The Rule Britannia! psyop, and The Times at its source

Remember the furore around the Last Night of the Proms, and whether or not such anthems as Land of Hope and Glory, and Rule Britannia!, were to be sung, or even played at the concert? The upshot was that the songs were indeed performed, with vocals provided by a small choir – presumably (because the author did not watch), for the behavioural example to be imparted to the idiotic TV audience, spread socially-distanced thin in that bank of the Albert Hall above the orchestra which would usually hold a mass ensemble.

The controversy about the prospect of no anthems at the Last Night of the Proms was a psychological operation. There never was any plan to omit them. How could there ever be? UK Government would like very much to have British people buy into a patriotic fantasy that empowers the State against their own individual person, and believe in institutions that do actually need to be destroyed because they are wicked engines of control, and anthem singing at the Last Night at the Proms is a prime example of the latter that induces the former.

The whole thing grew out of some seeding by The Times. The Times, it has been said before hereabouts, appears to be nothing other than a direct opening for operating on public psychology by British military intelligence. The signs of such a reality are plain to see, if one can notice how much nonsense originates with something that The Times – and exclusively The Times – can rustle up. The Rule Britannia! psyop is yet another example, and it serves as another educational demonstration of The Times’ work.

As mentioned above, the fundamental truth about this story is that the BBC never ever intended to drop what is the core element from a Last Night of the Proms program. Instead, the people organising the event were anticipating a problem to overcome in relation to “Covid-19” restrictions, whereby the orchestra wouldn’t be the usual full one, and so some arrangement of the music would be required to suit. Secondly, there wouldn’t be an audience, and so of course, the very question of whether or not there would be any point, even, in performing songs which should be accompanied by singing in the stalls becomes a valid one. Is this not obvious?

As it happens, from the start the organisers were looking at doing watered down versions of the songs, and then for this one year only. There really was no controversy, and yet one was stirred into existence when the Sunday Times, on 23rd August, in an article by agents Grant Tucker and Rosamund Urwin, quoted unnamed sources that chiefly blamed the Finnish woman who would be conducting the orchestra on the night. However, it soon came out (the Daily Mail article from whence comes the extract below is dated 27th August) that Dalia Stasevska never at any point had any intention to not perform the anthems. The following is the statement she released, after a time during which, for whatever reason, she would not issue any comment at all:

I am so honoured to be part of this year’s BBC Proms and its iconic Last Night.

I understand its prominence in the UK classical music calendar and wider cultural landscape. It is incredibly exciting to be part of an event with such long-standing tradition.

It is testament to the unfailing work and commitment of the organisers that the Proms can proceed at all this year.

However, in recent days there has been a good deal of inaccurate speculation about my role in determining the format of this year’s Last Night Of The Proms.

This false speculation has led to abuse and threats towards me and my family which is why I am speaking out.

For the record I have played no role in deciding the traditional elements of the programme, I recognise these are an important part of the event.

I’ve been wrongly portrayed as a person who tries to influence political debates – this is not true. I am an artist, I want to be able to speak through my work to bring people together and build solidarity.

When I first lived in London I remember falling in love with the city. The UK is such an inspiring place to work, and the BBC is an important part of that.

I do not intend to enter the public debate. I am a professional musician with a fondness and respect for the UK. I am very much looking forward to performing again with the fabulous musicians of the BBC Symphony Orchestra in what is sure to be a memorable event in September.

This statement on its own makes The Times story into an obvious lie.

And yet, the real story had been available to be understood, by all the usual suspects who can get whipped into a frenzy by manipulation from media, media influencers, politicians and pressure groups, as soon as the Monday evening directly after the Sunday on which The Times had launched the operation. The following extract is from the BBC, dated Tuesday 25th August:

The pieces are usually sung but will be performed without lyrics this year [note, this is reporting, not a quote from a statement of official position], although they are expected to be back in full when the pandemic is over.

The concert is due to take place on 12 September but without an audience.

In a statement on Monday evening, BBC Proms said it was announcing the concert’s programme following recent speculation.

It said there would be new orchestral versions of Land Of Hope And Glory, and Rule, Britannia!, as well as a new arrangement of Jerusalem.

“With much reduced musical forces and no live audience, the Proms will curate a concert that includes familiar, patriotic elements such as Jerusalem and the National Anthem, and bring in new moments capturing the mood of this unique time, including You’ll Never Walk Alone, presenting a poignant and inclusive event for 2020,” the statement said.

A week later, September 2nd to be precise, the BBC released another statement confirming that singing would take place:

The pandemic means a different Proms this year and one of the consequences, under COVID-19 restrictions, is we are not able to bring together massed voices. For that reason we took the artistic decision not to sing Rule, Britannia! and Land of Hope and Glory in the Hall.

We have been looking hard at what else might be possible and we have a solution. Both pieces [Rule Britannia! and Land of Hope and Glory] will now include a select group of BBC Singers. This means the words will be sung in the Hall, and as we have always made clear, audiences will be free to sing along at home. While it can’t be a full choir, and we are unable to have audiences in the Hall, we are doing everything possible to make it special and want a Last Night truly to remember.

In the time available to it between original Times lying, and what was styled, in media combative on behalf of that section of the public which was the target for manipulation, a BBC U-turn, several tentacles of government swirled, in what would have been coordinated activity, to make a mountain out of a molehill.

First and foremost there was the activity that linked the issue to the major controversy that was ongoing at the time, stemming from an apparent piece of police brutality in the United States, centred around the doings of the so-called Black Lives Matter organisation. This started from the first moment, as is plain to see from The Times article in question, before it disappears behind a pay wall:

The BBC is discussing whether to drop Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory from the Last Night of the Proms in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The traditional anthems are hugely popular with the flag-waving prommers who ordinarily cram into the Royal Albert Hall, but organisers fear a backlash because of their perceived association with colonialism and slavery.

Dalia Stasevska, 35, from Finland, who is conducting the Last Night, is among those said to be keen to modernise the evening’s repertoire and reduce the patriotic elements.

A BBC source said: “Dalia is a big supporter of Black Lives Matter and thinks a ceremony without an audience is the perfect moment to bring change”

On 24th August, presumably using the Times’ article as its source, the Daily Mail reported:

A source told The Times the BBC’s handling of the programme at times felt like ‘white guys in a panic’ trying to appease the Black Lives Matter movement because of the songs’ apparent links to colonialism and slavery.

Of course, Dalia Stasevska’s dedication to using the tradition of the Last Night of the Proms to create solidarity, as expressed in her statement, runs a wrecking ball through the narrative that she was an activist in these terms. Moreover, any impression of how the BBC was handling the situation was that of the unnamed source; i.e. an invention of the “journalists” who wrote the piece, most likely.

The weaving in of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) phenomenon was absolutely central to agitating the section of the British public who were the target of the operation: people who can sense, if they don’t know it outright, that BLM is an instrument of the Establishment’s cultural revolution that works to create leverage for change by engendering feelings of “white guilt” in the Anglo-Saxon heritage middle class of the US and the UK. The end game isn’t civil rights, it is the end of the middle class, or “white privilege”, as it is termed to demonise it in the framework of so-called black victimhood – which, in turn, is evoked out of copious reference to American historical racial tension, and the slave trade from Africa to the Americas. There is no need to comment on the former of these, because it should have no bearing on any BLM movement in the UK, but as for using slavery to try and get everyone, not just white people, to give up their capital ownership potential, it is such a preposterous proposition, that it shouldn’t, and in fact doesn’t, have the weight it needs. This would be because slavery from Africa to the Americas historically conducted by the British is i) now beyond the control, nor not the fault of anyone alive, ii) uncontroversial in its historical context (and the author has no time for people who don’t understand the brutal facts of life), iii) unremarkable in the context of complete human history: black people from Africa have not suffered uniquely from being made slaves, and iv) would not have been possible without the part played by other black Africans in the production of the resource.

Ultimately, the racism aspect was quashed when Dalia Stasevska made her statement.

Another sure sign that the controversy was a psyop was the participation of Boris Johnson, who criticised the BBC’s apparent decision not to have vocals – if ever such a final decision had been made. The point of Johnson’s intervention was to have those who were the target of this psyop recreate an impression of UK Government being on its side – and especially a Conservative executive branch being on its side – in a conflict that had been framed, as the target would see it, with the use of the BLM connection as the “left” attacking the “right” (a deception so easy to see through, it is quite staggering that so many people can’t: the Tories are Statist authoritarians, i.e. on the left of the real political spectrum, just as much as Labour). If people were not sure about the sides in the fight, the “lefty” antagonism was amplified through the much publicised comments of a high profile BBC employee, a Songs of Praise programme producer, who made predictable associations between singing anthems at the Last Night of the Proms and Nazism.

Another important ingredient in the psyop was the involvement of a pressure group, Defund The BBC, run by the same folk (reports The New European) who were involved in creating Brexit credentials for Boris Johnson (from an iNews article: “Boris Johnson has become the latest MP to publicly support hard Brexit-backing site Stand Up 4 Brexit, which is campaigning against Theresa May’s plans for leaving the EU”) and also getting people involved in the displacement activity of campaigning, and paying good money after bad, to have Big Ben chime to acknowledge the so-called day that Britain left the EU – two things both that actually didn’t happen. The group being referred to is indeed Stand Up 4 Brexit which, through its activity, displayed signs of being controlled opposition. Defund The BBC, too, is suspicious; consider the following circumstantial evidence:

When the Last Night of the Proms controversy first emerged, on the very next day after the Sunday Times article, the Daily Express went to Defund the BBC for a comment, and published it, under headlines testifying to public fury, and within a story telling of a backlash “over plans to drop… anthems – which are popular with millions of Britons – …in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.” It’s a remarkable thing that this happened, because Defund the BBC has come out of nowhere. Its Twitter account and website were created in June 2020. Defund The BBC’s high involvement in this psyop comprises it taking the catch thrown to it, with the toss all too evidently being aimed at the organisation that the Establishment wants certain people to think is representing them. It won’t be a coincidence, in a time that the concept of publicly funded television is in such peril, that an organisation has emerged, and has been gifted such high profile, that manages opinion in respect of ensuring the continuation of consumption of the medium – which it certainly does.

Defund the BBC is a group that doesn’t condemn TV watching – as well it would not, as per our suspicions. It promotes giving up the TV licence, but not acting against being programmed. It also tells its audience that they should inform the TV licence fee enforcement that they have stopped paying the tax – and as we know here at FBEL, this is behaviour that makes a person a prime target for licence fee enforcement. And while the Defund The BBC website warns that the licence fee enforcement, after it has been informed about such a thing, might want to inspect the veracity of a claim to not require a licence, it also tells its audience that licence fee enforcement doesn’t need to be let in without a warrant. This advice is like asking a person to present a red rag to a bull. But this is not really the point; in this psyop, Defund The BBC was used as the voice of a certain type of Briton (the target) who had been enraged by the Establishment, so that looking on the panorama of the operation one could see confirmation that the provocation had been met with defiance. It is the defiance, and more importantly (as is always the case) a perception of it, that was the essential objective of the psyop.

The purpose of the operation was to give a certain type of Briton – the privet hedge snipping, back bone of the tax and political system, tennis or golf club, Parish Council Roger sort – something to make him feel himself again after the sense of shame generated by the opening raucous movement (to keep to a musical theme) of the Covid-19 symphony. Your television may tell you that Britain is inhabited with wheelchair bound lesbians of ethnic origin, but it is in fact a land populated by middle of the road Roger and his, admittedly, newly career orientated wife. They are the demographic that the author calls “the taxpayer”, and as such, they are a demographic that UK Government handles with kid gloves so that they don’t leave a false paradigm that has been carefully constructed for them to inhabit.

There’s no doubt that in their Jerry-and-Margot-Leadbetter bubble, Roger and wife’s involuntarily obedient reaction to “Covid-19” would have created some unwelcome and disturbing inner reflections so that they, who grew up with the myth of the wartime British Bulldog, would have started to realise that a Nazi occupation would have been welcomed like a long lost relative. Surely, when such people are having these ideas (and if they weren’t, then Peter Hitchens, in his role of contrarian for effect, was raising the subject with them), singing Land of Hope and Glory, and Rule Britannia! would no longer appear to be appropriate.

But, as the reader must be able to appreciate, it’s vitally important that UK Government doesn’t have its taxpaying backbone of the system moving into a sphere of realisation that theirs is in fact a Land of Cowardice and Ignominy. Not only would the market for nasty World War II commemorative coins collapse, but some of this population would actually work through the revelation of their desolation, and find mental strength away from artificial props supplied by the State, and thus would have to reconstruct their identity. And so, rather than allowing the public to have a reality check, where it might be decided that the old anthems no longer suit, and some new scheme of national characteristics must be built based on new heroics, the UK Government arranges for a fake political crisis to occur, so that there is a fight to keep the old stuff instead of rejection of it. It is a fight that is joined instinctively as it is framed in the usual, tired parameters, and so it is a fight within the arena that keeps the public looking inwards, instead of turning outwards to struggle with the guards at the door of the exit as they make their escape from their bread and circus amphitheatre. Creating the Brexit Party to encourage participation in the 2019 European elections was also a UK Government operation, albeit on a bigger scale, for the same purpose: to manifest continued belief and investment in a system that people had discovered to be damaging to them.

So, creating a furore about Rule Britannia! was about getting Roger and wife into a fight that they would win, framed in terms of the crutch of the false left-right political spectrum, to preserve an identity that had suffered a potentially devastating blow, and therefore to save an entire system. The Times started it all.