EU elections candidate asks: Why is Farage all over the airwaves while my party is ignored?; answer: the Brexit Party is an operation

Of course, the huge irony of Nigel Farage “angrily lashing out” or “launching into a rant” or “melting down” – or however anyone would like to characterise his performance – on a BBC Sunday morning politics television show is that, by rights, the choir that he would be preaching to should not have been watching.

Let’s put it this way: anyone who voted Leave, and still has a TV licence in these days of “EU membership by fiat” (the term is explained here), is part of the problem. If you voted Leave, reader, and you are not engaged in the easiest form of civil disobedience available to you, and you have not been provoked to it by Britain’s not leaving the EU on 29th March as it should have, then you are part of the problem. In fact, it is so certain that your reading this article will have no effect in any way upon the creation of any solution that you should stop right now, close this site down in your browser, and never return here. Alternative media is replete with learned-helplessness merchants who will facilitate a fantasy whereby your consuming the material is all you need to do. In fact, the biggest UK alternative media is right up your alley in this respect, so off you go.

If the reader hasn’t heard, Nigel Farage [leader of the Brexit Party] appeared on a television show hosted by a character who goes by the name of Marr – apparently he is quite popular with Muggles when it comes to that requirement they have regarding the arrangement of their thoughts about politics by the authoritative voice. The Daily Mail provided a transcript of an exchange between the interviewer and interviewee – except what transpired wasn’t really an interview. Rather than address what Farage thought was the pressing issue, Marr pestered his guest with references to previous occasions when the latter had expressed what would be a controversial opinion in the context of the tolerated “rules based order” consensus (see here for an explanation of terms).

For instance, Farage had admired Putin (invoking the whole Russia-meddling psyop); he had suggested a simultaneous scheme of private health care (insinuating that he had disparaged the beloved National Health Service); he had made remarks bemoaning the extent to which English was being replaced by foreign languages in day-to-day situations: on trains in this particular case (indicating that he was a racist); and he had denied climate change (making him an appalling criminal on a par with a Holocaust™ denier). A brief extract from that Daily Mail transcript gives a more than adequate flavour of the whole exchange:

Farage: … Do you want to discuss these european elections or not?

Marr: Yes I certainly do but…

Farage: Go on then. Go on then, lets’ try.

Marr: Do you still believe that worrying about global warming is ‘the stupidest thing in human history’?

Farage: I believe that if we decided, this country, to tax ourselves to the hilt, to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work in the manufacturing industries, given that we produce less than two per cent of global CO2, that isn’t terribly intelligent. But as I say: here we are, with one of the biggest changes in politics that has ever occurred…

Marr: Okay…

Farage: … and you’re not even interested?

Marr: Do you still…

Farage: What’s wrong with the BBC?

Marr: Do you still want to…

Farage: What is wrong with the BBC?

Marr: Do you still want to roll back gun controls and reintroduce hand guns in this country?

Farage: What is wrong … This sums it up. Do you know, I’ve been going around the country, speaking at packed rallies every night, and do you know who’s not there? The BBC. And from this line of questioning now I can see why.

The reader will not be surprised to discover that at no point does Farage respond in a way that actually threatens to challenge the paradigm by which Marr and the BBC wants his and its viewers to be contained. For instance, Farage was made to admit that “I don’t like him [Putin] as a human being” in association with remarks from Marr so that overall Russian involvement in Syria was presented as a negative thing (which it is from the viewpoint of the “rules based order”). A paradigm-smashing response would have been to assert British support of al-Qaeda as the basis for the BBC’s anti-Russianism, and propose that, in the light of Russia being on the “right side of history” in Syria, admiration of Putin would not be unreasonable. Above all else, while he was complaining about the BBC, Farage did not simply put it to the audience that the corporation was a problem, in itself with regards Brexit, to be overcome by non-payment of the licence.

Of course, Farage was not appealing to any audience that would know about man-made global warming as an invented device for creating the appearance of a common enemy against which the globe can come together under unified government of the “wise”: i.e., the worldwide, Luciferian, Masonic, socialist, “Babylonian” technocracy†, the attainment of which, as any FBEL reader should know, has long been the motivation of British Government. Farage was not trying to break down the paradigm where scorning such a thing as a carbon footprint equated to being evil, and he wasn’t trying to overcome the groupthink to teach that taxes and “sustainability” in the name of global warming actually came from a desire of the would-be world government to deliberately attack productivity and destroy competition to its global corporate dominance. Likewise, the role of the Brexit Party isn’t to create a situation in British politics where Government becomes pressured to morph into that servant of the people that it should be; rather it is meant as a temporary pasture on which the sheeple can gnaw until the grass grows back to cover the nefariousness of the Tory party (and to a lesser extent, the Labour party) as exposed by unfavourable handling of Brexit. The Brexit Party is primarily for preventing people who would have voted Tory in the EU elections, but who could not bring themselves to do it, from totally abandoning the exercise: for encouraging turnout when there should be none. What viewers of the Marr show saw was theatre for triggering a dumb reaction to this end in people who don’t know how the world works – and this is nothing new coming out of the illusion-generator at the hub of British Government’s “rule-by-deception”, even if people were seeing Farage behave differently than he may have ever previously done.

On the contrary, the reader of FBEL articles should be one who can accept proposals for schemes of reality that are not constrained by the “rules based order” consensus paradigm, and therefore will give fair consideration to the idea that, for quite the while now, Farage has been a character worthy of suspicion as being controlled opposition. Admittedly, the author has given Farage the benefit of the doubt – like when his meeting with Rupert Murdoch ultimately led to the Carswell versus Breitbart split in UKIP: “Farage had been played, rather than had intentionally run anti-UKIP disruption”, was the opinion of yours truly in 2017.

However, at the same time there was concern at the serene composure Farage always maintained regarding the all-too evident cheating that had prevented him from winning the Thanet South seat in the 2015 General Election. A commenter below one of the FBEL articles on this subject asked “Has NF been sent a copy of your investigation?” An answer has never been offered because somehow, at the bottom of a gut feeling, it was understood that Farage knew very well that he had been cheated, and that it didn’t matter.

Perhaps the most infamous moment in his career as controlled opposition – up until now, that is – was on the night of the EU Referendum when he appeared to give grist to the mill of what was quite clearly a psychological operation. Sky News said it had an exit poll, although it had no such thing because no such polling had been carried out that day, and on the closing of the polling stations, promptly declared that Remain had won. Moreover, Farage conceded defeat immediately and Sky exploited the concession in conjunction with its declaration. The author was watching comments on Breitbart, which indicated that there was instant demoralisation in reaction to this presentation. Farage was absolutely instrumental in the establishment of an expectation in the public that the Leave side would lose.

The author suspects that the actual result of that referendum can be explained by Government oversight and voter precaution. Firstly, the cheating that had been thought required to realise Sky’s “exit poll” prediction had not been enough, and a realisation that more was needed came too late in the day to make it happen. Secondly, people took pens to the polling stations, and large amounts of crosses on ballot papers placed in the Leave box were rendered beyond being erased by corrupt council staff. The fact that corporate-media broke into its normal services during the day in order to ridicule those who were turning up with a pen to vote was a sure fire indication that Government didn’t want people to do it.

What finally sealed the author’s conviction that there had been an attempt to rig the referendum result was the change in the demeanour of Sky News personnel who were presenting the station’s coverage. Early cockiness soon evaporated when it occurred to the resident polling expert that levels of support for Leave, indicated by the earliest results, would be bigger than expected across the country. The author clearly remembers the nervousness of Adam Boulton and pollster company chums (all of whom, in a proper country, would have been thoroughly discredited) as it became clear to them that the rudder of the ship of reality was not connected to the wheel of narrative that they were frantically pulling on. If things had gone the way that Boulton et al clearly thought they should, then Farage would have been crucial in managing the expectation of a Remain win.

An FBEL article recently asked the question would the Government make a disastrous decision to produce a worse-than-could-be-previously-tolerated Fake Brexit by engineering an Article 50 treaty out of a collaborative effort between Labour and the Tories, or would it press ahead with the EU elections in an attempt to catch the country in a potential European jurisdiction trap. The said article noted that whatever happened, the continuing promotion of Farage and his Brexit Party was assured because if the Government took the cross-party compromise route, it would risk the survival of the false left-right spectrum and would need fresh bait by which to entice voters back into a remodelled, but essentially the same electoral paradigm for control as existed before.

Farage’s Marr appearance was more of the same relentless promotion. Needless to say, Farage also appeared on BBC’s Question Time programme on the Thursday night ahead of his Sunday morning outing – where, naturally, he was pitched against Anna Soubry, the once Tory, now pro-Remain Change UK party MP, who was involved in the anti-Brexit psyop featuring the “leader of the UK Yellow Jackets” – as dealt with at FBEL in the article Of Integrity Initiative, the Soubry incident, the SRN, Brexit, and control of the message on the internet; Part One. It was a case, then, of one operative arguing against another to trigger conditioned responses in the audience. Indeed, such has been Farage’s omnipresence in corporate-media that it has caused Catherine Mayer, a candidate from a little known political party, Women’s Equality, to write an opinion piece at the Guardian to ask the question: “Why is Nigel Farage all over the airwaves while my party barely gets a look-in?” The answer, of course, is that Farage is a Government operation.

The promotion of Farage in opinion polls has also continued, with two new surveys predicting a result for the Brexit Party that the Mail would characterise as being “a thumping win at the European elections” (see the article linked to above). However, as always, things are not what they seem.

The raw data for an Opinium poll (fieldwork performed 8th May) shows that its headline figures, which puts the Brexit Party firmly in the lead on 34%, are compiled from a fraction of the overall respondents. In the poll’s raw data, 58% of respondents are in a category that “definitely WILL vote”, and it is this category alone that is used to derive the headline. Therefore, in actuality, Opinium found that only 18% of its respondents will definitely vote and do so for the Brexit Party. Of course, this means that support for other parties is also wildly overstated.

In the raw data of a YouGov poll, with the fieldwork performed over the 8th and 9th May, 22% of respondents said that they will vote for the Brexit Party. In second place  is “Don’t know” with 17%, and in third is “Would not vote” with 15% (Labour has 11%, the Lib Dems, 9%, and the Tories 7%). In the headline figures, after the usual manipulation has been performed, the Brexit Party – once again firmly in the lead – has 34% of the vote.

We should notice the exact same final figure across the two opinion polling companies for the Brexit Party and wonder if it ever could be the case that there has been some conferring in order for the one opinion poll to seemingly reinforce the other. We should also notice that from a YouGov poll conducted on 23rd and 24th April (which was written of at FBEL in the article linked to above), the “Would not vote” figure has remained steady in the new poll. This is very encouraging indeed‡. It is also interesting to see that a lot less people were asked to take part in the new YouGov poll than were in the previous poll – about 50% less, in fact. Naturally, this practice, if effectively targeted, potentially eradicates a weight of particular opinion from one poll to another, and thus concentrates and overstates other opinion. This could explain yet another apparent and this time substantial 4 percentage point gain in the raw data for the Brexit Party. Such are the tricks to deceive.

‡ Update; 17th May: YouGov’s newest poll, fieldwork 12th-16th, using a pool of just over 7000 respondents (roughly thrice the number used for the poll collated over the 8th and 9th), is even more encouraging: 16% of respondents say that they would not vote. This puts that response category into joint second with “don’t know”.

In the raw data, the Brexit Party leads with 23%. All the other parties are so far behind that the author wonders if YouGov has skewed its survey to target Leave voters in order to engineer a big response for the Brexit Party operation.

Of course, the turnout of the EU elections is not going to be 84%. It is probably not even going to be half of that. So the actual share of vote, in reality, for the Brexit Party is even less than it is seen to be in YouGov’s raw figures. Breitbart may well talk about “35 per cent of the public vote” to mislead its gullible audience into an impression that over a third of people are about to vote for Farage’s gang in the EU elections, but this is for generating involvement in the European elections when there should be none; i.e. deceiving people.

† As a point of interest, the reader should watch the film “Network”, and notice that, in the speech delivered by Mr Jensen to Howard Beale, a man we are supposed to stereotypically understand as the ultimate hard-nosed capitalist in fact preaches socialism as the corporatist objective:

And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality — one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

As the author will never tire of pointing out, capitalism is everyone working for themselves, while socialism is everyone as capital that belongs to a very few. [In fact, this footnote will be developed into a full criticism of “Network” in the near future].