Brexit Party (versus the Lib Dems) as new device in continuing project to obtain Fake Brexit

After the European vote, there is talk of the Brexit Party being capable of pulling off a coup in a general election, but we have been here before. In 2014, UKIP sent a lot of credible people (on the surface) to an EU parliament which would act as a platform for an increased profile in British politics. Great things were indeed expected – and it all came to nothing. Of course, the Brexit Party has one advantage over UKIP in that it is Government appointed controlled opposition, and so its fate depends on the choices made by the hierarchy above it; UKIP, of course, being more of an organic entity, could and did fall foul to infiltration and disruption, with party membership being set against each other in one bout of infighting after another. There’s probably never been a more elegant example of problem-reaction-solution, with Batten, in all his destructiveness, coming in at the end to strike the death blow. And while some say that UKIP, at its source, had also been set up by Government (possibly a safety valve to prevent the growth of the much-feared real grass roots movement), the enormous effort to shut it down speaks of it having escaped from a tether at some point in its history so as to become a fearfully big thing that Government couldn’t lead around.

In any case, there is some fanciful talk about the Tories being wiped out at the next general election if the Brexit Party repeats its European election performance – and while it is quite feasible that Government could arrange this to happen as an evolution of its magic show at the centre of its control grid that is Westminster,  the numbers suggest it wouldn’t happen organically. In a post-EU election Lord Ashcroft opinion poll of 1000 respondents (cited by Breitbart), it was discovered that “52 per cent of those who voted Tory in the last General Election and who switched to the Brexit Party [in the EU election] would stay with the Brexit Party in the next national parliamentary vote”. The same opinion poll also reveals that two-thirds of the Brexit Party’s vote came from 2017 Tories – which is about 3 and a half million (given that the Brexit Party attracted 5,248,533 votes in total [that’s right, folks, it’s not the first time a UK election has been won by a tiny minority]). And so, this all means that just 1,819,491 Tories would vote for the Brexit Party in the next general election – bear in mind that the Tories garnered 13,636,684 votes in 2017. And yet, the Ashcroft poll somehow predicts that in the event of a general election, the Brexit Party would share joint second place with the Tories, 18% apiece, 3 points behind Labour.

The reader is welcome to look to the poll himself in his own time to try and iron out the all too evident wrinkles in reality – the focus here is actually something different. We are interested in who didn’t vote for the Brexit Party, and in fact who didn’t touch the EU elections with a barge pole. We’ll look again at two figures introduced above: 13,636,684 votes for the Tories in 2017, 5,248,533 votes for the Brexit Party in 2019; winning parties separated by nearly 8 and a half million votes. That’s a lot of people who didn’t vote for the Brexit Party, isn’t it? As for overall engagement, in 2017 there were 32,181,756 voters (68.7% of 46,843,896 – according to the BBC). In 2019 there were 17,199,701 (36.9% of 46,993,718). Again, the difference between the two sets of voter figures represents a lot of people who didn’t vote this time – and indeed, possibly tells of a turnout which, where it has been deserted by the British voter, has been shored up by the copiously abundant EU citizen (where it was allowed to vote). And so, while there are signs that many a Briton had the nous to spurn the ballot box this time, it would be wishful thinking indeed to deny that a desire yet exists in the general electorate to want to be led astray by the anti-republic, domestic enemy forces of the British Establishment – and to be absolutely clear, we’re not talking about the useful idiots who willingly throw their lot in with the Masonic high priests who would have them, metaphorically speaking, remain in Egypt and love their slavery. We’re talking about those following the fake-Moses which is Nigel Farage.

While there are many pieces of information that could be used to furnish this discussion, we’re going to start with one incident and understand it as a crucial and damning piece of intelligence. On May 20th, Farage was in Newcastle when a man approached him to tip the contents of a fast-food “restaurant” drink container over him. From several pieces of information, we can understand this to have been a set-up. Firstly, there is that complaint that Farage was heard to make about his security detail who failed to prevent the assailant coming into close proximity with his target:

The Brexit Party leader was heard to comment “complete failure” and “I could have spotted that a mile off” as he was ushered away by security following the incident in Newcastle city centre.

One of his team was heard to say “sorry” as Mr Farage was walked to his taxi and then driven away from the event, where he had met voters by the Earl Grey Monument.

Now consider the still image, below, from a video taken of the incident. Here is clear evidence that the milkshake was not hurled from a distance. The assailant was able to walk up to Farage, with an opened milkshake container, while the security detail was pretending not to notice.

One can appreciate Farage’s comments all the better because of this image. Indeed, its failure to spot it coming a mile off indicates that the security detail stood down to allow the attack to take place. A conclusion must follow that the security detail had prior knowledge of a planned scenario. That Farage evidently had no fore knowledge does not rule out the incident being a set-up. Being an operative is no guarantee of being spared rough treatment for the sake of the operation, as many a patsy or fall guy in a false flag attack will have discovered.

The operation in question is the grand one that FBEL has been covering for some time: the attempt by Government to have the public equate Brexit with something called the “far-right”. It is an exercise of thought-nudging that relies on preconceived ideas (or pre-received ideas, that is, because the public is continuously taught by Government how to perceive politically), and associations with racial intolerance to the extent that it was practised by the Nazis – and everything that that entails. The objective is to marginalise reasonable and valid ideas about efficient government that stand contrary to something called the “rules based order” (which is the circumstances of control most conducive for the achievement of global government), including a meritocratic immigration system and unified cultural identity for a harmonised society. The attack on Farage was to literally stick upon him and the Brexit Party an emblem which has come to symbolise intolerance of the “far-right” by the literal man in the street; a figure with which all of the public is supposed to identify. The emblem became established by a campaign of milkshake tossing. Firstly, the actor who plays “Tommy Robinson” was hit by a drink while he was electioneering – not once but twice. The same thing happened to at least one of UKIP’s internet shills (this election, at least, was useful for exposing all these types as the astro-turfed non-entities they actually are).

To seal the association between Farage (therefore the Brexit Party, and therefore Brexit) and the psychological image that Government wants people to have, the “ghost” of Jo Leadbeater – more commonly known as Jo Cox – was invoked. The fake political spectrum is not subscribed to at FBEL, but unfortunately one still has to use the terms to describe activity in the realm of received thinking. From the “right”, the “left” were called hypocritical in the name of Jo Cox because of how it appeared that physical assaults on politicians were not to be condemned when they occurred against a “right-wing” figure. From the “left”, Farage had not been seriously hurt, and so not only were comparisons with Jo Cox inappropriate and distasteful, but Farage was to be condemned for creating his own problem because he had used “violent” language about his determination to obtain Brexit. At the tip of this sphere was Owen Jones – a man so recently and repetitively useful for Government agenda realisation that it is highly unlikely that he isn’t one of their own change agents. The following is Jones’ leading contribution via Twitter:

Nigel Farage once declared that he’d “don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines” if his type of Brexit wasn’t implemented. He said Brexit had been won “without a single bullet being fired” days after Jo Cox was murdered. Spare me the tears over a banana milkshake.

What Farage said is interesting only in that he isn’t now actually doing what an audience might have inferred he would do – more of this later. As for the language that Jones doesn’t like, FBEL explained how this was deliberately being misunderstood in a previous article. The point right now is to notice how Farage’s so-called provocations are artfully linked, by both sides of the false political spectrum, with the “murder” of Jo Cox – a false flag to demonise Brexit in the first instance†. The milkshake incident, despite Farage being on the end of it, dispensed a voluminous and sizeable plop in the drip-drip operation to associate Brexit not only with the “far-right”, but a fantasy of violence that has been attached to the idea through the promotion of the phantom menace that is National Action. Indeed, the Jo Cox incident has been absolutely central in the criminalisation of the “far-right” through its National Action manifestation – as will become plain to any reader of FBEL’s continuing series on what is a considerable psychological operation (please search for “National Action”).

Returning to the milkshake as emblem of reaction to intolerance, it has to be a triumph of the Government’s deployment of neural linguistic programming that an example of criminal violence can be used to condemn the victim, and that an aggressor can be lionised so as to change the flavour of a brand of (apparent) opposition to British Government from peaceable to that which has a tendency towards the use of physical force. What was being taught with this incident is that anything that looks like it is a threat to the “rules based order” must be demonised. Effectively, when the Brexit Party is finally overtly labelled as “far-right”, it will be being identified as a force that would overcome its objections to the Establishment by murdering politicians. We should note that the appellation has already been applied to UKIP, but it appears that the party had to be dropped for successful execution of the operation because membership did not stay in place to be tarred with the same brush that the likes of “Tommy Robinson” brought to bear on the organisation. On the other hand, the Brexit Party is freshly assembled, with a large and automatic following, and is yet to have the trap sprung upon it – although it is not far off. First of all the Brexit Party has made its own contribution by not rejecting the approaches of European parties, which the British corporate-media readily call “far-right”, to sit with them in a grouping in the European parliament. Meanwhile, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell has pushed the envelope by describing the Brexit Party as a “stepping stone to the far-right”. Now, here (and here) at FBEL it has been noticed that McDonnell has been in the forefront of attributing the label of “far-right” to people who (on the surface at least) want Britain to leave the EU, and so now that he appears to be the very first to begin to do the same to the Brexit Party may even indicate that he has been assigned a role within the scope of the operation.

As for the Brexit Party being a new iteration of Leave-support to have its name rubbished by McDonnell (and then the likes of Hope Not Hate), this wouldn’t be the limit of its role in a wider Government operation. To know more we should examine what emerged on the night of the EU election when, in his speech to acknowledge his election, Farage said

If we don’t leave on October 31st then the scores you’ve seen today for the Brexit Party will be repeated in a general election.

If the reader is not aware, 31st October is supposedly a new deadline for a no-deal default exit, but we’ve seen the worth of that sort of thing. In any case, what we can see here is that the talk about the Brexit Party coup in a general election started even before the Lord Ashcroft poll was released – and some of us would suspect, then, that it had been lined up as a talking point before the EU election, and the opinion poll was commissioned in order to give it legs. In any case, here, then, we return to where we came in at the very top of this article.

Of course, there are many of the abovementioned useful idiots who would credit the Brexit Party as the only hope of getting Brexit delivered, but the notion is in fact farcical. The reader would do well to remember this: the British Government intends to deliver Brexit, but only on its terms: or the Fake Brexit, which is membership of the EU in everything but name. Please read the many articles on the matter that have been posted at FBEL since 2016 (search for “Fake Brexit”). The Brexit Party has emerged to be part of a grand deception to have Britons accept the bad Article 50 treaty that would establish Britain’s zombified relationship with the EU. As part of the same operation, the Government would have the public believe that as many people want Britain to stay in the EU as want to leave. While this is patently not true, Farage is playing up to and along with the scheme instead of going for his guns as promised. Evidence item number one: his inviting and getting into a Twitter spat with YouGov regarding a very recent opinion poll that the polling company pulled out of its anus (for “the mouth of Military Intelligence”, The Times [such is how it is thought of around here]) putting the Lib Dems ahead for a general election (more about this in a forthcoming FBEL article).

Evidence item number two: another tweet, possibly summarising the content of an interview to Sky News:

Brexit is the defining issue of our time. People now identify more as Leavers or Remainers than Tory or Labour.

What is being implied is that the Brexit Party stands for Leave, and the Liberal Democrats stand for Remain. Why this is important will become evident momentarily. First, though, we must deal with the Lib Dem issue introduced by the YouGov poll. By the same measure that we could be sceptical about claims of Brexit Party general election success at the top of this article, we can also be doubtful, to say the least, of Liberal Democrat victory. To get the 24% that the YouGov predicts for a Lib Dem victory (which is 7,723,621 using the turnout figure for 2017), the party would have to find over 5.3 million voters more than it attracted in 2017. For contrast, consider how the party could only garner 995,423 more votes in 2019 than it received in 2017 – at an election that was symbolically important for anti-Brexit sentiment.

Let us be clear. The so-called Liberal Democrat surge is bogus. It is an entirely illusory component to an exercise in creating a false impression of parity between Remain and Leave. Moreover, the false impression of equivalence between Remain and Leave is to be expressed in a temporary new-two-party dynamic of the Liberal Democrats versus the Brexit Party – as Farage himself implied. This situation is meant to engender a number of effects, the most obvious of which is Leave-voter fear of what might happen if the Liberal Democrats, i.e. “Remain”, ever did win an election. Additionally, the general perception (resulting from a Lib Dem party that appears to be empowered) that support for Remain is on a par with support for Leave is to assist the inculcation of Leave-voters with an understanding that they need to concede ground to the other side, and to inculcate Remain-voters (though they be in an ineffective minority) that they should expect to foil Brexit. In short, the deception is for creating an impression that two equally sized bodies of support are obstacles to one another so that there can only be stalemate unless the leave side concedes.

Of course, any compromise will be the inch that turns into a mile, and result in the eternal binding of Britain to the EU, and as such a Leave-voter should never support it or give assent to it. The fact that such an act would be a surrender of a dominant position to an extremist minority (see the previous FBEL article) is exactly why a grand deception to disorient the Leave-supporting majority is required at all.

And so, what needs to be done by any leader of a Brexit movement is not to take part or even signal desirousness to participate in activity that constitutes the deception of his supposed constituency. Instead, any action should be based on the fact that Britain should have left the EU on 29th March, and that anything else that has happened instead of that departure is immaterial. In fact, any Article 50 treaty that is now ratified by Westminster is one done on that membership by fiat that British Government created instead of repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and therefore should not be accepted as being legitimate. If he were legitimate, what Farage would be doing right now is demanding rectification of the aberation by the immediate rescinding of the aforementioned legislation, and leading a programme of civil disobedience until the demand is met. He won’t do anything approaching this, of course, because he isn’t legitimate, and the Brexit Party is a Government operation. Indeed, the other thing we also discovered on election night was that the Brexit Party wants to have a role in the Article 50 treaty negotiations. Whether what was meant was intervention at EU level, or participation in talks between British political parties, it is clear that the Brexit Party isn’t as dedicated to a no-deal exit from the EU as people have been lead to believe by pronouncements by Farage made when he didn’t need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. We will discover, dear reader, (if the Government continues to have use for it), that the Brexit Party is yet another trick to obtain a bad Article 50 treaty.

† Introductory reading regarding the Jo Cox incident:

Two hats and a funeral; Part One – featuring the Bernard Kenny enigma (link)

Two hats and a funeral; Part Two – featuring the drill-gone-live explanation (link)