As expected (or, as warned), UK Government births “anti-tyranny terrorism”
This coming Friday will see the sentencing of Britain’s first “Covid-19”-protestant terrorist, even though the reader might not have noticed that there had been a trial of such a thing.
In fact, Oliver Lewin was charged in August 2022 of “being engaged in the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism”, and it was only after the conviction in December that the case was first noticed by the author as an headline in one of those aggregation of news things that occurs when one is trying to sign-in to web-based email. Blink and you would have missed it.
Naturally, given the proprietor and creator of this site’s concern to cover false-flag “Incel terrorism” and phantom “far-right terrorism”, and street protest especially to be connected to the latter, as well as to cover UK Government’s vehicles to achieve both perception and actuality of the connection, namely “Tommy Robinson”, National Action and Save our Rights UK, and also to expose alternative media and its selective coverage to steer concerned citizenry towards acting out in some of these forums to become criminalised, or to make them unawares in other cases so that there is no perception of pattern and risk, that there is now actual “anti-lockdown terrorism” is a very important development that is bound to cause a natural reaction at FBEL (the exact opposite of the subject being ignored in alternative media). Besides which, you were warned things would come to a juncture, through the vectors described above, where opposition to tyranny is criminalised, and a “told you so” is richly deserved.
So, in a third and then even fourth part to a series of articles (of which this is the introduction), there will be a review of that confluence of courses by which we have arrived at this point, and an exploration of how the concept of anti-tyranny “terrorism” is to be reinforced further in the public psyche (this Andrew Bridgen MP outburst, for instance, to make equivalence between “Covid-19 vaccine” and “holocaust” is theatre for the purpose of presenting a picture of extremism to be linked with refusing to comply with the demands and expectations [impressed upon the public as being reasonable, when they are not] of UK Government).
Before that, in the second part of the series, there will be a look at the means by which Lewin was convicted, and how the act that formed the crux of the indictment against him could have been induced by intelligence agency informants – in other words, how Lewin was potentially entrapped.
Coming first of all, however, will be a piece that investigates whether Lewin was filmed at an “anti-lockdown” rally at Trafalgar Square in 2021. This event was one that occurred after the “walk through London” that happened in March of the same year, which was very damaging for UK Government so that it had to double its efforts to incriminate the anti-tyranny movement by i) having media figures supposedly hassled in the street (and trespassing on media and other private premises), ii) revisiting attempts to place performances by the likes of the discreditable Piers Corbyn and David Icke at the centre of rallies where after there would be tussles between crowd and police, and iii) having alternative media intensify its encouragement of audience to participation. As it happens, having had one’s attention drawn to the behaviour of “protestors” by the possibility of Lewin being amongst them, one must notice conduct that expressly shows that these encounters of supposed violence by which corporate-media could blame the anti-tyranny movement were staged and were not real. It is a situation that must introduce suspicion that the Lewin case is itself a tableau for the purpose of establishing precedent. It is the first of its kind, after all, and UK Government could ill afford to risk a person accused of “anti-lockdown” terror to go free on the first attempt because of a defence lawyer acting authentically in a genuine case.
Of course, it’s too early yet to make any such conclusions, but the very least that can be said is that Lewin’s trial once again saw a Crown Court judge upholding the “dangerous rubber duck” principle, where a suspect who didn’t have the means to be able to commit a particular crime was yet adjudged to be poised to do it, and that’s why it was a nonsense conviction in the first instance, and an indicator of foul play (instead of the giving out of justice) for the sake of UK Government agenda. FBEL reports this very same sort of thing over and over again. Will notice – as it self-evidently becomes a matter of increasing urgency to ask – ever be taken of it?
