Wednesday, 3 September 2008

When Protest Is Terrorism

Imagine a group in the UK that targets individuals for violence, that attacks houses and homes in the middle of the night, that issues death threats against people and whose members were arrested carrying knives on their way to attack members of a political party they did not agree with.

Imagine a group that under the cover of a pseudo-'peaceful' demonstration steals private property from people homes and gardens and then use those objects to barricade a street and attack the police.

Imagine a group whose supporters include MP's, Guardian journalists, Trades Union leaders and the rest of the infantile remnants of the Marxist abortion that is the Old Far Left - and you have Anti-Fascist Action.

You would have though that this group would be designated under the Anti-Terrorism Acts as an 'terrorist organisation ' - but guess what, they arent classified as terrorists.

If it was Muslims doing the same thing the group leaders would all be in jail - so why is it white terrorists of the far left are not treated the same way as Muslims are ?

The answer is because this group is in reality nothing but a stooge of the secret state - a state sponsored monster designed to protect the system itself and operated and run and infiltrated by the police and acting in the interests of the government.

Anti-Fascist Action is nothing more than an MI5 sponsored puppet group whose intent is to trigger a re-run of the 1980's when Combat 18 formed from in order to attack the old AFA, which was also run by the Special Branch back then.

For those who are not aware of the process lets take a look at the 1980's ;

AFA was formed from a rump of so called 'hardcore communists' many of whose members are now known to have been police agents.

The aim of AFA was to trigger a retaliatory 'tit for tat' process whereby the Far Right organised its own para-military wing to attack AFA.

Both groups were then heavily infiltrated by the police and special branch.

Both groups then started attacking 'moderates' in their own ranks more than they ever attacked the 'enemy'.

The aim of these two state infiltrated groups was to destabilise both the Far Right and the Far Left - to set the two against each other and allow the police to monitor both groups.

This is why both groups were relatively unmolested by the police - as both were working for the police either directly or indirectly.

This process was replicated in the Miners Strike - special branch infiltrated the miners groups and those people incited and advocated violence against the police and government, and by so doing allowed the government and media to target those miners groups and discredit them in the eyes of the public.

Lets now take a look at recent events at the BNP RWB festival.

The police were informed weeks before the RWB that AFA had been issuing death threats, had been attacking property and had been planning violence - yet the police did nothing.

We asked the police to use the powers under the Anti-Terrorist Acts to target AFA and its thugs to ensure the residents of the village where the RWB was held would not have to suffer from the violence and disruption we knew would ensue - but the police did nothing.

Whilst the police have invoked the powers under the anti-terrorism act from everything from the Labour Party Conference, to football fans to protestors at the Cenotaph protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - the police did not invoke the powers when faced with a direct threat of terrorism.

The question is why ?

Heres the answer - the police have infiltrated and are using AFA for their own reasons and those of the government.

The threat of an AFA attack was the so called 'justification ' for the draconian and absurd demands of the police as per the conditions for a license from the RWB.

The role of AFA was to allow the police to invoke a threat of violence to get the councillors not to issue a license for the BNP event.

That the police peddled the idea to the councillors that they had intelligence a threat was in existence was in itself an admission that they were either getting intelligence from within AFA, or that AFA itself was somehow being used to assist the police case for a ban on the event - yet even though the police raised the threat of violence being in existence, the police then did not then follow up on this 'threat' by putting in place for their own officers the powers under the terrorism act that would have prevented the violence by the AFA thugs at the protest.

By not acting on their own intelligence, the police in effect allowed the violence at the event to go ahead - it was the police who allowed the violence through their inaction and passivity.

The people who then paid the price were the local who had to pay the police overtime bills and who had to have their lives disrupted and property damaged.

The only winners were the police - who all had nice little earners out of all the overtime they got for attending the demonstration.

The only reason they would ignore the very same threat they raised is if the police were involved with AFA and did not want the major embarassment of phonetaps, e mail intercepts and covert sureveillance from inside AFA revealing that in fact many of the AFA were in fact existing intelligence and police operatives - or that the police were aware that the 'threat' itself was going to be so farsical that they knew they did not need those powers to deal with it as it was their own people organising the AFA pantomime itself that was ging to be played out on the streets.


Why did the police big up a terrorist threat to the councillors before the licensing committee , but then pretend to themselves, and the BNP, that no 'real threat 'existed.

Either the threat existed and therefore demanded that the police be given the appropriate powers to deal with the terrorist threat - or that the 'threat' was in fact a carefully managed and contrived 'threat' controlled by the police and operating to their agenda.


The fact that as usual the idiots of the far left cannot see that they are merely the patsys and useful idiots of the system is par for the course.

The collaborators of the AFA / Police thugs who supported AFA on sites like Lancaster Unity, were in fact assisting in the destruction of their own cause - by allowing the AFA thugs to hide amongst their ranks and attack the police in what can only be described as a monty python farce of an attack, is proof that either the so called 'moderates' are either direct supporters of violence or simply the dumbest sons of bitches ever to walk the planet.

In fact I think they were both, they wanted the perverse vicarious thrill of watching people play 'lets pretend to attack the police' so they could go home aftyerwards and boast to their friends at dinner parties about how they 'fought the pigs and the BNP'.

How truly pathetic those odious little simpering creeps are.

So we are left with the question - IF A TERRORIST THREAT EXISTED TO ATTACK THE RWB AS THE POLICE CLAIMED AT THE LICENSING COMMITTEE MEETING - THEN WHY DID THEY NOT USE THE APPROPRIATE POWERS TO STOP THAT THREAT OCCURING ?

Answer - because the police knew that the role of the 'AFA threat' was to be used to put pressure on the licensing committee in order to stop the RWB event and also that the AFA / police thugs inside AFA would then also be used to ensure the protest and the protestors could be discredited when they played their parts in the AFA pantomime that day.

It was a win/win scenario for the police - they almost got the RWB event stopped and at the same time drew out the last of the old left from their palatial homes and crack dens onto the street where they were photographed and filmed.

At the same time the police all had a nice little earner out of the overtime.

In the meantime the AFA pantomime was busy being enacted to ensure that the 'drama' of the pretence was sustained.

The aim of the AFA group is now simply to try and trigger again a re-run of the 1980's and draw the Far Right and Far Left into another round of tit for tat violence, with the only winners being the police - who will be sitting outside peoples homes with covert surveillance teams, with wiretaps and e mail hacking programms building up files for later prosecutions to be enacted probably at the next election - thereby allowing the media to attack the parties of the right and parties of the left such as the SWP whose activists are involved with AFA.

Its so bloody obvious its amlost embrassing - its as if every new generation of coppers is given a copy of the same operating manual and then sent out to follow its step by step guide to 'destabilising the enemies of the system and the establishment parties'.


In a tit for tit war, the only winners are the establishment parties - for they will profit from all the negative publicity generated.

For idiotic tosser writers in the Guardian who seem shocked that tolerating AFA in the ranks of the protestors damaged their cause - wake up you simpering mug.

Just a few weeks ago a left wing writer wrote a story about a protestor at an anti-war demo who was inciting violence against the police and throwing objects at the police - who she later discovered was a policeman.

The Agent Provocateur is the oldest state asset in the book - without them the State has to sit on the sidelines and watch as real opposition movements evolve and develop in mainstream society who could challenge the status quo.

The extremist and the thug are nothing but the tools of the secret state, whose role is to marginalise the movement and to turn the masses against any groups who could challenge the system.

The silly old farts who long for a vicarious thrill, the student morons that eulogise the thug, the middle class idiots trying to gain some street cred - these are the foundations upon which the secret state depends.

The last thing the state wants is serious revolutionaries who understand that only via democracy and peaceful protest can a movement grow to challenge the system - for the moment you step beyond the line of the law you invite the state to smash you.

The ONLY revolutions that will succeed in our surveillance society are PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONS, enacted within the confines of the law.

Those that incite others to step outside the law are the enemies of the movement and the primary assets of the system itself.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/03/1



Add to Technorati Favorites

3 comments:

odin said...

Well said Lee!
Provocation at Protests Is A Type of False Flag Terror


StumbleUponGeorge Washington’s Blog
Tuesday, Sept 3, 2008

When agents provocateur commit violence or destroy property at peaceful protests, they are carrying out false flag terrorism.

Wikipedia defines false flag terror as follows:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

If intelligence agencies or federal, state or local police themselves commit acts of violence against people or property, and then blame it on peaceful protesters, that is - by definition - false flag terror.
Read this to see how eagerly the mainstream media are to pin acts of violence on peaceful protesters, instead of the provocateurs who actually committed them.

And if you don’t know about agents provocateur, read this statement about Burma:

“They’ve ordered some soldiers in the military to shave their heads, so that they could pose as monks, and then those fake monks would attack soldiers to incite a military crackdown. The regime has done this before in Burma, and we believe they would do so again.”

this news from Canada, and this Wikipedia discussion.


http://tinyurl.com/5o36uq

Strider said...

There was nothing more satisfying than attending the RW&B knowing full well that none of our people would commit to violence. This is where we won the day.

I'm no wishy washy pacifist, yet our people (ie: Nationalists) behaved brilliantly and with discipline.

Hats off to our security team, who scared Antifa off from 200 yards.

The Green Arrow said...

Do I have your permission to repost this article in full on The Green Arrow blog and forum with links back to your site and original post?