The Jo Cox related incendiary language psyop: engineering tolerance of Fake Brexit

And so, the resurrected House of Commons spent the first day of the time it otherwise would have lost being prorogued manufacturing a scandal for a psyop. For a period now approaching a year, here at FBEL, there has been coverage of an effort by the British Government to engineer tolerance in Leave-voters for the Article 50 treaty. What happened in the Commons looks like a new iteration of the same thing. Maybe, going by the elevation of the high circus performed by MPs, this iteration is the final attempt at the confidence trick – and if so, if Government is desperate to deliver the Fake Brexit on October 31st, there may even be a spectacular incident ahead to try to drastically shift the obdurate and obstinate Leave-voter psychology so that there is the necessary receptivity for it.

The clues are certainly there to see; indeed, the prorogation, and then the Supreme Court’s disallowance, may have been part and parcel for setting the context, and producing the frisson in the public necessary for the psychological and emotional programming. In other words, the ground has been thoroughly prepared so that corporate-media can declare that the Leave-voting public has been sufficiently riled to agitation to be capable of a heinous crime.

Of course, it goes without saying that in order to appreciate such a prospect, one has to have abandoned the fiction of party politics, and the fairy tale that any Parliamentary Executive, whatever its hue, is independent of an authority higher up an hierarchy that has, long ago, bought power with finance. But then, there is no patience at FBEL for pre-9/11 attitudes and naivety; if the reader still thinks that the political environment and its development is accidental, there won’t be any pandering to him to be found here.

The best way to present the evidence for the assertion made in the first sentence of this piece is through lengthy extracts from corporate-media reproduced here verbatim. The first is reportage from The Sun which tells of the interaction in the Commons which formed the kernel of a controversy that still fills column inches as the Tories are set to begin their annual convention. Apart from being informative in terms of data, this reportage presented as fully as possible is also useful for gauging the impression that Government wants the public to take from the incident. The reader should be able to understand the purpose of the intelligence without prompting:

In an unrepentant speech, the PM turned on Remainer MPs, using words such as “betrayal” and “surrender” to describe an anti-Brexit bill being passed in early September.

Labour MP Paula Sheriff turned on him, fuming that Mr Johnson “continually used pejorative language to describe an Act of Parliament passed by this House”.

Pointing to a plaque in the chamber, commemorating Jo Cox, she said: “We should not resort to using offensive, dangerous or inflammatory language for legislation that we do not like, and we stand here under the shield of our departed friend with many of us in this place subject to death threats and abuse every single day.”

The MP for Dewsbury added: “They often quote his words ‘Surrender Act’, ‘betrayal’, ‘traitor’ and I for one am sick of it.

“We must moderate our language, and it has to come from the Prime Minister first.”

But firing back, Johnson said: “I have to say, Mr Speaker, I’ve never heard such humbug in all my life.”

Tracey Brabin, who succeeded Mrs Cox as MP for Batley and Spen, said Mr Johnson needed to temper his remarks so that “we will all feel secure when we’re going about our jobs”.

Mr Johnson replied: “The best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox and indeed the best way to bring this country together would be, I think, to get Brexit done.”

Before proceeding, it must be pointed out that the Tory Executive has cunningly displaced the association of surrender from the ratified Article 50 treaty that it seeks with the EU – which is where it belongs – to a piece of legislation that was discussed in the previous FBEL article.

The second extract is from The Guardian’s live reporting of 26th September, 2019. In fact, it is a bullet-point close-of-day summarisation of the broader political space around the core interaction in the Commons. For purposes of analysis, it concisely conveys the impact that Government wants the public to perceive the incident as having had, and also suggests the existing threat of danger to MPs that would be exacerbated:

The prime minister faced widespread criticism over his refusal to apologise for his provocative comments; including those he made about the murdered MP, Jo Cox. Some of the staunchest criticism came from Johnson’s own sister, Rachel, who accused him of deploying “highly reprehensible language”.

But Johnson insisted he would continue to use the rhetoric of war when referring to Brexit. The prime minister said he had every right to call the Benn Act the “surrender bill”, despite MPs’ complaints such action was emboldening those who might harm them and their families. Nigel Farage sided with Johnson on the issue.

The prime minister’s senior aide, Dominic Cummings, suggested that only carrying out Brexit would calm tensions, as MPs complained of facing death threats. Cummings shrugged off the concerns of such one MP, telling him: “Get Brexit done.” And he legitimised the “anger” being directed at MPs, saying it was not surprising because the Brexit process was still dragging on.

A man was arrested trying to smash windows at Jess Phillips’ constituency office, the Labour MP said. The man was shouting that she was a fascist and her staff had to be locked inside, Phillips told LBC radio. She also complained about the prime minister’s rhetoric.

It’s quite clear what this writing is meant to achieve. Essentially, what this amounts to is a demonization of the Leave-voting public – which is quite the astonishing act of brass-neckedness by Government given that it was its universally pro-EU operatives [in Parliament] who made such a show of being in angry conflict with one another (as they do week-in week out precisely in order to cause division in the population). Through the intent of the “journalism” contained in the above extract, it is possible to see that the said activity in the Commons was naught but theatre so that a furore generated in Parliament can then be said to represent vitriol felt by the Leave-voting public. And while Boris Johnson continues to be criticized for his use of language, ultimately it will be the vitriol felt by the Leave-voting public that will ultimately come to fill the corporate-media lens of scrutiny: for, outside of the Commons chamber, where the nastiness can only be expressed in language, the Leave-voting public can be pronounced as being capable and on the verge of expressing itself in terms of violence.  Indeed, already this lesson has had timely assistance in terms of practical demonstration; to wit, the supposed effort to smash windows at Jess Phillips’ constituency office. It there was any way to prove it, one might bet the house this was a piece of crisis acting theatre too.

The operation is yet more widespread and concerted than what has thus far been examined. In quite the most amazingly conveniently timed pieces of journalism, to cement the notion that MPs were at risk from an irate Leave-voting constituency, the BBC and The Guardian published articles titled Parliament: Are threats to MPs widespread?” (here), and How serious are the threats to UK MPs and other public figures? (here) respectively. (Another Guardian article discovered during the process of writing this piece is called ‘Abuse is virtually constant’: female MPs speak about the threats they face).

The impression that is supposed to be had from such output should be self-explanatory. The Guardian reports that the first five months of 2019 saw 152 crimes reported to police by MPs (“harassment, malicious communications, criminal damage or theft” – as defined in the BBC article). This represented a 90% rise on the same period in 2018; if the trend continued it would mean “more than 450 crimes will be reported by the end of the year.”

While The Guardian piece strongly gives the impression the abuse is all one sided, the BBC at least quotes Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu speaking in May and indicating that…

“We see a relatively even split between people who have been targeted because they are pro‑Brexit and people who have been targeted because they are pro‑Remain.”

Nevertheless, in both pieces, the essential spectre of the “murdered” MP, Jo Cox is conjured. In The Guardian, patsy Thomas Mair’s all-too incriminating outburst at trial (“death to traitors, freedom for Britain”) is used to smear the practise of framing MPs as being engaged in an act of treason when they are frustrating Brexit. In the BBC piece, the use of Cox’s name is done so in conjunction with a lesson teaching how it was that attack that created the perception of a greater risk to MPs so that more police divisions and advisory boards could be set up. Presumably, then, when MPs complain of being the targets of crime, it must justify the creation of the Metropolitan Police operated Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team (PLAIT), which “acts as a national body to advise individual police forces on dealing with threats to politicians.”  Even then, evidence that the tail is wagging the dog cannot be prevented from revealing itself. With great interest it should be noted that just 10 MPs have accounted for 29% of the crime reports. While this is supposed to reflect how MPs of certain races and sex have a proclivity to be picked on, a sceptic might say that it actually shows that some MPs have been assigned as complainers. It is something not to rule out, given that these statistics may well include complaints made by Liberal Democrat MP Luciana Berger, who “said six people had already been convicted for targeting her”, and bearing in mind that at least one of these people was connected with the National Action psyop, so thoroughly exposed here at FBEL.

Above all else, it is that the spectre of Jo Cox that was initially conjured in the interaction in the Commons that is so significant: criticism of Boris Johnson, the success or failure of the Government’s Fake Brexit plotting absolutely hinges on it. This is because the Jo Cox false-flag attack is the fundamental cornerstone upon which the stigmatisation of the Leave-voter as a violent inevitable terrorist has been predicated. The British Government could not mount this current operation if it had not at first created the illusion that Cox had been murdered by someone who wanted Britain to leave the EU. And with that as a basis, it has tried to establish National Action as what it could call a certified and demonstrable case of white racist terrorism aligned, and to be associated with Leave-voters. And yet, it is astonishing that the Government hangs all its plans on hooks so flimsy. As mentioned above, the National Action phenomenon is a hoax, and appears to have been organised out of the British Army. The attack on Jo Cox appears to been a drill that went live (with there being no way of knowing if the essential element was really carried out or not).

However, for some reason that the reader must figure out for himself, there is not the same desire in British alterative media or “rogue academia” to discredit the official narrative of the Jo Cox incident as there is to expose, for instance, claims of use of chemical weapons by Syrian Government forces. While the quantity of critique is such that it has seriously damaged British Government credibility where false-flags in Syria are concerned, it still remains impossible – apparently – for Government to stage a terror attack on British soil.

While the environment is so conducive for the use of psychological and emotional manipulation, there is little reason to suppose that the UK Government would not try to have the British public generally understand that Brexit must be obtained in order that a problematic and vast stratum of society does not act out against the class that should remain beyond reproach (despite its matter of fact acts of disobedience). Leave-voters must also be made to feel guilty that they are capable of the violence that the ruling class attributes to them. Let’s put it another way: it certainly looks like the UK Government is engaged in heightened levels of activity to stigmatise Leave-voters in order to obtain an October 31st leaving date – and not unconditionally, it must be stressed. Consider a report from the Daily Mail, by which it becomes clear that a concern and fear for imminent savagery by Leave-voters must become the common experience so that a Brexit can be got at a”seen-you-coming” price:

Boris Johnson is facing the threat of a Cabinet revolt on Brexit as ministers warn No10 chief Dominic Cummings’ plan has ‘clearly failed’.

Three Cabinet figures are preparing to confront the PM saying he must compromise with Labour and Remainer rebels to get a deal.

They are expected to tell Mr Johnson that if the EU offers a last-minute compromise on the hated Irish backstop he must ‘take what he can get’.

But there is little sign that Mr Johnson is in the mood to back down, with the Tory conference next week due to have the slogan ‘Get Brexit Done’.

Mr Cummings last night dismissed claims the government’s ‘people versus politicians’ rhetoric was poisoning public discourse.

He said MPs had spent three years since the referendum ‘swerving’ the result, jibing: ‘What do they expect?’

Another Cabinet minister has reportedly warned that failing to get Brexit through by the end of October would risk riots on the streets.

The reader will notice the effort to further heighten tension with the introduction of the notion of riots in case Brexit is not achieved. This would coincide with an appearance on the BBC’s Politics Live by someone called Brendan O’Neill, a contributor to online publication Spiked, who basically facilitated an opportunity whereby, through him as a proxy, the host of the show could accuse high-profile Leave-voters, or “Brexiteers” as the New European would style O’Neill, of inciting people to riot. Of course, this should remind an FBEL reader of the “Tommy Robinson” psyop, which was an incredibly extensive exercise in getting Leave-voters on to the streets and to create a behavioural pattern that could elicit anticipation of the “Brexiteer” as a lawless hooligan. It was an operation that, like the National Action operation, was exposed relentlessly here at FBEL, and ultimately failed.

“Get Brexit Done” is reputedly going to be the conference motto of the Tory Party, but be clear of its meaning, which is this: “We must get the Fake Brexit, because Leave-voters are potentially violent, and a threat to our ‘rules based order’, and thus our way of life”. If the Government is determined that an Article 50 is to be got in time for an October 31st exit, there is a real risk that something has got to happen to confirm the perception of the extremism of the Leave-voter.

Bear in mind, that the ongoing operations to do this failed (i.e. National Action and “Tommy Robinson”) so the UK Government has not suitably established a plausible link between motivation and inclination and capability. In other words, if an impression (rightly or wrongly) that Leave-voters are generally extreme enough has even been achieved (and it has not), this has not translated into meaningful physical acts, and doesn’t look like it will. And this is why, dear reader, the Government has had to directly involve itself: because it hasn’t been able to have its psyops for stigmatisation work, it has had to have the Prime Minister – in a plausibly deniable way, as suggested at the top of this (Johnson today: “’I think I’ve been the model of restraint”) – be seen to instigate violence in the chamber of the Commons. Such is the desperation.