It is amusing to the author, or perhaps the appropriate word should be bemusing, that the population of Great Britain, or most of it, think that they know what happened to Lee Rigby. This is mostly due to what the corporate-media reported on the day, and the days immediately following. As is the fashion these days, even though they be full of speculation at times, or feature eye-witness accounts where the owner of the statement has later been totally discredited, are received as fact. They are received as fact because of the unnatural trust that British people have in their media – imagining it somehow to be their friend and helpful ally in a world of information that they otherwise might become lost in.
The biggest scandal in these regards are two: the witnesses who said they saw a decapitated head – which they never did – and then that this lie became a fact through the reportage of certain newspapers. This untruth was never retracted. The two Michaels were largely already convicted in the court of public opinion long before they had a ‘proper’ trial. Knowledge of the detail in the evidence, therefore, can be assumed not to be widely understood and appreciated. Indeed, the one single thing that formed the public prejudice above all else was the footage shown on evening news transmissions of Michael Adebolajo seemingly admitting the murder.
As it turns out, and as mentioned above, this is perhaps the one element of the evidence by which Adebolajo’s guilt can be attributed to him, and moreover we can’t even say that it is enough to convict him. Because Adebolajo thinks he killed someone, it doesn’t follow that he did; i.e. he demonstrates guilt, but it is valid or justified. His speech begins “the only reason we killed this man today…” – who does he mean when he says “we”? Is it someone else for whom he is taking culpability?
This admission of Adebolajo’s turns out to be a pivotal piece of evidence, because in fact the corporate-media doesn’t need to do anything in its coverage other than relay the speech – Adebolajo convicts himself in that court of public opinion. And because of this, come the trial, it became very easy for the defence team not to do its job properly. That’s an unusual way of stating the situation; we might more likely have said that Adebolajo made it hard for anyone to defend him. However, as we will see, there was a way to defend Adebolajo even in this context – it just wasn’t done. As for Adebowale, the job for his separate defence team should have been much easier again – but any kind of defence, let alone a rigorous one, did not materialise. Adebolajo incriminated Adebowale with his insistence on multiple murderers of Rigby – the automatic assumption is that he is talking about Adebowale too, but if we were asked to locate his own admission, we would be very hard pressed to find it.
To be perfectly accurate, it seems that the defence teams took a line from some guiding force – whether that be Adebolajo or someone or thing else – to defend the two Michaels in a way that they must have known would fail. When Adebolajo testified in court, it became clear that his, and therefore Adebowale’s defence was based on the idea that they were soldiers in a war against Britain. Although what they did was immediately spoken of in terms of terrorism, the two Michaels actually faced charges of murder and conspiracy to kill police. This is important. It made the two Michaels’ defence into no defence at all. By taking away the label “terrorist” or “enemy combatant” the two Michaels claim of being in combat would be made void (and yet, despite that, the two Michaels would be characterised as terrorists even during the trial itself by comment in the media).
Here is what Richard Whittam QC said during the course of the trial:
“Killing to make a political point or to frighten the public, or put pressure on the Government… is murder and remains murder whether the Government in question is a good one, a bad one, or a deceitful one.”
Woolwich: Adebolajo Evidence ‘Is No Defence’; Staff Writer; 25 November 2013.
This is wrong. Murder to do the things described is called terrorism, or war, depending on a point of view. What Whittam was declaring was that war on bad government, which can be justified in English Common Law, means that any deaths resulting from it are classified as murder.
And here we really get to the crux of what the Lee Rigby murder trial was all about. Whether or not the incident was a hoax or not, the trial was used to frame the British Government’s position on a number of things. There is not the time to get into what Whittam’s statement meant for the English birthright (and duty) to remove bad government – by force if necessary – for we must concentrate on the religious and racial aspects of the point of the trial, which is not unrelated.
The trial of Adebolajo and Adebowale was a show trial. We should have perhaps expected the two Michaels to have been shot dead, but they were saved slaughter – whether by design or by accident – to be put on trial so that their Islamic defiance of British law could be tested and could fail. They had killed, as they had claimed, a guilty party – a man who they thought was a soldier in the opposite army in a great battle – as was required of them by Allah. As such, then, no earthly law had jurisdiction over them. This is how they could come to court admitting the deed – apparently – but pleading not guilty to murder as it is defined by the British Establishment; this definition was reiterated by Whittam to reinforce the point.
Most significantly was what the judge said in his summing up when passing sentence. He commented that the two Michaels had betrayed Islam. At this, the two Michaels took umbrage. The media reported scuffles with guards and outbursts. This theatre showed the public that the two Michaels really did not believe that sentiment, and so the watching public had an idea reinforced in their head: what officialdom says about Islam isn’t the same thing that its adherents say about it. This is crucial if the Government is to set Muslims up a bogeyman through which to execute a programme that restricts the liberties of all communities – not just Muslims. If the general British public does not believe that most Muslims mean what they say about wanting to peacefully coexist, then there will be permanent distrust, and scope for the Government to provoke conflict.
The trial, therefore, became about stating the reality of a threat to the British State from a violent and brutal Islamic enemy. Another book needs to be written about the source of political Islam, which would not be any threat whatsoever if it wasn’t supported and promoted by the British Government in the world – but suffice to say, Islam is not the same as Islamism, or political Islam – the latter being the use of Islam to conquer and create empire.
In the days and weeks after the Lee Rigby incident, attacks on Muslims increased dramatically as the latent hatred and fear that has been trained into people by utterances and acts from and by the Establishment regarding Islam spilled out. This is hatred and fear that is devised to enable people to feel better about having draconian security arrangements at home which are in fact intended to take liberty away. It is the hatred and fear that is devised to enable people to feel better about dropping bombs on Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa. At the time of the Lee Rigby incident, the British Government was trying to win public opinion for military airstrikes in Syria.
What we can say is the Lee Rigby incident gave the Establishment as opportunity to have a trial which contributed very much to the ongoing demonization of Islam and Muslims for the purposes just stated. The thing about such opportunities is that perhaps, if all was allowed to progress organically, they wouldn’t come about. A Government that wanted to pull a trigger but could only do so after a provocation, would never get to fire the gun if things were allowed to progress organically and no causal event came about. This is why Government routinely makes their own provocations; and the Lee Rigby incident looks like one of these.
These aren’t ideas that are attributable to the author if this book. The Hegelian Dialectic is a few hundred years old now. To create a new paradigm, people with the power to do it have to cause conflict between two opposing camps to create a solution. There is a thesis, and anti-thesis, and a synthesis. The same can be expressed in a different way. The people with the power to do it can cause a problem that will provoke a legitimate reaction – even if they then step into control that reaction. Finally, a solution is imposed on all involved. So, for instance, the US Government stages the 911 attacks, which creates the perceived threat of Islamism, which then must be solved with endless war.
A major feature of the Lee Rigby trial was how, because it was essentially reinforcing an event that had been used as propaganda, it was presented so as to manipulate public perception. And so it is valuable to evaluate the material of the trial through the media bias because we can be sure, even if the trial was as straight as a die, it will have been selected and proffered to the public for the purpose of condemning the accused in the court of public opinion. If we find that the findings of the trial appear to be problematic even from the distorted perspective offered by corporate-media, then we can hardly be accused of misinterpreting the material in a vanilla state, but we can conclude that there was something extremely wrong with the trial.
Finally, on one level we could say that there had been a crime committed at Woolwich and, even if Adebolajo and Adebowale had perpetrated it or colluded to perpetrate it, the witnesses to the attack were not reliable enough to convict them for the crime. On another level we could say that the evidence presents a problem in actually identifying if any crime had been committed at all. Between these two positions is the place where we must reside after considering the opening events of the Lee Rigby attack incident. It is not a satisfactory place to occupy, and as we tend to hurry to get in out of the wet, which is uncomfortable for us, we naturally want to find an answer and discover in which resting place we should berth. Looking at the next phase, the waiting or Woolwich Angel phase, there are no answers to be found there. I suspect this phase will only confirm the right answer. Instead we must hurry through to the preceding phase after the Woolwich Angel one, which is the police intervention phase, and return to the second phase thereafter.