Jo Cox incident periphery; Part Two: the BNP as cointelpro shooting gallery
Reading around the subject of National Action – as the author has had to in order to create the FBEL series on the subject – one discovers information by which one can suspect a vast operation executed by Britain’s military intelligence praetorian ruling class to link leaving the EU to an emergent phenomenon of so called “far-right” terrorism. 2013 is an absolute key date.
2013 was when the British Government announced the referendum on EU membership; the reader might well remember:
David Cameron has said the British people must “have their say” on Europe as he pledged an in/out referendum if the Conservatives win the election.
The prime minister said he wanted to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU and then give people the “simple choice” between staying in under those new terms, or leaving the EU.
Cameron couldn’t get new terms – but then he was never meant to. The “people” were supposed to vote to stay in, and there would be some major psychological nudging to encourage the desired outcome of that “simple choice”. First of all, there was the British Army-hosted hoax that took place out of its barracks in Woolwich. Not so prominent, but central to the operation was the inception of National Action – and the scene was now set for Zack Davies, linked to National Action in the corporate-media (although he has never been convicted of membership since the group was banned), to attack Dr Sarandev Bhambra in a super market with a claw hammer and a machete. This happened in 2015, supposedly in revenge for the “death of Lee Rigby”. It was characterised as being an attempted decapitation. Moreover, “a soldier intervened to stop the attack and save the man’s life”. If the incident looks too neat a story to be real – meaning that it was designed to touch the emotional keys that had been inculcated into the public by the Rigby trauma, so that it, in the fog of its dimness, could draw out the required lesson that Government would like to impart to it (i.e. white supremacism equals Islamic extremism) – then it probably isn’t.
Of course, claiming to act out of revenge for Islamic terror is a double edged sword, for it is the acting out that many people would have liked to do themselves after they had consumed and been angered by the Government’s virulent and relentless anti-Islam “War on Terror” propaganda that has been churned out since the World Trade Centre was demolished in 2001. In that case, then, acts like Davies’ could well become the “voice” of people who felt under attack and powerless to do anything about it – and of course, this would be key in inciting a large group of people into extremism then to be stigmatised, criminalised and victimised by Government. Most important of all, their political will would not matter.
And so, the Woolwich incident gave Britain, and indeed the world, expectation to be realised with ISIS in Syria, but also motivation for the coming extremist “far-right” movement, and thus a demonization of the anti-globalist perspective. And while Davies’ escapade would be a kind of Woolwich attack in negative – thus creating very important psychological bedrock – the main event for domestic political manipulation with regards a definite presence of a terroristic “far-right” was the apparent murder of Jo Cox in 2016. Indeed, Jo Cox is often cited as the reason that National Action was proscribed. The following extract is from a Telegraph article titled, What is National Action and why is the neo-Nazi group banned?, and it is self-evident that there is a requirement that the public should perceive the attack on Jo Cox as a precursor to an emergent threat to an extent that banning is justified:
After the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in June 2016, National Action endorsed her killing.
The group posted a message, which read: “Our thoughts go out to Thomas Mair #Britain-First #JoCoxMP’ and, ‘Don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain. #JoCox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans.”
Thomas Mair was jailed for life after being found guilty of murdering the politician.
The phrase “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”, which was said by Mair in court, appears alongside the listing for National Action’s website on Google.
In the wake of Mair’s conviction, warnings emerged that the terror threat from the extreme Right could be growing.
And so, of course, at some point, in order to continue coverage of the Government’s far-right terrorism psychological manipulation to create the perception of a transformation of “far-rightism” from minority political opinion to crime and violence committed potentially by the majority, it was inevitable that the FBEL readership must be directed back to the Jo Cox incident – though not the event itself. There is a learning experience to be had in the data generated in the periphery of the main event: hence this article, and one or two to follow, will constitute a continuation of the series as per the title.
In the course of however many articles there are to follow, we will be looking at the seemingly engineered rise of Jo Leadbeater into a position so that a “sacrifice” could be made of her – which will include discussion of the strange data related to the marriage between Leadbeater and Brendan Cox: that the editor of the Jo Cox Wikipedia entry does not appear to know when this occurred is perhaps typical in this respect.
The focus of this article is based on an interesting demonstration offered by the Jo Cox incident that adds to our knowledge database in respect of the mechanics – or machinations – of British Government rule. Such examination is useful so that, for the benefit of the naïve, future incidents of state crime can be explained as per the technical manual that we have transcribed from observation. Moreover, in the context of wanting to establish local bodies that protect our communities from the abuses of the state, and as such would be rival to it, it is crucial to know how the tentacles of British Government reach into our environs to control us in quite unsuspecting ways. Wanting to understand such things should only be natural: no civically-minded person convinced about his existence in the matrix of the illusory representative government would think it a good idea to be ignorant of the basics of democracy: how one’s vote is supposed to translate into a government at one’s service. And so, as we grow into proper human beings – still being civically minded – and we leave all such kids’ stuff behind, we need to know, for instance, how British intelligence agencies are able to have operatives, in place in the communities where an incident of state crime occurs, in order to appear to be the representative of the local people, by random chance picked out by the national corporate-media, who can feed out a scripted narrative. At Batley, it was a man named Clarke Rothwell who was chief in lending support to the claim that Thomas Mair had shouted “Britain First” – an aspect of the attack that appears to have been an invention, but nevertheless was essential for a depiction of Mair as a “far-right” terrorist.
Britain First, of course, was and is a “far-right” political party – and there was an effort to prove Mair had had active links with it with the appearance of a photo that was purported to show Mair at one of those flash-mob moments that these “far-right” activists do in order to give fuel to those who would have the public believe that there is a “presence” of them in various towns up and down the country. Leaving aside the fact that it wasn’t possible to ascertain if the figure in question in said image was Mair at all, many a critic did notice that in a world where it appeared to be a requirement to attend an street activism event in a rudimentary uniform (all the others in the photograph were wearing logoed tops), “Thomas Mair” had turned up in what looked like a chicken-patterned cardigan. This image was called out by many as being all too evidently digitally manipulated – and there could be no greater conformation of its dodginess than the attention it received from Eliot Higgins. Yet, digital fakery was not the main reason why no one should have believed that Mair had anything to do with any concept (as it is negatively defined by Government) or group relating to the expression “Britain First”.
This has been covered more thoroughly at FBEL before. It was supposed, here at FBEL, that Rothwell’s unique helpfulness in shoring up the official narrative might have been connected to the fact that he had been named on the British National Party (BNP) membership list for 2007/8, as obtained and placed in the public domain by Wikileaks. To summarise the whole: Rothwell was, one means or another, a player in the show, and his BNP membership gave a doorway into understanding how such a thing could be possible.
In a document released to take a retrospective look at 2016, titled National Action is the product of the political and ideological demise of the British National Party, Hope Not Hate listed what it said was the National Action leadership – at least before its prohibition: Ben Raymond (or Noyles), Alex Davies, Wayne Bell, Ashley Bell, Mark James, Kevin Layzell. Given that it is Hope Not Hate’s role to create awareness about National Action, we can take this list as being an authoritative account. Some of these names are often seen in conjunction with claims that the individuals that they belong to were founding personnel of the group.
When one searches for the surnames of the abovementioned individuals in the BNP membership list, only Raymond’s surname (both of them) does not appear. Moreover, the list also contains the surnames “Renshaw”, “Deakin” and “Helm”. These are also of interest because they are the surnames of persons who have been brought to trial for alleged membership of National Action, and moreover, they are high profile individuals who have had a lot of material produced about them by the corporate-media. They are also people who, as it certainly appears to the author, have been active in gathering others to the organisation and/or having them incriminate themselves.
So now we must ask the question, what does it mean that eight out of nine people who appear at the heart of an operation to demonise anti-globalism have surnames that also appear on the BNP membership list? To be absolutely clear, the author is not suggesting that the eight individuals here named are people also named on the list – many would be too young for that. What is being suggested is that what we might be seeing with National Action is evidence of the exploitation of familial political tradition that makes an individual more susceptible to being recruited by the intelligence agencies. In other words, the BNP has been a honey pot for military intelligence, attracting people who identify with its racial identity politics, and feel strongly motivated enough to associate with it – and then this membership would generate a list of households or extended families which could potentially serve as pools for recruitment into intelligence agencies (because people in families tend to think the same way about things). To explain the title of this piece: the BNP, then, or the extent of its wider cultural catchment, would be a “shooting gallery” where targets are all lined up in a row.
Now, of course, it could be said that the appearance of the surnames in the list is just a coincidence – but perhaps the occurrence of the “Layzell” surname, with Kevin of National Action notoriety (supposedly), and the individuals featuring on the BNP list all being of Essex, suggests there is a little bit more to it than that. Of course, the folklore resolutely has it that the BNP was infiltrated by military intelligence, but equally we might discover (one day) that it – and indeed the entire “far-right” – has always been a Government operation by way of controlling potentially subversive elements and using them in the interests of the state (a little bit of evidence is offered below). In any case, such a state of affairs would effectively mean direct control from the ziggurat-shaped praetorium on the banks of the river Thames down into the streets where unsuspecting radicals, under a severe misapprehension that they are acting solely on their own organically germinated beliefs, are being manipulated, and have been through their kin since even before they were born.
If the reader is thinking that all this is highly unlikely, then let him be aware of precedent of sorts for the case being made. In 2014, war-time documents were declassified that told of MI5 control of Nazi-sympathisers living in Britain so that disinformation could be fed to Germany. The following is from the BBC:
An MI5 agent pretending to have Gestapo links secretly controlled a vast network of UK-based Nazi sympathisers, newly-released files reveal.
The agent, known by the alias Jack King, infiltrated a group of pro-German activists in south-east England in a previously unknown wartime operation.
His undercover work led to the identification of hundreds of people willing to pass secrets to the enemy.
Hopefully the reader can see that any model for manipulating a group of people with what, according to that which is politically correct, could be characterised as an extreme perspective will have changed very little since the Second World War. In fact, in the same way as we can suspect military intelligence to lead the “far-right”, we can be certain (through lots of evidence available to us) that it has co-opted Islamic communities with leadership that it has placed, in order to recruit so-called extremists into concealed but nevertheless direct chains of command from Government, and thus created the apparatus for the leverage of the British public into an excessiveness of opposition.
To end, we will have a look at an extract from an internet publication by people who style themselves Liverpool Antifascists. This piece is valuable because of how Liverpool was the place, in 2015, where 50 so-called National Action activists tried to demonstrate in the streets: this was a second attempt at a so-called “White Man March” (met by counter demonstrators so that National Action marchers were locked in a lost property depot at Liverpool Lime Street Station for their own safety). With Liverpool’s history of military intelligence involvement in street politics – see the FBEL article, UKIP (now with football fan street-politicking) and the “Tommy Robinson” psyop, here – one must wonder if this incident was merely “boot boys” for the 21st century. Indeed, the Liverpool Antifascists remind us that “in November 2014, a series of homes belonging to NA activists in Liverpool were raided by police and one member, Garron Helm, was later jailed for threatening Jewish MP, Luciana Berger” – no wonder for a city that looks to be a military intelligence hot spot.
Written in the same month as the “White Man March” in the city, the Liverpool Antifascists’ article makes reference to the relationship between the Woolwich hoax, and its repercussions in terms of radicalising Britons into “far-rightism”. It makes interesting reading:
The BNP’s abysmal failure to capitalise on the brutal murder, in May last year, of soldier Lee Rigby, and Griffin’s demoralising attempts to make amends with the erstwhile “Zionist conspirators” of the EDL during that summer were a watershed.
Some of the disaffected – frustrated with what appeared to be a blatant attempt by the new BNP leadership to wind down confrontational activities – reacted by branching out in a seemingly autonomous movement that paints itself as some kind of “Identitarian”, ultra-nationalist street gang, copying similar movements in Europe.
NA is heavily aligned with a plethora of groups, including both the North West Infidels and the South East Alliance, that are clinging to Griffin’s coat-tails.
What it clearly says, then, is that National Action is an evolution of the established “far-right” into a more provocative form – and the catalyst was Woolwich. Be sure that what this article tells us comes down from those who have designed the development, because it is the role of “anti-fascist” counter organisations, just like Hope Not Hate, to advertise and speak for the unsavoury enemy who otherwise, through being unpalatable, would be broadly voiceless.
There is also a piece of disinformation in this situation report, and it involves the notion that the BNP would fragment organically. In the future was the Jo Cox incident, and for that the “‘Identitarian’, ultra-nationalist street gang” form of the “far-right” had to be in place. However bad the BNP was, it was a legitimate political party, which for the sake of credibility, could not suddenly start “murdering” MPs.
