension by not suppressing those interpretations of Islam in a land where they are not civilisationally compatible – for instance, those out of Saudi Arabia; people have a natural reaction to the subsequent shattering of cultural unity, and this gives way to the perception of manifest danger to the social fabric, and to long-held traditions – to then be worked upon by agitators amongst the native population.

In fact, the reason why Britain will not become Islamised is because it is a Luciferian country: to wit, a Masonic hierarchy rules Britain, and its religion is Luciferianism, and other religions are merely tools of control or means to introduce tension as a engine for the production of power (any new reader at FBEL that has a problem with these assertions is invited to listen to Bill Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series for an essential introduction to research that the reader should perform for himself – see the link in the menu at the top of the site). Indeed, Islam would not be conducive for bringing about a full manifestation in Britain of Babylon – the technocratic ancient model that serves as an ideal to which there must be a return. The hermaphroditism (transgenderism) and spartanism (homosexuality induced through abuse of children) that Muslims in Britain are in the forefront of objecting to (see Parkfield Community School) come from Masonic ideas about the evolution of man from a spiritual entity (in turn related to ideas about evolutionary god-hood for the ruling class) and the maintenance of tightly controlled society. What the wilfully ignorant will not understand, while they yearn for “Tommy Robinson” to save them from an imagined scourge of brown people, is that they live in what we could term a Morlo(ck)cracy – which is a form of government whereby the ruling class, through a military intelligence apparatus for containment of the risk of threat, dictates reality to a child-like subject people, who are preyed upon as if they were cattle; a government that hides its terrible nature in plain sight and inflicts upon a captive population whatever can be got away with because the victim has been robbed of any understanding of its power to refuse to be robbed and murdered.

But don’t look at any of that, because “Tommy Robinson”, defender of the idea that supremacy is a symptom of skin colour, is in his latest spat with other Government assets.

 

 

‡ Reproduced here in full, as appeared on the InfoWars site, 6th March, is what appears to be a sensationalist and provocational  (as per Jones’  modus operandi) version of the notice-serving incident. Please see the FBEL article considering the Alex Jones operation in terms of Patcon and Cointelpro.

Minutes before Alex Jones went live on-air, Tommy Robinson called to alert him of ANTIFA members that were caught stalking Tommy and his family at their home.

Alex covers this encounter as well as a video of police secretly monitoring Robinson’s house.

Robinson caught UK law enforcement waiting outside of his home in an attempt to provoke violence as a setup to send him back to jail.

Tommy joined Alex to break down this globalist scheme to smear patriots and to share the exclusive video of his confrontation with police who are harassing his family.

 

† On the other hand, the trial of Salih Khater, the so-called terrorist who may or may not have knocked some cyclists of their bikes on the approaches to Parliament, has had his trial postponed from February to June. It appears that his showtrial is not to be overshadowed by Brexit.

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