Published On: Tue, Jun 30th, 2020

The 77th Brigade must go to jail: Part One

Share This
Tags

On 22nd April, 2020, a high ranking soldier spoke at one the the UK Government’s coronavirus war room briefings to talk about how the British Army had been deployed in an information warfare capacity as part of the Covid-19 response. Because early on in the coronahoax there was an effort to create an impression that the country was “in it together” in a collective struggle against a disease, there’s no doubt the presentation was for the sake of reinforcing feelings of the blitz spirit in the gullible watching public. However, it actually amounted to an admission that the British Armed Forces were engaged in hostilities against the British people, and for this, because the outcome has and will be impoverishment as if people had actually suffered in a war, the perpetrators of this crime will need to go to jail.

The specifics involve the so-called 77th Brigade, of which the General Nick Carter, Chief of the Defence Staff, had this to say:

And we’ve been involved with the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit, with our 77 Brigade helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but also to counter disinformation.

If the reader doesn’t know, the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit basically acts to propagandise for the purpose of the Executive’s agenda. If one wants to call it “working closely with the National Security Communications Team during times of crisis to ensure official information is highly visible”, as a PRWeek article in fact does, because of the nature of government-by-hoax (by which we in Britain are ruled), then this actually means the disseminating of some and the rebutting of other information to control a narrative to a psyop.

As for the 77th Brigade, it could be called a consultancy and aid to UK Government in the course of its efforts to shape perception. Of course, this is not the official remit of the 77th Brigade that UK Government would like the public to perceive, particularly in the context of what is being portrayed as a public health crisis.  On the contrary, it would be a section of the military dedicated to all matters cyber in relation to defence against foreign powers who are looking to use information technology to gain a strategic or tactical advantage. At the UK Defence Journal, at the time of it, there was an extrapolation from Carter’s briefing to better explain the role of the 77th Brigade along the lines that UK Government would surely like the public understanding to be:

77th Brigade specialise in “non-lethal” forms of psychological warfare, using social media including Facebook and Twitter to fight with information in response to external factors, like Russian misinformation.

Their target is Russian propaganda, propaganda that is notably very active around NATO troops deployed to the Baltics alleging that the soldiers there are criminals and rapists. The point of units like 77th Brigade is to counter this kind of threat.

The chief point of understanding to be had from this and the article from whenceǂ it is taken (as the reader will find if he takes a look) is that Russia is supposedly using cyberspace to try and undermine the integrity of NATO, and the confidence in it of the people of NATO countries, with talking points centred around coronavirus. It must be pointed out, however, that because “Russia’s Top Five Myths about NATO & COVID-19” are actually not as salacious as they evidently could be (no example of Russia accusing NATO troops of unsavoury attributes is given), the bit about “criminals and rapists” appears to be an elaboration to pique interest and encourage reader participation further into the article. In any case, it can be supposed the idea is to show that 77th Brigade activity is along what people might think of as normal operational parameters, and in a realm of military matters separated from civilian ones.

However, UK Government wants its cake and to it eat it as well. As the reader will surely know, for a long time now there has been an effort to explain opposition to the Anglo-globalist agenda for eco-sustainable new order as being a movement under Russian influence. In 2017, FBEL reported that the UK Government’s attempt to blame Moscow for a decline in trust of vaccines in Britain was not actually due to a perception of threat from the Kremlin to an aspect of UK Government’s control grid to rule, but in fact as coming from the British people themselves. This is according to things already long understood, which are as follows:

The Anglo-globalists’ system of smiley-faced tyranny, as is deployed in Britain amongst other places, relies on a large proportion of the population being kept on a plantation†, so to speak. It means that there will be sufficient numbers to support, and to display that support of the system so that Government can say it is justified. So that this client population does not become disenchanted, the opposition that they encounter cannot be attributed to faults in the system that they are invested in. The dissent that comes from that opposition must be seen to be poison injected inwards from external powers.

The bottom line, then, is this: when the UK Government blames Russia for the destabilisation of the country through loss of trust in the institutions, it is because it perceives danger to it from a too significantly large a portion of the population that it governs.

Still, there is a necessity to refine the public’s comprehension of the nature of Russian influence because accusations of official highest level Russian interference are, in all likelihood, false ones, and on this basis: Russia doesn’t need to destabilise British society; the revolutionary UK Government is doing that all on its own.  So, that there is splitting of Russian interference from Russian Government is something that is told of in articles such as the (20th March) one at DW.com, from whence the following extract is taken:

But is the Kremlin using coronavirus to attack European democracies? British fake news expert Ben Nimmo, who regularly monitors the Russian media landscape, doesn’t think “Putin made the call personally.” Nimmo says it isn’t even that important that a campaign is going on at all. “The whole thing seems more like standard anti-Western posturing than a targeted campaign devised at the Kremlin.”

The idea to take from this is that the disinformation can be internal voices reinforcing domestic prejudices or producing propaganda for consumption at home, which then, if it becomes material by which the UK and other countries are destabilised, is promoted outside the country. It’s Russian, but probably not official – or hard to prove the case that it is. The article goes on to mention an accusation of a Russian troll farm “inducing distrust in public institutions and aggravating the public health crisis in the EU”, which suggests that the promotion of the anti-Western posturing is organised, even if it remains not being official. And this is an interesting definition that facilitates linkage to a Western motivator for Russian disinformation, as a Guardian piece of April 24th, reporting on a claim by the EU’s specially created anti-foreign influence authority of Russian and Chinese coronavirus-related news subversion, tells:

…some of the activity has been criminal, or linked to “dark PR” firms who work with governments and the far right.

“Dark PR” is a term that could describe the supposed anti-Western activity of a “Russian troll farm”, and so here we come to territory that is not unlike, if not exactly the same, as that of the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 US election and the Brexit vote. Even if the reality at the core of this phenomenon was that Russian operatives used social media for the hijacking of English-language political talking points as clickbait for their own money-making purposes, or that of clients who had no dog in the fight, then it doesn’t even matter.

In the scheme of “that what appears to be”, a culture had developed whereby anyone espousing a particular view could be labelled a Russian troll. To be precise, the view that continues to garner the accusation is that which is against the consensus of the smiley-faced tyranny. Indeed, the Anglo-globalists have constructed a very sophisticated divide and rule mechanism using “Russian meddling” that is meant to create a complete polarisation. What Government has done in the UK and the US is to further abuse the political spectrum (which should describe full individual liberation on the right, and full statist authoritarianism on the left) so that there is “left” and “wrong” – or “correct” and “wrong” (the moral universe according to Government). There is at this time an ongoing process where anything that threatens the Statist dystopia is being conflated with the “far-right” – the observation of this phenomenon is a thing recorded here at FBEL many times. Furthermore, Government creates its own Cointelpro cardboard cut-outs – again, a thing that has been more than amply dealt with at FBEL – to manifest the environment imagined by those who need to be terrorised by it. This is a reference to those who need to be kept on the plantation for the sake of Government’s survival. And these people are going to be susceptible to the paradigm where opposition is viewed as something alien, foreign, treasonable, and thus to be penalised. Naturally, these people are by legacy of the political “left”‡ simply by their preference for Government intrusion, which is the supreme way of the system that would be preserved from so-called foreign destabilisation.

So, Russian influence can quite simply boil down to dissent or opposition. In turn, 77th Brigade activity, in the scheme of maintaining inviolate the UK Government’s paradigm, would be countering information from dissenters, which would by definition fall under the classification of adversarial. And, it makes sense, does it not? If UK Government says that children are just as much at risk from Covid-19 as adults, but a dissenting view says that children will not have been exposed to the prescription drugs that appear to be at the root of Covid-19 and therefore are not susceptible, then here are two positions adversarial to the other. In the moral universe according to Government the word is totally appropriate because it would indeed be an adversary [an opponent in a conflict or dispute] who would be threatening the authority and very survival of Government (by being an extremist in “wrongness”). This dissent, presumably, would be grounds for “Counter-adversarial Information Activity”, which is what the 77th Brigade’s website says that it performs as one of its roles. Thus we have the 77th Brigade potentially at a form of warfare with any member of the British public who uses the internet to issue a dissenting viewpoint.

As a matter of fact, however, the battlefield is broader than all that, because the Brigade’s website also says that “Disseminating Media” is a role within its brief (a fuller account is “Collecting, creating and disseminating digital and wider media content in support of designated tasks”); additionally, when the Independent reported on how Twitter’s “head of editorial” for Europe, the Middle East and Africa was an officer in the 77th Brigade, it noted another function whereby “Troops were to deliver ‘means of shaping behaviour through the use of dynamic narratives’”. This is when, with interest, we must note that the 77th Brigade was formed in 2015 in a restructuring of military units including the 15 Psychological Operations Group and Media Operations Group. It was a reforming of the Security Assistance Group (SAG) which worked with Whitehall agencies – so supposed civilian Government – and when the 77th Brigade website talks about “supporting counter-adversarial information activity” it must mean, in the context of coronavirus, that which is done to maintain the narrative of a coronahoax by the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit. Perhaps the most damning statement on the 77th Brigade’s website is this:

77th Brigade is an agent of change; through targeted Information Activity and Outreach we contribute to the success of military objectives in support of Commanders, whilst reducing the cost in casualties and resources.

This reminds that the coronahoax, by its very scale, is in fact the sort of psychological warfare that is used on militarily defeated and occupied people. This is another reason why the battlefield is talked of here as being broader than the direct countering of dissent: it’s not as simple as leaving comments under an article or on a social media thread deemed adversarial – this on its own would be very limited in terms of reach and power. Thus, everything points to the 77th Brigade having control of a facility to produce information in a substantial way; i.e. to create perspective through production of material, and then by engineering sheer number of eyes-on by promotion. We’ve already seen that a 77th Brigade officer has editorial control of Twitter (although the company claims no conflict of interest), so one could imagine that the landscape would be ideal for a team of organised social media actors (a British military equivalent to Russian troll farm) to create a meme in that sphere and make it big.

Ultimately, however, the equipment that must be available for a broad operation – as the reader will appreciate by the end of this article – is that largest share of alternative media that military intelligence undoubtedly controls (it is unfeasible to imagine that such a state of affairs does not exist). For one thing, 77th Brigade has an email address on its website and “is keen to hear from individuals who have the skills to work with us” – so presumably being too unfit to climb the stairs from Mother’s basement would not be a disqualifier from being recruited, and nowadays, it seems, those who want to make a name for themselves in alternative media don’t even have to wait to be contacted by a front for an intel agency on the pretence of wanting work done for this or that household name or cause (for example). That being said, today’s alternative media landscape is very much a fixed firmament (where anyone who is seen to experience a meteoric rise from obscurity will have had a certain special help), but we can be sure that military intelligence would have had the same needs back in the day as they do now.

And by now, it should be hoped, that the origin of the term “conspiracy theory” is well known: it is a way of discrediting opposition that disrupts a narrative. There is a problem, however, in the scheme, because when a conspiracy theory is denounced, it inevitably means that a deal of curiosity is engendered. What must be done to prevent new interest in an oppositional perspective is to create, in prospective clients, an instinctive rejection of “conspiracy theory”, and to do this a harmless straw man must be set up. This straw man can be ridiculed and stigmatised (“far-right”, for instance, is a sure fire way to fence the plantation), and so, consequently, when the label “conspiracy theory” is applied to, say, the following hypothesis: children are not susceptible to Covid-19 because they haven’t been pumped full of prescription drugs, then this perfectly reasonable idea can be dismissed by association with that which is, and has a reputation of being ridiculous. An operation that does all this must be able to create the straw man, and a simple fact that doesn’t appear to be readily understood in those who buy the “truther industrial complex” (credit) is that what is promoted to them is that which the powers-that-be want them to look at. So, we notice that a good deal of coverage at the start of the coronahoax (here at none other than The Guardian) was afforded to a particular idea, and a certain purveyor of it:

Interviews with David Icke on YouTube, which have since been removed, also peddled false claims that 5G is linked to coronavirus. Mr Icke also appeared on a London TV station, which was found to have breached the UK’s broadcasting standards. His Facebook page was later taken down, the company said, for publishing “health misinformation that could cause physical harm”.

Conspiracy theories have led to scores of attacks on 5G masts.

Of course, banning information serves to create kudos about it – it makes it look as if the information is covered up, or is even being countered by the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit with 77th Brigade assistance. But the big impact aspect of this episode, however, was the damage to 5G masts, which were roundly condemned, and blamed on “conspiracy theory”. Because there are now no reports of such incidents, it appears that vandalisation of new telecommunications infrastructure was a phenomenon extraordinarily well timed (most likely perpetrated by operatives, if real at all, or even members of Joe Public who had their behaviour changed through media manipulation) for the purpose of illustrating the irresponsibility (and undesirability) of those who would deal in conspiracy theory. Right there, with the 5G causation of Covid-19 theory, one is looking at a complete psychological operation, and one that has a physical aspect too beyond manipulation of perception through media – which means that it resembles false flag terror psyops that British military and military intelligence have staged (as recorded on these pages). The ambition of such operations cannot be achieved if there is not sufficient media infrastructure reaching an audience that, according to a scheme for psychological warfare, is the one that needs to be moved, or manipulated by the information.

 

† A good object lesson is served by the University of Oxford study, published in May, on how belief  in conspiracy theories impacts obedience to Government legislation and guidance regarding Covid-19 mitigation. Study lead, Daniel Freeman, Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Oxford concluded “most people largely accept official COVID-19 explanations and guidance; a significant minority do not”. In other words, right now there are enough people on the plantation. However, a concerning aspect of the study was a high rate of agreement for a bat-crap crazy conspiracy theory: 55% of respondents to a survey disagreed with the conspiracy theory that “Coronavirus is a bioweapon developed by China to destroy the West.” It means that 45% agreed that that there was truth to the idea.

Now, in reality, Covid-19 has the same effectiveness as does the Grim Reaper [death at old age], thus if it is a bioweapon, it is not a very good one. Ultimately, this idea is one that limited hangout alternative media promotes to install a certainty about the existence of a disease, and also of course to discredit conspiracy theory. It is also a great way to create an association between Covid-19 dissent, conspiracy theory and racism thanks to the use by the alt-right (which is controlled opposition) of the term “the Chinese coronavirus” relying on the insinuation in the wordage that it is created.

On the other hand, the study showed that theories where it was believed that “Lockdown is a way to terrify, isolate, and demoralise a society as a whole in order to reshape society to fit specific interests”, and “The intention of lockdown is to force people to rely on big corporations rather than their local businesses” had 70-80% of respondents disagreeing with them. The problem is clear. These two ideas are to some degree evidential by one’s own experience. On the other hand, no one can prove that the Chinese manufactured a virus. But, alternative media will have its audience worrying about the thing that can’t be proved, or doesn’t matter, or makes cretins of conspiracy theorists in the eyes of people who need to have their minds changed.

‡ Don’t be confused by political party affiliation. Both Labour and the Conservatives have been “leftist”, or technocratic authoritarian (Statist), in all of their history – a brief readjustment in the 80s aside (see Reflections on a by-election: another charlatan claims to represent the people, this time of Lewisham East, here, and Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the voting booth, here). Britain has been transitioning from a liberal republic into a socialist oligarchy for more than 100 years (see, The First World War and the March of Socialism, here). The tolerance and even inexplicable lauding of the NHS by Britons is testimony to how they have been socialised (and demoralised, if the NHS is what they think they deserve). Most Britons, then, are of the classical “left” in their political leanings. While the likes of Hitchens might well have recently been writing that “what we now face is regime change”, the Queen is not going to be overthrown by the revolutionary movement that has driven political change because she is one of those who owns it (as Hitchens will know full well).

ǂ Update 22:40, 2nd July. This usage has drawn a comment (see below). It is perhaps the aim of the commenter to rubbish the piece not by addressing any point made in it, but by sneering at what he supposes is bad English. There’s always plenty of scope to do this at FBEL, so the author takes no offence, but given the subject matter of the piece, and that it has attracted a technique, it’s worth the while doing this.

The following is from the article, Is it Wrong to Say ‘From Whence’?, at the Merriam-Webster site:

Many well-regarded writers… have used from whence:

Let them be whipp’d through every market town till they come to Berwick, from whence they came. — Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, 1592

… Sittingbourne, from whence we had a famous pair of horses … — Jane Austen, letter, 24 Oct. 1798

… addressed to this place, from whence it will be forwarded to me … — Lord Byron, letter, 31 Aug. 1809

… Whatever the condemnations that sometimes are made, from whence is well established, and you should feel free to use it, or not.

The King James Bible is also strewn with the construction, and this is where the author no doubt learnt it. It is because English speakers don’t read that they don’t know their own language.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Steve Hayes says:

    The word whence means from where.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>