Category Archives: Conditioning

Stories about communication and schooling

Did Corporate Media concoct the “Britain First” shout myth?

The murder of an MP on 16/6/2016 ahead of a referendum that was going to bring about that long-hoped-for devastating game-changer in British politics was just all too convenient – all too convenient for people who have far too much at stake to allow Brexit to happen. Before the murder, as is universally acknowledged, the polls were reflecting what British people knew in their guts – they were going to vote to leave the EU. Post-murder – and there is an atmosphere of unease and trepidation. Good people are, in their masses and by an Establishment-contrived association with the murderer, Thomas Mair, having their noses rubbed roughly in the mess that they are being told they have brought into the clean house. Since the murder politicians and activists for the Remain side have undeniably been making hay – abetted by their erstwhile partners in conniving and perception-shaping, the British Corporate Media. It was truly ghastly for the author to see the new spring in the steps of the StrongerIn activists as he walked through his town today. Reading the message boards on the internet, the author can also see that there is an anxiety amongst patriotic Britons that the murder of Jo Cox – or rather its exploitation by the said gang of villains – will have a negative effect at polling booths and dash a widely and long-held ambition of freedom – now, according to the Pro-Globalist Remain side, a dirty word. It is truly agonising to see known gangsters – pretty much the same people who brought you WMD in 45 minutes, or guns to Al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria – hold an entire country to emotional blackmail. This is why it is crucial that there should be a review and a repudiation of the data presented to us by the Corporate Media about the Jo Cox murder, for it is this information by which the entire Vote Leave campaign is currently being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion – with the UKIP element being persecuted quite particularly. The author has made a preliminary foray, and has found evidence enough to believe that the Media has undoubtedly become involved in creating a false narrative to explain the actions of Thomas Mair. There seems to be one definite case of invented information being introduced by a Media outlet. Furthermore, until the author sees evidence to the contrary (which does not include a protest of “the Media wouldn’t do that”), there seems to be another case where a Media outlet has not only introduced the same information, but also set up a self-referential loop of citation to cover its tracks. Thirdly, it is entirely possible, according to the author’s study of the evidence, that Media has also sought out witness testimony to reinforce the false narrative rather than reflect the reality on the ground.

At the core of this chicanery is the claim that “Britain First” had been shouted by Thomas Mair as he attacked Jo Cox. Please note, the narrative that this information facilitated enabled the media to hang a political motive on the deed immediately, so there was cause for what we must accept these days to be a Media that is very far indeed from being independent of the State. The storyline provided meat for the shock headlines that are – as the text-book for doing this sort of thing states – designed to place an unwavering certainty of the initially sown seed.  However, it looks almost certainly like there was no shout of “Britain First” – and this discovery was thanks to the interest, efforts and the large-enough web-presence of Breitbart – which, reaching in from Free USA, is big enough to smash the usual British Corporate Media grip on the consensus – something the text-book usually relies on.

To begin with, then, Breitbart followed up comments made on TV (here) by witness Hichem Ben Abdallah – the author isn’t clear as to whether this interview was with Channel 5s Andy Bell – who actually rang the alarm bells with a tweet – or whether it was with Sky News. Either way, in an extensive interview with the alternative media organisation, Mr Abdallah maintained[1] that he didn’t hear anyone shouting “Britain First”.

On the same day Breitbart was conducting investigations in Birstall – the 17th June – a message was discovered pasted in the window of the launderette –  a business supposedly close at hand to the place of the murder – and it read:

“Please note, I did not tackle the gunman. And no one shouted Britain First at any time.”

The LBC reportage continued…

LBC’s reporter in Birstall Bethan Davies spoke to Ahmed Tahir, the owner, who insisted he has not spoken to anyone who heard that phrase.

And Mr Tahir admitted he was worried for his safety after reports named him for making to original claim.

As the above quotation spells out, Mr Tahir had previously been named as witnessing the “Britain First” shout. In fact there were a number of people who the Corporate Media claimed had witnessed the phenomenon. As we shall see, all these attributions became undermined. We’ll start with Aamir Tahir – who did it for himself.

The Mail, at 6pm on the day of the murder when the author captured the page, reported the following: (link)

Aamir Tahir, of The Dry Clean Centre, said the gunman was heard shouting ‘Britain first’.

He said: ‘The lady I work with heard two loud bangs. I wish I was there because I would have tried to stop him.

‘Apparently the guy who did it shouted ‘Britain first’ and if I had been there I would have tackled him.’ 

Furthermore, the Independent, in a piece published on the 17th, had this:

Aamir Tahir, of the Dry Clean Centre, said the gunman was heard shouting “Britain first”.

As the reader can see, Tahir’s hearsay – if indeed he even ever revealed it to journalists – was turned into a firsthand witness account. If Tahir hadn’t had expressly denied the reports, and if objective journalists had not been on hand to convey his real story, this non-witness account would have entered into the record as fact in the ongoing public-kangaroo-court trial of the Vote Leave campaign. The disgracefulness of the journalism is self-evident.

The next candidate as source of Mair’s war cry was provided by the Guardian (link), which when the author recorded the page at 6pm on 16th June, reported the following:

Graeme Howard, 38, who lives in nearby Bond Street, told the Guardian he heard the man shout “Britain first” before the shooting and during the arrest.

“I heard the shot and I ran outside and saw some ladies from the cafe running out with towels,” he said. “There was loads of screaming and shouting and the police officers showed up.

“He was shouting ‘Britain first’ when he was doing it and being arrested. He was pinned down by two police officers and she was taken away in an ambulance.”

It was very unfortunate for the Guardian that, when in the area, Breitbart went looking for Mr Howard. This is what they reported:

There is no record of the last witness named in the Guardian – Graeme Howard – living in the area, though they claim he lived on Bond Street, just minutes away from the site of the murder. Breitbart London visited Bond Street – a tiny road – last night, and could not find Mr. Howard.

As damning as that may be[2], another reason to be incredulous at the Guardian’s report at face value is how Howard gives the impression that the attack and arrest happened at the same place. Jo Cox was pronounced dead at 13:48 – apparently still in the care of paramedics according to police statements, so we can confirm that part of “Howard’s” story. However, Mair was arrested in Risedale Avenue  at 13.25pm – about a mile away. Additionally, there is footage of the arrest on the internet, and if Mair had been shouting “Britain First”, he’d become most uncooperative by the time the camera started rolling to capture it.

The whereabouts of Graeme Howard are a great mystery on the patriotic side of the internet – obviously there does not seem to be too much concern on the other as Mr Howard still fails to materialise. Deserved condemnation of the Guardian can be  found here: BiasedBBC – The Guardian in the Gutter.

The author also captured the Telegraph live feed (here) at 6pm on 16th June, and noticed when perusing it later that at 15:32 the following item flashed onto the wire:

Clarke Rothwell said that, as the man stabbed Mrs Cox, he shouted: “Britain First, Britain First, Britain First.”

He said: “Three times she was shot, the initial time which then she dropped to the floor and two more times.

“The third time he got close proximity he shot her round the head area.”

He added: “In the meantime he was stabbing her as well, he was stabbing her with his knife.”

Mr Rothwell said there was blood everywhere at the scene.

Asked if he thought Ms Cox had intervened in a dispute he said he understood the altercation was “always between the guy carrying the gun and the lady that got shot”.

Mr Rothwell added: “He was stabbing her with a footlong knife multiple times while shouting Britain First, Britain First, Britain First.”

Much later in the day came further developments on this front in the shape of a TV interview with Clarke Rothwell conducted by BBC (here). Apparently this was done during daylight hours, but according to the scrolling banner it was aired at about 10pm. In this clip, the interviewer claimed that this constituted Rothwell’s  only appearance on TV – but that wasn’t actually true, as we shall see.

At this stage of the investigation, it becomes clear why it was obviously felt by some people in the Media that Rothwell would have to revisit his story, overtly – in front of camera: the “Britain First” myth was starting to look heavily mauled and was barely hanging together. Even Rothwell had problems with his story – having appeared to have changed it by the time that the BBC had arranged his to-camera piece. This is what he said:

“The words I heard him say was Britain First, or put Britain first – I can’t say exactly.”

Obviously, this is very different to “Britain First! Britain First! Britain First!” which the Telegraph, at 15.32, had cited Rothwell as reporting. “Britain First! Britain First! Britain First!” suggests a pounding assault. “I can’t say exactly” is extraordinarily feeble in comparison, and “put Britain first” is a back-peddling – and incidentally sounds like something that the leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, had suggested during the course of the day (where, noticeably, he took the opportunity to slur Nigel Farage).[3]

As mentioned above, this rendezvous between Rothwell and the BBC had not been the first time that Rothwell had appeared on BBC. Earlier in the day he conducted a telephone interview with the Corporation – one that, apparently, went out live at around 14:51. This interview is embedded in a tweet (here)  broadcast at 15:00. In this interview there was no mention at all of Mair’s war cry. Indeed, that Rothwell, originally, had nothing at all  to say about it was reflected in other reporting – as we shall see in 3 examples.

Firstly, there was the BBC’s own website – which the author captured at 6pm on 16th June. The article included a partial transcript of the interview, and at that time, there was still no mention of a shout:

“Cafe owner Clarke Rothwell, who witnessed the attack, said he heard a “loud popping noise that sounded like a balloon burst – a loud balloon”.

“When I looked round there’s a man stood there in his 50s with a white baseball cap on and a jacket with a gun, an old fashioned looking gun in his hand,” he said.

“He shot this lady once and then he shot her again, he fell to the floor, leant over shot her once more in the face area.

“Somebody tried to grab him, wrestling with him and then he wielded a knife, like a hunting knife, just started lunging at her with a knife half a dozen times. People were screaming and running from the area”.

Please note that this BBC page seems to have been updated in the intervening period. The text of Rothwell’s first interview is not changed – but the video of his second interview has been added – along with this sub headline: “One eyewitness told the BBC they heard her attacker shout “put Britain first” at least twice beforehand.”

Secondly, the Guardian also made reference to that first Rothwell telephone interview:

Clarke Rothwell, another witness, told BBC News there was a direct altercation between Cox and a man carrying a gun, who “purposefully” targeted her.

“He shot this lady and then shot her again,” he said. “He lent down. Someone was wrestling with him and he was wielding a knife and lunging at her. Three times she was shot. People were trying to help her.

“Then he ran off down a one-way street. Me and my mate drove round to try and find him.”

This article is the same one in which the Guardian attributes the “Britain First” statement to Graeme Howard, and the link is to be found above. Please note that in its present form this article still does not have Rothwell making the claim.

Third and finally is the Daily Mail, and at the time the author captured the page (see above re Tahir) it had this – and only this – with respect to Clarke Rothwell:

Witness Clarke Rothwell who runs a cafe near where the attack took place, told the BBC he believed the MP had been shot and stabbed multiple times.

He said: ‘He [the attacker] was stabbing her as well, he was stabbing her with his knife.’

mail_early_report
An early mention of Rothwell in the Mail does not mention “Britain First” in his testimony.

Please note that the Daily Mail changes the content of its pages quite frequently – the link provided above will arrive at the page in a more recent  and much altered state where the article will apportion to Rothwell a larger share of the responsibility for hearing the shout. Unfortunately, a cached copy of the earlier version – the page as looked like when the author first saw it – doesn’t seem to be available.

Taking this information into consideration, it appears to the author that, originally, Rothwell didn’t make the claim about a shout of “Britain First”, and the testimony was only attributed to him later. Sure, the author has also found other articles like one at the Metro (here), published at 13:59 16th June, which suggests that Rothwell did indeed give the testimony long before the Telegraph reported it at 15:32. However, this Metro article conveniently explains that its source is the Telegraph – which didn’t start reporting the Rothwell/Britain-First link until 15.32. Like other Media online, the Metro updates its pages, and the publish date becomes meaningless in terms of establishing when certain content appeared during the life time of the page.

Before moving on, just to establish with another example a probable likely general time for when Rothwell started to become connected with the “Britain First” shout testimony, the Independent cited the Huddersfield Examiner as having talked to Rothwell (see link above), and this Examiner story (here) first appeared at 15.29 – which is much closer to the appearance of Rothwell’s name on the Telegraph’s timeline – namely 15.32.

To wrap up so far, then, weighing up the balance of things, the author is of the opinion that the “Britain First” shouts didn’t happen. On one hand there are witnesses who categorically said it didn’t – they even refute claims attributed to them by the Media – on the other hand there is the invented witness, Howard, and the shifting Rothwell (Cafe owner or Gas Fitter?), who appears to have embellished his story from one BBC interview to the next. Why he would do this can’t be speculated on, but we do know that Clarke Rothwell appears to have been a member of the BNP, and this could have been a sore point of leverage for some unscrupulous party who wanted him to cooperate more particularly. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the BNP was famously infiltrated by the British intelligence agencies, and there is speculation that it, and indeed Britain First, exist specifically so that anti-Establishment political activity can be tarred with the same brush of extremism.

Having decided that the “Britain First” shout did not happen on the ground, one naturally asks the question: where did it come from? Well, we already have seen it placed in the mouth of a witness by the Guardian – but given the nature of the Corporate Media,  there doesn’t need to be a single source. The author has been on a hunt, and there is another suspect. We’ll get to the who and how shortly after we have walked through the trail that the author took.

In the Telegraph’s live feed, link above, at 14.36, the following report appeared:

Gunman shouted ‘Britain First’, witness claims

Some witnesses at the scene are claiming that the man who shot Ms Cox shouted “Britain First”.

Speaking to Sky News, he said the man walked very slowly away from the scene after the attack.

That Sky News had issued a report at this time about a shout of “Britain First” was confirmed by Breitbart in its live feed coverage. The following was published there before 14.40:

Sky News has reported an eye-witness who said the attacker shouted “Britain First” as he committed the attack.

That Sky News had issued a report at this time about a shout of “Britain First” was confirmed by Breitbart in its live feed coverage. The following was published there before 14.40:

Sky News has reported an eye-witness who said the attacker shouted “Britain First” as he committed the attack.

This Sky report has been impossible to track down – but there is something that we can assume about it: that it didn’t name the witness(es)  for any of the regurgitations to quote, and therefore the claim of anyone shouting “Britain First” is completely unsubstantiated by this thread of reporting.

Luckily, it appears that Jim Waterson, political editor at BuzzFeedUK, had been watching Sky; he tweeted this:

Sky News reporting the attacker shouted “Britain First” by citing Maria Eagle’s tweet, although Eagle is in turn citing Sky News via the MEN

— Jim Waterson (@jimwaterson) June 16, 2016

(And a copy can be found here).

Maria Eagle is the MP for Garston and Halewood, and noticeably has been active very recently in what has become known as Project Grief (or Project Terror) -  the latest development of the Establishment’s anti-Brexit Project Fear.

The tweet that Waterson refers to was deleted later on the 16th – as reported by Breitbart at 17:40 on their live feed (link above), but a copy of the tweet can be found at United Politics: here. This Maria Eagle tweet, published at 14:28, reads as follows:

@Jo_Cox1 attacker shouted “Britain First” says eyewitness.

The United Politics story instructs us that Eagle was indeed citing a tweet by the Manchester Evening News (MEN) – which is here (as confirmed here).

Confusingly, this MEN tweet has the headline “Labour MP Jo Cox ‘shot and stabbed’ outside West Yorkshire library – latest updates” but doesn’t appear to specifically mention the “Britain First” shout. However, after some searching the author did find something relevant produced by the Manchester Evening News via a live feed – which at 14:21 reported this:

Elderly attacker ‘shouted Britain First’

The man who gunned down Ms Cox shouted ‘Britain First’, an eyewitness claims.

Speaking to Sky News, the witness said the shooter looked to be in his 60s or 70s.

He said the man walked very slowly away from the scene after the attack.

So, we definitely have MEN citing Sky News. But actually, unless something has been missed, Maria Eagle’s tweet doesn’t reference the relevant information.  Therefore, even if Sky News cited Maria Eagle, according to the the evidence, the self-referencing loop cannot be closed. But there is another clue – a tweet by the Mirror that went out at 14.26:

Elderly attacker ‘shouted Britain First’ before MP Jo Cox shooting and stabbing http://bit.ly/1S6YrYk 

Please note, this tweet was cited as the source of the first ever reference to “Britain First” in an incredibly swiftly created and brand new section on Jo Cox’s Wikipedia page. The author therefore assumes that it must be one of the very first pieces of data to make mention of the slogan. In this tweet we see the reference to the elderly attacker which replicates a detail in the MEN report. The content suggests that the source is Sky News – whether directly or through the MEN.

So it appears, to the author at least – and if the BuzzFeedUK editor was watching properly and can be believed – that Sky News was the source of a report – featuring an unnamed witness – that claimed that the slogan “Britain First” had been uttered at Birstall, and not only that, but additionally created a fake  credit to Maria Eagle.

Did it do this to cover its tracks as it created the Britain First myth and attributed it to a witness that still remains nameless? Did Maria Eagle delete her tweet because she figured out that she would look like the source of the lie? What we can say at the end of this lengthy piece is that the Guardian has almost certainly been caught in the act of inventing witness testimony. If the Guardian does it, why should we not suppose that Sky News does it? If they both do that, why should we not suppose that, in the absence of a real person claiming responsibility for the claim, someone in the media – or someone in another arm of government (for that is what Media is) leant on Clarke Rothwell to become the owner of the story? If the media can do all that, why should we not suppose it didn’t collaborate across so-called political divisions to invent and promulgate a narrative to sensationalise what could actually be an everyday tragedy – a random act of craziness by a mentally ill person – and do it for the expediency of its anti-British political masters? Finally, if we are shocked and disgusted by what the Media appears capable of, then we need to be disgusted by ourselves for we are the ones who give it power to abuse. If we have been naïve, then we quickly need to stop, to understand the real purpose of the Media, and subsequently starve it to death.

 


[1] Somehow Hicham Ben Abdallah was thought by Breitbart to have reported the “Britain First” shout to the media, but the author couldn’t find any reference to it. He appears to have been consistent.
[2] This tweeter thinks that “Eyewitness name at Jo Cox murder Graeme Howard taken from local company.” A tweet it points to has been deleted.https://twitter.com/GrahamKirk/status/744228765040017408
Tweeter could be referring to “Anthony Graham Howard” – an individual listed by this name is aged in his 60s; the Guardian’s Howard is 38.
[3] Golding: “We’re in the middle of a referendum campaign. What this person said – was he referring to an organisation? Was this person referring to a slogan? Was he just shouting out in the middle of an EU debate: ‘It’s time we put Britain first?’“I hear this every day – it’s the name of our party, yes, but I hear Ukip people, I hear Nigel Farage – that’s the kind of language that’s being utilised in the campaign.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jo-cox-shot-dead-britain-first-denies-involvement-labour-mp-birstall-shooting-stabbing-attack-a7086001.html

ISIS propaganda unit jumps the shark

The day after Katy Perry rode into the Super Bowl half time show like the Whore of Babylon, or a corrupted Katniss Everdean in a really cheap and slutty  “girl on fire” outfit, the army of mercenaries called ISIS, who are creating a pretext for Britain and the US to escalate hostilities against the Syrian nation (see here and here), released a video in which they appeared to burn a prisoner to death. People knowledgeable in freemasonic religion and symbolism will see the linkage; and undoubtedly, especially if they notice that the video was entitled “Healing the Believers’ Chests”, these folks would understand where the Islamic State is really coming from. That being said, the most significant piece of predictive conditioning imagery in all of Katy Perry’s fantabulous luciferian show case was “Left Shark” – whom you can see making a pig’s ear of its dance routine here.

It’s a bit of fun on one hand – on the other, the reason “Left Shark” is symbolic is because of this: like most everything that the Anglo-American hegemony does in order to rule, this Super Bowl show was meant to inculcate the watching audience with an idea of the infallibility and awesomeness of the god-like untouchable strata of human society. However, like on so many other occasions, the curtain is torn back to reveal the wizard as a little old man; the great and powerful as the failing and frail. There is no pity at these moments; in fact, we find it very amusing to behold. Getting to the point, the shark has also come to symbolise this moment of great failure and the ensuing loss of credibility, and especially in anything theatrical, the end of the suspension of disbelief. The defining moment in the creation of this association came, of course, in the TV show “Happy Days”.  Apparently, the ideas had dried up; the writers had Fonzi jump the shark on water skis to try and spark interest. The rest is history.

Likewise, the people behind the hit ISIS show have resorted to an equivalent with the apparent execution by fire of the Jordanian Air Force pilot, Moaz al-Kasasbeh. In the newest of ISIS execution videos, which shows the airman being burnt alive, the distinctions between TV-fantasy and what we can only loosely call reality have been completely obliterated. The film is so slickly produced that there is no way to know if what we are looking at is the use of a stuntman, special effects, and then burning mannequins, or what we are seeing is the death of a real person. In the beheading videos that ISIS made previously, those parts of the execution that were hardest, if not impossible to convincingly fake, were just omitted. After the cut, we would be presented with what most likely were images of CPR dummies with heavily and horrifically made-up heads photoshopped onto their backs. These videos said, if the victims were dead, they hadn’t been beheaded – that mode of death had only been presented to us for shock value.

Death by fire, on the other hand, is not nearly so difficult to simulate. Film production companies do it all the time. In this video, the stuntman is completely engulfed in flame producing black smoke, which is supposedly meant to denote a fire starved of oxygen or about to burn out (perhaps we can call it a cooler type of flame that can be worked with). Notice in this video that the effect is produced by two gas burners which can be extinguished with the flick of a switch. Thereafter, the only flame present is that which is consuming the stuntman, who is put out instantly when required with the proper equipment. In the ISIS video the victim is also, during the mid-part of the consumption, covered in a flame tipped with black smoke. He is also surrounded by a blazing ring which looks like it is being fired by a string of gas burners. Interestingly, we are not supposed to notice that ISIS have gone to the trouble of building a eminently controllable furnace. We are meant to believe that this flame has crept into the cage by the ignition of a trough or line of flammable material that takes a path across intervening ground between the cage and an ISIS actor with a medieval torch, and then around the perimeter of the cage. The inescapability of this flame is what is supposed to cause the inevitable burning of the Jordanian captive. But none of this is what happens. The flame stops at the front of the cage and creates a façade of burning. Somehow, the Jordanian manages to get himself caught by this – instead of backing away, trying to kick sand over it to put it out, knocking the cage over, or hanging on the bars above him to try and avoid it. None of this does al-Kasasbeh attempt – he has either got Stockholm syndrome real bad, or he is an actor. After he flaps about a bit, there is a clear edit. The film then cuts to the full engulfment as previously described.

All that being recorded as noteworthy, the actual fire element of the film is not the most significant thing about it in terms of the blurring of fantasy and reality. There is a long and slow storylined build up to the execution, which is detailed below in a montage of images, that makes one think one is watching a TV show. Astonishingly, it even appears as if Moaz al-Kasasbeh’s captives have persuaded him to act the part of contrite offender – a resigned resident in a normal penal regime – and do it convincingly, so that this main component of the film is about the drama of a man approaching his supposedly justified death. It’s meant to elicit an emotional connection and investment that television routinely does. Even Sky News pundit/journalist, Sam Kiley, remarked upon this (audio here):

There’s going to be inevitably in the media, internationally – and we’re going to be part of it – a lot of deconstruction of the so-called production values.  People are going to get very over excited by the very kind of… um; the iconography and so on is very reminiscent of a very slick American show like 24 or any of those sorts of spy and war movies with computer graphics, and so on.

Not only does the film resemble an action adventure of the sort that can be made for the less-than-Hollywood budgets available to TV; it draws on the morality messages from Western movies as the good guys (in this case ISIS, from their perspective) have a version of a show-down with the bad guy. The original concept had been perverted, of course. In the Clint Eastwood films, it is the lone gunslinger who is the bringer of justice. Either way, the film is clearly designed to speak to an audience through the language of Hollywood. Furthermore, if one compares it to the video, produced by ISIS in their Libyan Islamic Fighting Group incarnation, of Gaddafi being murdered, this one might as well be a scripted reconstruction shot in a studio. It’s the complete lack of grounding in reality on display in the video that is why it jumps the shark; it is why the whole ISIS propaganda production unit has jumped the shark. This is really the source from whence all our suspicion should emanate, and this is what Sam Kiley is referring to when he talks about over-excitement around deconstructing the video. It’s an insulting way of sending the message to not look too closely. We might find ourselves laughing rather than being frightened if we do. Ultimately, this is why no one can see the video online unless one searches high and low for it, and it is left for the likes of the toilet-rag that is the MailOnline to interpret the unseen footage to its prey – otherwise known as its readership.

All that remains to be done is to present a summary in annotated pictures of the element of the video that is actually the most significant – the build up to the execution.

 

 

Moaz_al-Kasasbeh_drama1

Moaz_al-Kasasbeh_drama2

UKIP due a massive election result? Talk of Labour-Tory coalition betrays LibLabCon nerves

The noises being made by certain political commentators belonging to the Islington (and thereabouts) Progressive Consensus are revealing that there may well be a great fear amongst LibLabCon honchos of a tremendous result for UKIP in the May elections. The main evidence to hand is the very early but increasing amount of chatter regarding a Grand Coalition of the Labour and Tory party – a construct that will by necessity have to be formed, or so the thinking goes, to fight off “insurgent parties” in order that the “right decisions” are made at a time of great national crisis. Naturally, such is the strangeness of this arrangement that for it to become physically manifest it would need a good deal of careful insertion into the sphere of public awareness and the political zeitgeist – its potential to cause sudden alarm in the British electorate would that way be mitigated. For the Establishment has been sustained these many past years on the appearance of fundamental Labour and Tory adversarial oppositeness as an expression of irreconcilable points of principle – a checks and balance bonus in terms of the British constitution. So a sudden unveiling of the actual LibLabCon as a reality outside the confines of conspiracy theory, as a mainstream audience gained a crash instruction course in the reality of the British one-party dictatorship, could sound the death knell for the vassal Westminster puppet.

Beyond the public rationalisations for a Grand Coalition, and the fantasy of acting for the national good, the objective is of course the denial of UKIP. UKIP represents the mass rejection by Britons of the failing body politic and its degenerative cultural and social project, it is the one “insurgent” that any grand coalition would be meant to disarm [the SNP is merely in search of its own fiefdom]. For under normal conditions, and with UKIP returned in modest numbers to the House of Commons, those MPs could extract a referendum on EU membership, or other implementation of UKIP policy, in return for cooperation on a confidence and supply legislation-by-legislation basis. Instead, a Grand Coalition would prevent this opportunity, and therefore deny a very large component of the electorate their power, through their UKIP representatives, over the Government. This would be a huge abuse in the first instance, but voters must be prepared to see the Grand Cartel rolled out even in a situation where UKIP is the party that wins most MP; in that case, expect the conditioning from the corporate-media to try to normalise the tremendous injustice to be proportionally immense.

In recent days the Greeks, in their general election, kicked their own LibLabCon from positions of power that were frankly being used to loot and facilitate other robbery. The international corporate types and financiers who puppeteer European government (as spoken of just this week by Farage) were nervous before, but Greece now has people in office who are wise to them –  the Independent Greeks are duly called conspiracy theorists. The people who rule the West are worried about the way the wind is blowing. This article, dating from last week, reports on stuff emanating from the Financial Times – that messenger for the ruling class – and to say the language is interesting is an understatement:

The FT reports today that business is most terrified of the instability that could come with a hung Parliament, and the prospect of another election in the autumn. Could a UK Grand Coalition reassure the markets (as they seem to in Germany and elsewhere) or further create momentum for another swift election and more instability?

But the first inkling that the British Establishment thought that something very dramatic would happen at their 2015 elections was very possibly betrayed in certain Spectator articles as early as 2013. In December of that year, James Forsyth, the magazine’s political editor, wrote a piece entitled “Insurgents are remaking British politics”, in which he predicted:

The passionless politics of recent years has created an enthusiasm deficit that Salmond and Farage are busily trying to fill. What our politics so desperately needs is leaders who can offer a positive, optimistic vision for Britain that breaks out of the focus-grouped verbiage that so dominates Westminster politics. The national figure who can provide that will win a string of electoral prizes.

Forsyth does not so much predict UKIP to win the 2015 general election, but identifies UKIP’s appeal as something for the LibLabCon to emulate as part of a strategy for victory. The analysis is dishonest, of course. Establishment stalwarts do not want conviction politics when there is an unpopular Marxist cultural revolution to deliver – just the appearance of it will do to fool the voters. Tub-thumping, and delivering the message a little bit differently from what has become generic will not stop a lie being a lie – people are fed up with government-by-hoax, and it’s a truth that LibLabCon focus groups, more apparatus of political artifice as they are, will never find.

More spin, then, is only to be expected when the froth it floats upon is written from inside the political stitch-up. Indeed, some very little digging reveals Forsyth’s exceptional LibLabCon-Establishment credentials. His wife (although the couple might possibly insist on the word “partner”) is Allegra Stratton – the political editor of the BBC’s Newsnight. He is also on the advisory board of Phillip Blond’s ResPublica think-tank. Blond had been director of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos before that. Perhaps most infamously, Blond was the author of the book “Red Tory”, and a big influence on David Cameron’s Alinsky-esque “Big Society” agenda.

In the end, it is the sub-headline of Forsyth’s piece that actually betrayed all the early nerves, and perhaps some panic too: “The big parties have no answer either to the SNP or to Ukip. The consequences could be dramatic”. Mr Forsyth might not write his headlines – he might do – but whoever does let the cat out of the bag: the age of government-by-hoax is over; the dramatic consequences written of would therefore be the sudden demise of the LibLabCon – which can only operate in the context of a duped electorate. If the author, in all his scumbag-college lowliness, could see the signs back in 2011 – to wit the writing was on the wall for the Westminster puppet (see this article in which the end of the LibLabCon – and jail-time – is predicted), then we can be sure that Oxbridge graduates now fixtures in the Establishment knew it too in 2013. What most UKIP supporters and members might not appreciate is that behind the fog of war – the propaganda – it is highly likely that the LibLabCon has these many years been fighting a battle in retreat in the knowledge that the stitch-up would soon end; the objective, then, had become to set all the dynamite on the bridges before becoming overrun by the enemy close on their heels. But the LibLabCon has run out of time, and it still will not have finished its work by May 2015. It would need the Grand Coalition to survive long enough into the future to complete the project.

Before we look at some of the material that has been installing the idea of a Grand Coalition, the reader must understand what is driving it: the fearsome extent of that possible UKIP result. So, in October 2014 Survation published a poll that tore a hole through the fabric of the illusion of perpetual LibLabCon hegemony. The MailOnline cited televised election night regular John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who translated the opinion poll into seats at Westminster. The results were as follows:

Labour 253; Conservative 187; UKIP 128; Lib Dems 11; Others (including SNP and Ulster MPs) 71.

(Funnily enough, results extrapolated from yesterday’s Mirror/Survation poll see UKIP awarded with just 16 seats – less seats from the same sort of percentage; it’s obviously cunning perception-shaping to promote the idea of the futility of voting for UKIP).

From the MailOnline analysis, one can already see that the Tories could not form a government without a coalition with UKIP – which we can be quite certain will never happen just for differences of fundamental principle (i.e.no LibLabCon party is ever going to risk being in a position of giving a binding referendum on EU membership that it could lose), and UKIP knows it would suffer badly were it chained to the rotten Tory corpse. Labour would need the assistance of the SNP to govern in a majority – depending on the success of the latter part, which may yet have been overstated recently. Otherwise, the electorate is most likely to see Labour depending on Tory assistance to drive the final nails into the UK’s coffin – this would be the Grand Coalition, albeit informally framed, at work.

The worse news yet for the LibLabCon is that in the EU elections – a real world poll – UKIP scored 27% – and in the MailOnline figures we can see where this would materialise from. For they follow a fashionable prejudice and indicate a one sided collapse in the vote  – that is, from the Tories (the Lib Dems take a proportionally larger hit although it doesn’t look as dramatic). Labour currently have 257 seats, so theirs, says the polling, would only be a marginal decline.  This isn’t going to reflect the real world, and if one starts to take even a small number of seats from the Labour column, and enter them into UKIP’s, then the gap between UKIP and the Tories begins to get perilously small. In fact, if 59 seats are swapped to UKIP so that it matches the Tories, Labour’s new figure is 194. With numbers like this, the need for a formal coalition between Labour and the Tories becomes an absolute necessity for the purpose of continuing the work of subsuming Britain into the EU, and fully realising the British Marxist police state. Now we look at how the seed is being sown.

September of 2014, the New Statesman. It’s author, Peter Wilby, was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He still writes a weekly column for the latter publication.

Imagine a Tory-Labour tie on 295 seats each [after the general election], with the Lib Dems reduced to 20, Ukip on ten seats and others 20. Try forming a governing majority out of that with wars raging in the Middle East and eastern Europe. A Tory-Labour grand coalition, anybody? Remember, you read it here first.

Wilby suggests that wars will be used as an excuse to form the Grand Coalition. This is a worrying notion. Britain is not at direct war in the arenas mentioned as yet. Could the Establishment be planning to become involved in an overt conflagration to justify its machinations at Westminster? A red flag regarding a major false flag attack should perhaps be hoisted.

The next piece is from Mary Dejevsky, appearing on the Spectator website on 12th October 2014. Dejevsky is also usually connected with the Independent. After discussing various permutations for coalitions, Dejevsky proceeds to endorse an official Progressive-Consensus shut-out:

What no one has mentioned, however, is a German solution – a ‘grand coalition’ of Conservative and Labour that leaves the fringe parties on the fringe and governs from the centre – which is, after all, the territory that a majority of voters inhabit. A Conservative-Labour coalition might seem to go completely against the grain of Britain’s adversarial politics. But it has been observed time and again in recent months that Cameron, Miliband (and Clegg) have a significant amount of political ground in common. Centre-left and centre-right are not so very far apart.

The analysis is, once again, dishonest. If a majority of voters vote for the Tories and for Labour, then as we should understand those parties’ position on the superannuated political spectrum, those voters would not be in the “centre”. The “centre” has shifted to the “left”. As part of this process, Britain has also become a Luciferian/Marxist cultic society where deviant practices are considered normal – the reasonable has been turned into the controversial. Telling people that they are in the centre, when they and their society are verging on lunacy, is another LibLabCon deception. The uniting of Labour and the Tories with no pretence at the adversarial nature of British politics does not unite centrist forces, but unleashes the forces of extremism to do what they will. Of course, it has to be seen for what it really is, and stopped.

The next mention comes in a piece appearing in the Financial Times the day before New Years Eve, 2014, in which various writers made predictions about 2015. FT leader writer, Jonathon Ford, predicts that there will be a “National Government” after the election.

[The new coalition will recreate] the “National” governments of the 1930s by bringing the two main parties, Labour and Conservatives, into power together. As in 1931, this will be a matter of necessity, not choice.

The shrinkage of the vote of all three main parties will make it impossible to construct a workable coalition involving the Liberal Democrats and either the Tories or Labour. The price of doing business with the surging fringe parties, such as the Scottish National party and Ukip, will be too high for either Labour or the Conservatives to stomach. So will the risk of a minority administration, followed by a quick second poll.

The fact that this idea gets a serious treatment in the Financial Times suggests that there is much to it – who is the audience of the FT after all? Notice that the Grand Coalition is being described as a necessity – the Establishment will be forced into the arrangement, and the arrangement will be necessary to save the Establishment; please consider once more: “the price of doing business with the surging fringe parties… will be too high”.

In the new year there has been a flurry of activity. On the 2nd day of January, there were two pieces. The first is the one that caused a bit of a stir on the internet (but not much of one). Ian Birrell – a former deputy editor of the Independent speechwriter for David Cameron during the 2010 election campaign – wrote in the Guardian. The following is a (lengthy) extract with  emphasis added:

Party leaders, however, may have to build broader coalitions than our current two-party version. I have heard one Downing Street insider punt the concept of a Tory-Lib Dem-Green coalition, a senior Tory suggest a Conservative-SNP deal based on faster devolution, and a Labour figure float a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Plaid Cymru agreement reliant on big tax rises and slower spending cuts. Any of these fragile groupings could be held hostage by single-minded militants or single-issue obsessives capable of collapsing the government…

A government of national unity between Labour and the Conservatives may sound far-fetched… yet, while there are serious disagreements [between them], the two parties have more in common with each other than with the insurgents on many key issues.

…the two parties could start to hammer out those huge issues confronting the nation that conventional politics seems incapable of solving. These include the creation of a modern political system, the resolution of Britain’s haphazard drift into federalism and a workable funding solution to save the creaking NHS.

This is a very important piece because it demonstrates the unresponsiveness of the ruling elite to the people it has made believe it represents. That number of the represented electorate – and a fairly large one it is too – who are in opposition to the Progressive Consensus are characterised as being militant and obsessive. Again this is all part of the usual sort of upside-downedness and post-normal deception where the uncontroversial is deemed erratic and dangerous. In fact, this is all very disreputable and shows the mania of the political elite of Britain. What Birrell does is argue a case in support of tyranny – the British Government must not truck any dissent or any physical obstacle towards the pursuit of its goals, he says; in other words, the end justifies the means – a Marxist concept.

Furthermore, the Grand Coalition is being presented here as a way to create a new type of politics – that sounds loving, does it not? How perverse, then, that it forms part of an advocacy for overt dictatorship. Consider the problem: the elite have a programme that needs to be implemented, but ‘conventional’ politics cannot get it done; the answer is a closed-shop and no room for a dissenting voice.  Government with checks and balances must go, and government that rubber stamps the will of a few must be established. And what will happen to those dissenting voices who will surely not just disappear so very easily? Well, that’s what a police state is for. This individual gives us an absolutely hideous glimpse of the final destination that LibLabCon Grand Coalition ultimately leads to. In fact, what Britain needs to fix politics is diametrically opposed to this twisted vision.

As mentioned, on the same day as the above piece an article appeared in the Telegraph online version which reported the opinion of Rob Wilson the Conservative Charities minister in the Cabinet Office. Wilson had been on Radio Four’s PM programme. He had had this to say:

I think we could end up with a situation where if we do try and form a rainbow coalition it would end up with two elections in one year and we would find that the May election wouldn’t be the only election that year.

I think it would be very difficult to conduct a government with any authority with more than two parties involved. There could be a whole rag-bag of different views and pressures that would make government more difficult to conduct.

Here, then, is a view from inside the Cabinet. A government comprised of more than two parties is not desirable because it would be unworkable. This is the introduction of a talking point that will be repeated in the months to come.

Finally, on 5th January a piece appears in the Telegraph written by Ben Wright – the Senior City Editor at that paper. He was previously the City Correspondent at The Wall Street Journal and before that Editor of Financial News

Were such an (admittedly unlikely) alliance to form [the Grand Coalition], it might – from a business point of view – be a consummation devoutly to be wished. For one thing, it would keep Ukip and Scottish National party hands from the tiller of state.

Here we get down to the crux of the issue, and the anti-democratic arrogance is fantastic. Government in Britain has been about the enrichment of a certain corporate class, and it is obvious that the real cause of concern for the types that Wright represents is that Britain will leave the EU and there should be an end to the opportunities for exploitation and gangsterism that that entails. As such, no party should be allowed near the reins of power who would risk big business interests.

This article is already over-lengthy, so the summary will be extra short. There is an elite in Britain who don’t believe in the sovereignty of the British people because it would stand in the way of their ambitions. But it is right and natural that there be political opposition because of its ability to restrict a tyrant. The British elite objects to this, and is plotting to invent ways to bypass the checks on its power. It thinks that the British will fall for a story about the importance of achieving in government in response to global and national emergencies (which we should be suspicious of being deliberately instigated by government agencies for the purpose). This cannot be allowed to happen. It becomes increasingly clear while writing this that the only way to escape the totalitarianism planned for them, Britons must create a UKIP majority government in 2015.

The ongoing psyop to promote the Tories featuring the evisceration of UKIP’s Newark success

ukip_resultsThe image accompanying this article is a representation of the results of last week’s Newark by-election. It shows five bars in a graph; three of them have grown below the line; two have grown above the line. The bar that is most prominent is the one that represents support for UKIP, and relative to all the other bars, it is the measure of that party’s success at last week’s Newark by-election.

When it came to the corporate-media’s interpretation of  this data, however, there was a unanimous reaction across the so-called political spectrum; in one way, at least, this contrived interpretation chimed with the natural one, the data did indeed signify a failure for three parties, and great success for one. However, in an Orwellian shearing away from rational thinking, according to the corporate-media, it was the Tory Party who had been the most successful. Granted, that party had won the Newark by-election, but then they had been  expected to win. But in terms of most (spectacularly) improved, they had not performed the best.

The corporate-media would also have its consumers believe that that there was one party amongst the other three failures who did worst of all. Perusal of the chart shows that their judgment in this matter was surprising; it was not the Lib Dems who were the most miserable failure, as the data seems to tell. No. In fact, that party would be UKIP. Indeed, in the days after Newark, the media, across the entire so-called spectrum, described UKIP as finished – a spent force. This was such a very strange response that even in the most disinterested it really must have caused the raising of an eyebrow or two (or else there is no hope for this country).

This author holds that the Establishment was conspiring amongst its parts to try to create a Tory government in 2015 (and that this has been going on for a while – thus it is continuing). Those readers who think this idea is a wild one should consider that the likes of Peter Hitchens have noticed that there has been, in this election season of May and June, a tendency for all corporate-media, whichever side of the political spectrum, to lionise the Tories: “London media spent the first half of the week claiming that Ed Miliband was the one in trouble”. He blamed the collaboration on a desire to present a unified promotion of Blairism, with Cameron representing its latest incarnation – and its hope into the future. Assumedly, in this scheme of things, the controlling hub of the operation would be Conservative Central Office.

In my opinion, the conspiracy was coordinated from a place in Government well above party dividing lines; a place that has historically been commissioned to use information to manipulate audiences both domestic and foreign for the benefit of the survival of the real British Government – by which is not meant the people in parliament, but the institutions (the corporate body of the monarchy), and financier funders and string-pullers. Getting to the crux, therefore, we are talking about an operation conducted by British intelligence agencies. This is difficult to prove, of course, but there have been revelations in the past that give outsiders an idea as to how this happens (David Shayler, for instance). Also recently very revealing has been the individual activities of some journalists, both American and British, with regards to NATO activity in Libya and Syria, underneath a broad corporate-media unity of propaganda that was exposed as such and countered by alternative media sources. This recent experience has suggested a too close connection between Anglo-American journalism and the realisation of real military tactical objectives. Besides which, the journalist in circumstances of war as a propagandist for his government is something that is not entirely unknown in history. The possibility that certain journalists are connected with intelligence agencies should not seem implausible.

Critics might say “that may be so, but there is no war between UKIP and the Establishment that the latter should bring all its intelligence assets to bear against UKIP”. Unfortunately, this is not correct. There is a war going on in the UK;  there is an information war for the power to influence the population and through it decide our collective destiny. In Civil War terms (which is what we are perhaps in a long phony stage of) the Country wants sovereignty, as is its right, the Court (or Establishment) wants to collaborate with off-shore powers to deny the Country. In this information war, we should expect attempts at psychological manipulation of the like that we see when the government is trying to create consensus for real physical war, or to convince a population at war to accept the associated deprivations.

The ongoing promotion of the Tory Party, and the rubbishing of UKIP, is such a psychological operation being executed by the Establishment in the information war that is currently raging. The Newark component of this psyop was potentially devastating because it could have seen the May/June election season terminate with the impression being given to the electorate that UKIP had failed (even though they had not). I suspect that the Tories knew very well that Newark, being too safe a seat, would not be lost. Meanwhile, the level of UKIP’s insurgency meant that no other party could sneak in to win. The enormous activity in the area by Tory High Command was not so much to ensure the win, but to ensure a respectable gap. This too was psychological, because it made it look as if the Tories were worried about UKIP – like they believed UKIP could win (UKIP’s losing would therefore have all the more significance). All the big Cabinet names that visited made it look as though the Tories were vulnerable. The truth was, UKIP was going to get judo-thrown by its own EU election success. To nail the psyop, all the Tories would need was blanket corporate-media co-operation after the event to sell the idea that UKIP had been counter-attacked and not only lost the encounter, but had lost the war.

The very first in the sequence of events that brought about the opportunity for such a psyop was very suspicious; it was the timing of the resignation as an MP or Patrick Mercer (Wikipedia coverage here). On the 29th April he announced that as he had done something wrong, then honour dictated he should go. However, it should be noted that he had previously decided that it was ok to sit as an independent MP for nearly a year since his questions for cash scandal blew up. This exercised the likes of Zac Goldsmith who were wondering why Cameron’s promised mechanism of recall wasn’t in place to remove Mercer. “If it’s bad enough for you to resign from your party, how can it be ok to continue representing constituents at all?” asked Goldsmith. This point is crucial. My answer to the question would be that the Mercer problem offered an opportunity, and it needed to be put on the shelf until the resultant by-election could be used most effectively by the Tories.

The excuse for Mercer to finally leave his office was news that the Committee on Standards would recommend he be suspended from the House of Commons for six months. The way this news arrived was also suspicious in itself. It was due on 30th April, but it was leaked on the 29th – apparently prompting Mercer to act a day earlier than he might have otherwise. This timing might have had everything to do with the fact that the Moving of Writs (the initial event in the process of calling a by-election) tend to happen on a Thursday. I gather that this is not set in stone, but the process for other recent by-elections has commenced on that particular day of the week also (Eastliegh [Thursday 7th Feb 2013], and Croydon, Middlesbrough and Rotherham [Thursday 8th November 2012]). In this case, the writ was moved on 1st May. If parliament is anything like the courts where certain business seems to get done on certain days, arguably, the early resignation avoided a week’s delay. I suspect that this doesn’t sound like much to be worried about by the man on the street, but to generals conducting a war, timing is everything.

There does not seem to be an official time limit for the moving of the writ after a Westminster seat has become vacant. The Parliament website says that it can take up to 3 months; 6 months has been known, and if a general election is close, the seat can even remain vacant. When the writ is moved, however, there is model timetable under the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, and the Newark by-election seemed to follow this. Essentially, the Moving of the Writ defined the polling day.

Notice, Mercer’s eventual punishment, had he had remained, would have been suspension and not permanent banishment; resignation sometimes pre-empts the heave-ho, but not in this case. Having already announced he was stepping down for the 2015 election, Mercer took a hint that some people didn’t want him even until then. Arguably, therefore, Mercer did not need to step down, but got a nod to do so; even then, his seat may have remained vacant for a longer period; but instead events coincided so that a by-election could be held in the week after the results of the EU elections has been announced. This was very sensitive timing indeed.

The next event of interest was an interview by the BBC of Nigel Farage on the evening of 29th April during a public meeting in Bath. There are lots of these meetings where there is no corporate-media in attendance, but this time the BBC was in town apparently, if a day-time interview now posted on YouTube is anything to go by, to gauge his reaction to something said about Lenny Henry (so presenting Farage with more dodgy evidence of the UKIP’s racism – which had become usual fare). In another later interview, which seems to be from the site of the UKIP meeting, Farage was asked about the news of the upcoming Newark by-election triggered by Mercer’s resignation. Farage revealed that he hadn’t given it proper consideration. In a question, the journalist asked if Farage was “seriously tempted” to stand in the election, Farage replied “oh yes I’m tempted”.

The next day, in the Daily Mail for instance, this became

“Ukip leader Nigel Farage said last night he would ‘seriously’ consider standing himself”.

and

“David Cameron faces the prospect of a nightmare by-election showdown with Nigel Farage after shamed Tory MP Patrick Mercer quit last night.

“His decision will spark a Tory showdown with Ukip this summer in what is normally a safe Conservative seat in Newark, Nottinghamshire.”

Notice; although the Conservative seat is usually safe, it offers a nightmare by-election showdown for Cameron. The Mail’s reporting is all in doublethink – unless the idea was to present the notion that only Farage himself of any UKIP candidate was capable of winning. Only this circumstance would prove the nightmare for Cameron.

That the seat came to be considered bait for Farage is perhaps suggested more by the reaction of corporate-media and LibLabCon politicians when Farage let it be known that he would not stand. To say that these critics were disappointed is an understatement. The corporate-media was full of name-calling; Farage was a “bottler”. This was obviously a talking point – a centrally scripted meme regarding a topic illustrating how Establishment propaganda outlets must deal with an issue. When Farage took the trouble to deny “bottling” the fight in Newark, in the passive aggressive way of the modern politician, David Cameron made a disparaging reference to him during a flimsy radio interview; he had been holding forth on the subject of being pelted with eggs (this is what passes for politics in popular culture). This was translated in the Telegraph as a taunt. “David Cameron: Nigel Farage is a chicken”.

What this individual reaction probably denotes most of all is frustration from someone who was clear about the potential of certain events culminating in certain ways and not others; Farage was not going to be set up for the fall that had been intended for him. Although the corporate-media, and LibLabCon politicians could still make a certain amount of hay, Farage would not offer the opportunity to be pilloried as a loser.

It must be said, because hindsight is all very well, that this author certainly felt at the time that there had been an effort to entice UKIP to abandon its pre-laid battle plans; Farage had been going to direct the EU elections, not peel off to focus on Newark. Again, this was the Establishment using principles of warfare: the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans. In this case, Sun Tzu was also talking about manoeuvring ones enemy into a position conducive for counter attack. Of course, all this fighting would be done psychologically.

In actual fact, the Tories did achieve the objective of putting UKIP into a position where they could be counter-attacked after the EU elections – UKIP had no control over this. Unfortunately, the psyop ultimately failed because of Farage’s decision not to fight the seat. In addition, lately Roger Helmer has been rewarded by the twenty three other UKIP MEPs with the leadership of their delegation in the EU Parliament; this isn’t what happens to a man who is considered to be a loser. The UKIP conference that came on the heels of the elections was attended by people who didn’t feel as if they had lost anything. The best news of all is that people with vision in UKIP are seeing possibilities as suggested to them by the elections – nothing short of a UKIP strategy for victory in 2015. The Establishment Newark psyop has certainly not dented UKIP resolve or optimism.

At the closure of this lengthy article, it’s very briefly worth remembering that psychological operations are something that the British Government organises in places like Iraq, Libya and Syria to aid in the overthrow of sovereign governments, and to keep the occupied population suppressed. That the British people find themselves subject to the same treatment tells us something very important: the British Government sees the British people as an enemy to be dominated. In terms of applying this dominance in the context of the so-called civilised Home Counties, it is all about making sure that people are deceived into thinking that they are free to choose, and have good options to choose from; if the reader cannot get his or her head around psyops, at least this much must ring true. Having said that, that reader should really take it upon him or herself to understand, sooner rather than later, the real truth is that the LibLabCon British Establishment surely is the worst enemy of the British people that exists today on the planet, or indeed ever did exist.

Daily Mail: Invasion is nice, and immigration is harmful to the invaders

An article that appeared today at the MailOnline indicates that the Establishment is starting to try to manage the Eastern European immigration disaster (of its own making that is set to overtake it). Robert Hardman is the fawning author of many a book about the Queen; he is therefore dedicated in his ‘literary’ career to maintaining the British dictatorship, and, pretending to be a conservative, is a leading figure in the Mail’s Judas Goat stable (along with the likes of Max Hastings). Hardman was packed off to Boston to create an impression that Eastern Europeans are good for the town, and that the invasion of Boston thus far is a little bit disgruntling, but on the whole does not perturb Bostonians too much.

The first time that we should realise that his is a propaganda piece is when Hardman sends a decoy to all his readers in the very first sentences: ‘there is little talk of “multi-culturalism” here in Boston’, he says, ‘instead, everyone…  talks about “immigration”’.

There are two things to deal with here. First of all, in one sense, it seems as if Hardman is saying that multi-culture is not a hot topic of discussion that Bostonians are  not ‘mincing their words’ about; on the other hand, immigration is. Is that true, though? The following statement is an excerpt from the article, and from the leader of the Tory-controlled council, Mr Peter Bedford:

You walk round town and you hear these loud foreign voices everywhere.You go into the local doctor’s surgery and you have a lot of locals sitting quietly as a loud foreign voice tries to deal with the receptionist. So people think: ‘They’re taking over’.

Language is very much culture, and Boston is multi-cultural, and Bostonians are conscious of their own ways being displaced. But the use of words and phrasing in Hardman’s opening is for the purposes of wanting readers to think that the issue is not about multi-culture and all the inherent dangers, but just about some white people complaining that other white people are coming to the town from abroad and taking their jobs. The Establishment relies on the results it gets by the racial prejudice that it stokes – and British acceptance of culturally damaging Eastern Europeans just because they are ‘white’ is one of them.

Secondly, there is the setting up of an apparent contradiction that gets explained below. Bostonians, Hardman implies, are supposed to have little time for multi-culture, and are against immigration. However, this cannot be true because we are also later told that Bostonians are super tolerant of the inundation of immigrants who bring with them their different culture (Hardman is ‘surprised by the lack of animosity’ caused by the invasion).

Hardman provides evidence. The local school (full of Progressive Zealots, of course) is 100% happy about the immigration. There is the native Bostonian father who is also happy with the school, even though two thirds of his daughter’s friends don’t speak English as a first language. There is also an English Democrat Party member who is in several business partnerships with the newcomers; he also owned Boston’s first Polish food shop. This local councillor’s name is Elliott Fountain, and he seems to do the usual thing in overlooking the need to fix the root cause, which is the overall deliberate obliteration of the economy by corporatism and a stinking welfare society. Elliott seems to thinks that there is not enough casual labour in the whole of the UK to pick cabbages from Boston fields. He seems to be worried that no Eastern Europeans in the agricultural sector would mean that specialist services for them would not exist in the town – by which he must be thinking of the many shops owned by Eastern Europeans (and funded by hypocrite English Democrats?) which the Tory council leader is very proud of. If it wasn’t for the Eastern European shops, Boston would look like any other economically depressed Anglian town; but nothing is mentioned about the decisions on a national level that have created the regional slump.

Then there is a contribution from Mike Gilbert, the Tory councillor in charge of communities, who is either dishonest or completely stupid. As if on cue, he rolls out the old ‘Britons are somehow too lazy’ mantra, and tells Hardman that he is particularly worried how Britain’s schools fail to prepare youngsters for the world of work:

We mollycoddle school-leavers like an endangered species and give them fistfuls of certificates and then wonder why they won’t take factory jobs… Why does this country put its own people on the subs’ bench, let others do the work and create an underclass which corrodes the rest of society?

The answer, oh wise Tory councillor, is the deliberate policies of your party when in Government.

Then there is the amazing fact that even though the local paper, the Boston Standard, lists two thirds of 21 criminals convicted at the magistrates’ court as having Eastern European names, because British names still lead the section for assaults (by how many, we do not know), then Eastern Europeans are still somehow saintly. The idea that Britons only commit one third of the town’s crime is conveniently glossed over and put out of focus.

The accommodating local police, we are told, flatly insist that migration has had no impact on the crime rate, but then they are the Guardians of the Marxist revolution, and it serves to remind that there is nothing coming from the Establishment that can be trusted. Local UKIP man, Bob McAuley, told Hardman that nearly all the contributors to the council’s immigration report (which asserted that Boston was coping with immigration from Eastern Europe, and that a lot of local complaints were unfounded) were ‘on the state payroll and thus had a vested interest in not rocking the boat’. To compound the perception of misrule by fear, Hardman mentions how ‘Bob bumps into two friends who work for the council. They share his views, but say that if I were to use their names for this article, they would be fired.’

Now, this sort of stuff is not indicative of a free country. In fact, it is the paraphernalia of a totalitarian state, and it’s useful in a propaganda piece that is on the surface complaining about such abuse because it offers a chilling effect. It says to the reader, this is what will happen to you too.

Of course, the Establishment’s propaganda writers can always also rely on the subtle demonization:

‘[The solution to immigration is] A padlock,’ says Mandy Exley firmly. ‘I’m not kidding. We haven’t got any more jobs.’

Blimey. Mandy is not a finger-wagging emissary from UKIP or a sepia-tinted reactionary. She is the much-respected ‘community cohesion officer’ for the Lincolnshire Community And Voluntary Service.

See how the UKIP is lumped together with something not savoury? Whatever a sepia-tinted reactionary is, it doesn’t sound very nice.

So, to sum up the article – and even though it doesn’t look like it amounts to this on the surface, Hardman is saying on behalf of the Establishment: everybody loves the Eastern Europeans – or else.

But to apply the final proof, we need to return to Hardman’s opening statements as discussed at the top of this. Who is it, exactly, that Hardman means when he says everyone is talking about immigration? Well, the answer, when one has previously noticed the sense of ownership over Britain that Eastern Europeans seem to possess, is not surprising:  ‘everyone…  talks about “immigration” – none more so, it seems, than the immigrants themselves’.

It goes on:

For as Britain prepares to open up the workplace and the welfare state to the people of Bulgaria and Romania at the start of next year, none will feel the impact more than all the recent arrivals from Poland, Latvia and Lithuania who have made Boston the most Eastern European town in Britain.

Ziedonis Barbaks, leader of Boston’s substantial Latvian community, points out: ‘The Romanians and Bulgarians will just repeat what happened before.

‘The [employment] agencies and gang-masters will start hiring them, at a lower cost, instead of the Polish and Latvians and Lithuanians. Then what?’

If that happens, Britain could find itself with a new welfare bombshell — supporting all those migrants displaced from the workplace as well as all the indigenous British who are out of it already.

You will notice that the voice of logic and valid protest is sounded in the article by an immigrant. Compare this with the way that we are told that the Boston Protest Group couldn’t stage a march because of  fears about ‘local tensions… spill[ing] over into violence’. This is a predictable device both in terms of associating certain rights with violence in propaganda, and also in terms of controlling physical demonstrations of opposition with weasel arguments. Protest isn’t violence, and it isn’t even the prospect of violence, and the Boston Protest Group should not let itself be suckered by local government that has nothing but vile intentions for native born Bostonians.

Getting back to Mr Barbaks – now he comes across in the rest of the article as a fellow who has possibly made an effort to engage his hosts; however, the fact is that Hardman has made a writer’s decision to have him give voice to certain eminently reasonable ideas and objections. This gives Mr Barbaks the sage authority in the piece above all the other councillors and social workers mentioned. On top of this, the events that Mr Barbaks fears will be caused to happen when Romanians and Bulgarians come to the UK have already happened to Britons, but that doesn’t count.

The message of this article is subtly delivered, and what Hardman is telling his audience is that it is the Eastern Europeans who need to be protected from immigration, and have a right to vocalise that need, and are cogent in that vocalisation. On the other hand, the British are already on the scrap heap. As such, the article is more of the same perception-shaping that is meant to make Britons feel like they don’t deserve a homeland and a nation state. And Hardman isn’t even expressing an honest sentiment of care for immigrants who are already here. In a few years time, the Establishment will claim that the Romanians and the Bulgarians will need protecting from other immigrants who will be willing to enter into slavery in order to enter the land of milk and honey. The Establishment hates everyone equally the same, and, loves its own privilege.

US media attacks 2nd Amendment, but earlier UK counterpart had also exploited death for its own Establishment criminals

Days before the US corporate-media was exploiting the terrible Sandy Hook shootings so as to demonise the right to bear arms (and in the process conveniently and swiftly failing to follow up on police reports about arresting and holding a second protagonist), its counterparts in the UK were doing the same with Jacintha Saldanha’s so-called suicide. The unmistakable message, as the UK corporate-media excoriated the Australian DJs who executed a “prank” call to the hospital in which Kate Middleton was receiving treatment for a minor condition (and, as some critics say, milking public sympathy), was this: an effort to mock the Royal Family will result in a death.

The Australian press was certainly very quick to notice that British newspapers were on a rabid witch-hunt (the sort of thing, by the way, that David Cameron doesn’t want perpetrated upon those in the Establishment who are sexual abusers of little boys). The purpose of certain coverage in the UK, as any right minded observer could see, was to persecute the two radio personalities who pretended, somewhat unconvincingly, to be the Queen and her son Charles. As chucklingly idiotic as the two antipodeans came across in the recorded clip of the incident, they did not deserve complete censure. However, a certain manner of writing and reporting was employed to cement the idea in British corporate-media consumers that the DJs were somehow as good as guilty  of murder. A good example was the reporting of the apparent weight of opposition against the DJs through Facebook and Twitter – realms where the unhinged, irrational, and ignorant are in abundance. Accusations of “global revulsion” surely cannot be substantiated because of the internet usage of the same people who raise the Daily Mail’s ire when they cheer the death of a policeman.

Later information that was said to be sourced from one of three suicide notes (supposedly) written by Jacintha Saldanha revealed that she was critical of other staff at the King Edward VII hospital; rather strangely, several days later, other information said to be from the same source claimed that Jacintha Saldanha blamed the Australians. It should be noted that this sort of development would be very convenient for attempting to continue the “hang the DJ” meme even though the suicide case herself seemingly attributed fault elsewhere.

It seems quite clear that there has been an operation to psychologically manipulate corporate-media consumers in the exploitation of Jacintha Saldanha’s death; in a situation that is alike, the ITV and BBC rolled over and volunteered huge payments to Lord McAlpine, even thought neither organisation had named him as a paedophile. Obviously, it was a high-profile hoax to cause self-censorship in the audiences of corporate-media, and it is one that is still on-going.

Unfortunately, because of the attempt to exploit Jacintha Saldanha’s death, the suspicion must inevitably arise that it might have been engineered. Listening to the extremely brief telephone contact (it cannot be called a conversation) that Jacintha Saldanha had with the two Australians, it is a mystery as to what she thought she might have said that would literally worry her to death; she did not give any details away. It seems, therefore, that it was the act of patching the “prank” callers through to a ward nurse that must have caused so much distress. This distress seemingly carried on even though one of the “offending” Australian radio station called Jacintha Saldanha back to explain that there had been a bit of fun – something that has been denied by the hospital, incidentally.

There is a little-discussed clue in the recording of the prank that, although it may suggest a certain reality, is inconclusive all the same. It is the ready acceptance of both Jacintha Saldanha and the ward nurse that they were speaking to members of the Royal Family – even when what they were hearing became ludicrous. The female broadcaster began the telephone call asking to speak to “Kate, my granddaughter”. Jacintha Saldana replied “oh yes, just hold on ma’am”, and put the call through. It’s a very strange interaction, and it’s odd that Jacintha Saldanha did not feel the need to ask for clarification, but instead reacted automatically. The ward nurse also called the female DJ “ma’am” without any effort to ascertain who she was talking to. It is very hard to believe that security is so lax at the King Edward VII hospital which privately caters for the sort of clientele who would demand it. It is highly suspicious that instead of asking questions about who was talking to them at such a strange hour (it was the middle of the night, apparently), both nurses instead reacted to a prompt, which was a mention of Kate by someone with a vaguely similar accent to that which people imagine the Queen speaks with. These reactions hint at the possibility that the nurses had been preloaded before the incident with a suggestion that the Queen was going to call to speak to them.

The implications of such a possibility are that there was a conspiracy to create the situation whereby two Australian radio DJs could harmlessly discuss Kate Middleton’s stay in hospital with someone on the scene (who has remained unidentified). Perhaps the motive may not have been malicious, but instead to create humorous publicity; indeed, Charles reacted immediately to the initial prank call by ”making light” of it. Perhaps it all went wrong when Jacintha Saldanha, facing unimaginable levels of pressure from all directions (whichever way she looked, as it must have seemed) took it too much to heart.

The real truth of what happened will predictably never be known. The form of suicide, which was seemingly of the sort that reminds of outspoken Americans who are found to have shot themselves multiple times in the head (Jacintha Saldanha had injuries to her wrists as well as being found hanging) was obviously meant to ensure a certain outcome; let it just be recognised that there are doubts about it. However, what is certain is that, as they always do, the UK corporate-media once again did not fail to let a crisis go to waste in order to perform some brainwashing on behalf of the Establishment; and this is why it must be abandoned.

Won’t publish nude Royals, but Daily Mail has no qualms about images of lavatory users

A story about hotel customers using toilets in a New York glass-walled building published by the Daily Mail at the weekend, demonstrated the hypocrisy of the coalition’s flagship propaganda outlet, and the British corporate-media in general, regarding their treatment of the Kate Middleton nudity scandal. The article, which was accompanied by images showing an unsuspecting man urinating, several women seated on toilets with their clothes rearranged, and also performing post-function ablutions, also demonstrated, by comparison with treatment of the Middleton case, the reality of how there is no such thing as freedom of the press amongst the corporate-media in the UK – despite a pretence amongst its journalist membership that there is.

The story in question involves a skyscraper hotel in Manhattan that has an 18th floor bathroom facility appointed in such a way that a person seated in a toilet cubicle faces outwards and overlooks the street through a wall-sized pane of glass. The casual behaviour of these toilet users suggests that there is no other building in the vicinity – Manhattan’s Meatpacking District – which will afford a direct view back into that part of the property (confirmed by Google maps). However, as the Daily Mail points out, the facilities, and the people using them, can be seen at an oblique angle from the ground, and although the editor of the article attached a picture of disbelieving people on the sidewalk pointing into the air as if they are gawping at the extraordinary sight of other people in the act of defecating, the height of the floor suggests that very detailed images are probably only obtainable through a magnifying piece of technology – something hinted at by Australian tourist, Belinda Langdon, who marvelled how ‘the people taking pictures are pervy. You just hope nobody recognises you on the street.’

Via the Daily Mail: the Standard Hotel. The lavatories seem to be located in the area on the top right.

Via the Daily Mail: the Standard Hotel. The lavatories seem to be located in the area on the top right.

In certain respects, this case is rather like the one in which Kate Middleton and William Wales, who were photographed across a natural view that offered no impediment to the photographer, have caused great embarrasment to themselves and danger to the Establishment by potential constitutional turmoil. However, whereas the Daily Mail, along with the British corporate-media in its entirety, has not published the humiliating images of the Royal couple – and has, in its tone, been supportive of them – there are no qualms about publishing images of private citizens as they perform the most personal of necessary bodily functions. Although the most sensitive body parts in these images have been obscured by pixels, other identifying features such as clothes and hair are clearly visible and not only must they render the subjects recognisable.

The reason for the difference of treatment afforded Royalty and private individuals is due to the vice-like grip that the British Monarch has over the corporate-media, and although, regarding Kate Middleton’s own exhibition, the press did not seem to have been given a warning by Buckingham Palace , there does seem to have been a reflexive self-censorship on the part of the corporate-media which was probably inspired by recognition of how very damaging to the Establishment the images of her were. On the other hand, things were apparently not so clear with the recent case of Prince Harry in Las Vegas when the Palace did feel the need to issue a caution signifying that reporting should not be illuminated with images. Even the Sun newspaper’s apparent defiance of this injunction may have been part of a scheme to distract the British public from real events; the paper seemingly elected not to publish the most damaging of images which showed Harry seemingly mounted in a standing position upon a female.

The current nude-royalty saga does have a positive side as it is demonstrating to the British public how the influence of Buckingham Palace is far reaching, self-interested, and somehow is not limited by national boundaries. The website of the Irish Daily Star had mysteriously been inaccessible for days since it printed the images of Kate Middleton and William, and its grovelling owners are now talking about closing the publication down. Today, William and Kate were awarded a French court ruling in favour of demands made by the couple of the French Closer magazine, which first published the images, that, amongst other things, it must take images down from its website, and that it must hand over copies of images in its possession. Additionally, French publications are now not permitted without risk of penalisation to publish the images.

In another example of the Daily Mail’s breathtaking hypocrisy, images were published lately of film actor, Tom Hanks, and his wife relaxing together outside their home in grounds that are clearly visible from a nearby public thoroughfare.  The Hanks were conducting themselves appropriately in the semi-public setting, which the sleazy Royal couple, in their case, were unable to do. The Daily Mail did not seem to suffer from any scruple that what it was doing by publishing the photos of Hanks and his wife was in any way invading their privacy.