Things get complicated with the post-coronahoax-psyop protests psyop; and how the BBC must not survive Covid-19

It is perhaps true to say that many more English-speaking people would take part in a programme of civil disobedience than they would do in a riot because a participant in the former is more likely to be acting lawfully. It might mean acting in a way that is contrary to the specifications of legislation (which is the enactment into rules for society of the agenda of Government), but the participant in civil disobedience will risk the danger that this entails when their oppressor, by definition, must become the law breaker and must lose the moral high ground, and also must lose a right to be the authority. In the latter – rioting, that is – through his actions, the participant, of whom there are fewer in number, offers no such opportunity for a fall from grace to his oppressor. However, in riot there is much more noise so it appears to be more significant in the moment of its brief life. The same can be said of disruptive protest, which also gives Government a legal basis to respond without loss of its right to authority.

In the USA there was a good deal of lawful opposition to the coronahoax, and it must have been dangerous indeed. Hence, there was a triggering of protests and riots which would reinforce the authority of the Government. And although some people who are protesting and rioting may genuinely believe that they are acting in a politically significant way, this is but an illusion and part of a broader con game that gives the impression that theirs is a movement that is grassroots, and that it is going to force change according to its own agenda. The protests and riots are reaction in the Hegelian dialectic. The solution will be something that US Government wants, and no one should be under any illusion to the contrary.

If the reader wants to know a truth, here it is: the US Government will not be troubled until it has to face people who intend to take their territory out of the jurisdiction of the federal state. At that time there will be strife that makes Black Lives Matter protests and riots look like so many Sunday school picnics because of the number of gun owning individuals who will be looking to secede. So, it’s not the author’s part to make an value judgement about whether black people in the USA should feel aggrieved. It’s their problem. What can be pointed out, however, is that when at any time a movement is holding Government to ransom, the outcome of temporarily disrupting the system in such a manner is not the same as withdrawing from the system. The former produces an opportunity for Government to make a change it wants to the system (and thus it lends itself to being controlled by Government), whereas the latter is a challenge to the extent of the Government’s power, and even perhaps an existential threat.

As for the supposed extension of the US protests into the UK, it is quite ridiculous – with the prize for abject stupidity going to those people in Bristol (understood previously at FBEL as a hotbed of community organising, and therefore social engineering) who turned over a statue. If the protesting activity in the UK is indeed supposed to be linked to that in the USA, then it needs to be pointed out to a lot of British idiots that there is no comparison to be drawn between the experience of the black man in Britain with the black man in the United States. The fact that Britons preferred the well mannered black US servicemen stationed in the country during the second world war, to their “overpaid, over here” white counterpart (Orwell: “The general consensus of opinion seems to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroe”), serves to remind that in the UK discrimination has historically been an issue of class (ultimately powered by certain quarters of the aristocracy that didn’t like the gentrification of the working classes, and the promotion of the middle classes into entitlement) and arguably things are very different in the USA because there were other factors shaping social hierarchy (with variations from place to place) after the break from Britain in the 18th century. This is stuff for a debate to be held elsewhere. To cut to the chase, it is the author’s theory that the British ruling class aggravated racial tension in post-war Britain to create a situation that could be attached, in one of its many functions in a control grid, to a reaction to the black civil rights movement in the USA. One starts to get a good sense of this when one understands that that rubbish spouted by Enoch Powell took place around the time of the Martin Luther King assassination (as covered in the FBEL article, The Enoch Powell “Rivers of Blood” psychological operation).

Returning to modern day happenings, which follow the pattern of being echoed in the UK after first sounding in the USA, there are some in British media who have compared what they have called preference on the part of British authorities, in a time of Covid-19 lockdown, for the US-protest themed mass gatherings. This is opposed to more harsh treatment of much smaller demonstrations against the actual lockdown. The point being made from these certain quarters is that UK Government enforces its lockdown when one group would like to protest, but stands down when another and larger group takes to the street. And, one must concede, there is a point to be made.

The Metropolitan Police doesn’t leave this criticism unanswered, and gives the excuse that the larger gatherings are too populous to prevent – but this is window dressing to what is all too evidently coordinated theatre. And it’s not because the UK Government feels especially threatened by, and is pandering to a particular community that it allows a so-called Black Lives Matter demonstration (although, of course, it wants to be seen to be pandering in order, with the help of certain media, that it can induce a sense of unfairness to be felt by another community in society), it is because the theatre is advantageous to the UK Government.

So, at this point, we are going to drop the subject of Black Lives Matter themed or related protests, because they are noise and fury.  What we are going to do here, on the other hand, is something eminently more useful and compare the aforementioned small anti-lockdown protests with the occasion that police (and other emergency service personnel) mustered on Westminster Bridge across the River Thames to take part in a propaganda stunt to manufacture behavioural control of the public. Then, by circumstantial evidence, we are going to suppose the complicity of the BBC in a grand act of hypocrisy that proved that the need felt by UK Government for producing propaganda is greater than a need for measures to combat a disease. That the coronahoax has nothing to do with anyone being ill, except that the medical aspect provides a pretext, is well established here at FBEL. That the BBC needs to be exposed as a particularly bad actor in perpetrating the coronahoax is something that needs to be developed.

In the image reproduced below, the reader should be able to count 16 police men and women (from bits of their uniform, if not from their faces) surrounding Piers Corbyn at one of the small demonstrations that have taken place in Hyde Park in the month of May. Corbyn should be considered dangerous by British authorities because of how he has correctly identified, as he calls it, the “Nazification of the NHS” in the course of UK Government’s execution of the coronahoax.

Some accounts say that when police were performing the arrest on Corbyn shown in the image, there were almost as many of them present than there were demonstrators. However, this can’t be known by someone who wasn’t there and only has a viewpoint through a number of photographs – but at least the most iconic of this gallery shows a definite tactical scrummage to isolate Corbyn. The police have consistently treated Covid-19 as if a uniform fends it off, so the lack of social distancing in the formation, that will no doubt strike many who look at the image, is not really an issue. The message in the image is one of mob-handed over-reaction, which would have been induced by fear. Protesting against Covid-19 is not to be tolerated – and there is a reason for it. It breaks and disrupts the impression of unity against a common enemy.

Of course, a sense of collective reaction to a supposed common threat is something that the UK Government has been carefully cultivating in the British public, and the “clap for carers” phenomenon, where people were supposed to stand on their doorsteps and make a loud noise in support of the NHS, was a crucial plank of this. And it served another purpose because it was surely designed to gauge reaction to the Covid-19 psychological operation. Although it has been attributed to an individual, a Dutch yoga teacher living in London, a one Annemarie Plas – and for the purpose of creating plausible deniability, of course it would – but “clap for carers” is actually a very sophisticated instrument of psychological warfare that undoubtedly came from the same people who are by now very accomplished at psychologically operating on conquered people.

The first “clap for carers” event happened on 26th March, and the report by ITV clearly relates how social media was an integral component of the whole operation. With householders being urged to post their activity to social media, the use of the internet turned what otherwise could only have been an event to be perceived on a street by street basis into one that could instead be perceived as a nationwide collective effort. And while the collation of many films on a central hub could be presented back to the public to give the impression of national unity, it could also give the people running the operation an idea of the extent of participation.

As it happens, the BBC decided to hold an event called the “Big Night In”, which was a Children in Need telethon-type presentation incorporating a “clap for carers” event, and announced the decision after two “clap for carers” events had so far taken place. The appearance of what was essentially a major prop to compel the clapping would appear to hint that the behaviour required serious promotion. It had, after all, provoked a great deal of contempt from critics very early on because of its undeniable kinship to the Orwellian device of two minutes hate. And it is interesting indeed that the so-called inventor of the clap for carers was quoted in BBC online content on 22nd May saying that the operation should end on 28th because it risked becoming politicised. She said “I think the narrative is starting to change and I don’t want the clap to be negative.”

Clearly, this is merely delayed reaction to the reality that manifested immediately at the start of the operation. The author submits that “clap for carers” had to end because the coronahoax was so damaged that there was no longer any point to trying to gauge public acceptance. Moreover, when the operation had to end, the reason for its ending could be openly stated.

The “Big Night In” was televised on Thursday 23rd April, but someone obviously decided that the public needed to be carried to it because the first gathering of clappers on Westminster Bridge happened the week prior to the telethon. In fact, there were two gatherings on Westminster Bridge on 16th and 23rd April before the Met Police had to issue a statement asking for people to stop the custom that it was partially responsible for instituting. The important point to digest, however, is that the first event was clearly meant to be a showcase, and would have been if it weren’t for the bad press it received even as it was taking place, as described in The Telegraph:

It was meant to be a show of solidarity by “blue light” workers clapping for carers in sight of the Houses of Parliament, New Scotland Yard and St Thomas’s Hospital.

Westminster Bridge was lined with officers and emergency service staff standing alongside dozens of police cars, ambulances and fire engines with their lights flashing in tribute to the health service’s work fighting the coronavirus pandemic.

But the big “thank you” backfired as hundreds of people crowded onto the bridge in blatant breaches of the social distancing regulations alongside the police officers who took no action against them.

So, we can see that the reason this event got into trouble is that, although it was meant to be a parade of emergency services, it was joined by members of the public who were tolerated to create the effect, we can presume, of enhanced cosiness and unified purpose. This had what we might call two unintended consequences, however. Firstly, on the level perceived by people who would abide by the Coronavirus Restrictions Regulations – that Statutory Instrument which provides the (dodgy) legal basis of lockdown – it demonstrated a hypocrisy: police were seen to be selectively enforcing the CRR. Secondly, on the level where Covid-19 is understood as a psyop, it showed that the desire to promote cult worship of the NHS was thought more important than the apparent risk of creating cause for accusations of hypocrisy. Thus, looking at the incident from the latter perspective, one can undoubtedly see a degree of desperation. It is proposed that the “clap for carers” campaign could not give the coronahoax psyop’s planners and operation managers solace regarding the effectiveness of their project.

When one looks at images of this event one sees plenty of police from the very same force that arrested Piers Corbyn, and about the same number of officers [at least] who made the arrest – although we only have a partial picture. Amongst them is Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner (see feature image) – which can only indicate that the event had approval at the highest levels.

What is striking about the images is the orientation of the emergency service personnel. They are lined up to face that side of the Bridge that is overlooked by the Millbank tower. From the Westminster Bridge attack of 22nd March, 2017, the country learnt that there was a platform on this building for the placement of cameras, and the BBC appear to own one that is more or less permanently sited for shots down onto Westminster and its environs. One can also find evidence that the BBC uses the platform to place outside broadcast cameras. The second image below is a still from a film submitted to YouTube by an individual who reported in the description that the camera sited on Millbank tower was a Sony HDC-2500 with a Canon DigiSuper 86 (a number signifying zoom magnification) and had been placed there for BBC coverage of Remembrance Day in Westminster.

It should be plain to anyone with eyes that if police and emergency service personnel had stood on the other side of their vehicles, which they had lined up along Westminster Bridge, they would not have been visible to any video recording equipment sited on Millbank tower. It is suggested that the parade by police and other emergency services had been organised in collusion with the BBC as a grand propaganda stunt.  The Westminster Bridge parade, without such coverage, would equate to a local event with inconsistent reporting to social media, and thus would be ineffective in terms of presentation. It is suggested that when the parade started to attract bad publicity, and this was immediate with a post in real time to social media from a health care operative working out of St Thomas’ Hospital, then the event lost its propaganda extravaganza potential, and that would perhaps explain why there appear to be no images online, although the emergency service personnel clearly posed for them, from the perspective of the Millbank tower.

The real sense of the sinister attached to what actually should be called the Westminster Bridge rally cannot be appreciated, perhaps, until one understands how the BBC has positioned itself as glue for social cohesion during what it and the UK Government wants the public to believe is a situation of crisis akin to war-time. When one searches the BBC online content, one is not hard pressed to come across expressions of self-importance in that regards such as the following:

At a time when the UK is facing an unprecedented crisis, the role of the BBC as a public service broadcaster which helps keep the country informed, educated and entertained, has never been more important.

Of course, the national unity that the BBC says that it promotes does not actually exist.  There’s no doubt that its witless audience believes the BBC’s assertions about it being crucial for solidarity; and being so uniquely tied to the “clap for carers” programme is essential for this. While in reality a great many people understand that the objective of economic debilitation is what the coronahoax is being prosecuted for, when the BBC talks to its audience about being crucial for the psychological health of the nation (“the BBC is helping us create shared experiences and emotions that will bring us closer as a society when we need it most”) it means that its role is to keep the slaves on the plantation even (and especially) as liberation approaches. In other words, to teach and consolidate an echo chamber perspective by which the UK Government can most easily pursue its agenda.

As such, there is another purpose being pursued, which is the survival of the BBC, and thus the sustainment of the UK Government’s main conduit for gaslighting a nation into perceiving consensus in agreement with, but more importantly in acquiescence to its action regardless of its hostility to the British people. In March the BBC announced that it was to suspend its planned termination of TV licence subsidies for over-75s. The change, which was due this month (June), and which promised to prove catastrophic for the BBC (see the FBEL article As BBC admits licence fee refusal impacts its viability, with the end of over-75 subsidy, even more “evasion” ahead), was in fact postponed to August 1st. In March, the BBC produced a statement that impresses upon its reader that the postponement was a matter of priorities:

The BBC’s priority over the coming period will be to do everything we can to serve the nation at this uniquely challenging time…

As the national broadcaster, the BBC has a vital role to play in supplying information to the public in the weeks and months ahead.

If we treat this as a sign, what we could perhaps predict coming from it is a u-turn performed by the Tory executive regarding the end of funding to the BBC for subsidies for the over-75s, and thus the temporary staving off of the aforementioned catastrophe. When the BBC claims to serve the nation in a challenging time, it is arguing that the old aged should not be denied the means by which they can be made to comply with the whims of the State.

Of course, the BBC has a point. With swathes of over-75s potentially rejecting TV because a new necessity to pay for an unaffordable TV licence, it means hundreds of thousands not receiving the “in it together” propaganda. As it is, the UK Government barely has a grip on any of the narratives that it weaves for its many psyops. The loss of a large contingent of over-75s as TV audience means a dent in UK Government’s ability to control the population.

So, it becomes clear to those of us who are vehemently against falling prey to UK Government that the BBC’s part in the coronahoax, which has been to promote the cult by which Britain has been tyrannised, is one that should serve as the final nail in the organisation’s coffin. Of course, the BBC is not alone in essentially performing the same function as did the filmmakers who recorded such spectaculars of essential worth to Nazi German national unity as the Nuremburg Rally, but the BBC is the organisation that claims an automatic fee from the public. And surely now, all those people who have been clinging to a TV licence and paying for it with the excuse that it enabled them to access their interests (the excuse of football being the most cretinous of all), should understand how, when they fund the BBC, they grant the ability to UK Government to persecute them.