The State’s Telford “Damage Limitation” Operation

In a recent interview with Brittany Pettibone, English activist Tommy Robinson explained how, after a stint in prison, operatives from the British intelligence services approached him with a job proposition. They asked him to help them to ‘unite the right’, going on to explain that this would help them ‘control the response to terror attacks’ and grooming gangs – typically piss-poor behaviour by Muslims, in other words.

Whilst nobody likes a crackpot conspiracy theorist, it would be abject naivety to think the state hadn’t approached countless individuals and organisations with a similar proposition. Some, like Tommy, will have declined. Others, however, would have accepted. Additionally, there will be many individuals who by way of ideological coincidence, are already peddling the state’s preferred narrative, and thus are already in position to be manipulated to further that narrative. A great example of this in action is Nigel Farage’s rapid rise to prominence from 2009; after Nick Griffin appeared on BBC Question Time in that year, a massive poll found that 25% of Britons would consider voting for the British National Party. Coincidentally, the BBC and the print media began devoting disproportionate amounts of time and space to Nigel Farage. Why? Because the latter offers the acceptable face of British nationalism – a civic, Thatcherite face, in contrast with the BNP’s ethnic homeland brand.

After listening to Tommy recount the various approaches by the British state, it’s worth questioning everything. It’s now worth repeating our evaluations of certain individuals who are suspected of having an ulterior motive. Again, some may denounce this as conspiratorial, but not asking the question is naivety of the highest order. So when stories like Telford or Rotherham reach the mass media, take a step back and look around at the prominent respondents. Who is carrying the flag, so to speak? And I don’t mean those making noises on Twitter or YouTube, but those invited on radio shows, or primetime television talk shows. Who’s leading the response and, therefore, controlling the volume and ferocity of the response?

A brilliant case study which is almost archetypal it’s so blatant, is that of Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz is head of a British-based counter-extremism thinktank named Quilliam, which works against Islamic (and other) extremism on a domestic level. Now, after the Telford story broke recently, for a few days there was essentially radio silence. Aside from Telford MP Lucy Allen’s calls for an enquiry, nobody said anything. The story wasn’t discussed on the evening news or, when it was, the presenters were in purely fact delivery mode. They didn’t invite any representatives of civil society on to discuss this! Then, yesterday, Maajid Nawaz appeared. After a show on LBC, a clip of Nawaz decrying political correctness’ role in preventing a conversation about Muslim rape gangs went viral. He is leading the response of civil society. And of course, everything he said can be more or less agreed with by those of us concerned with the issue of grooming gangs in our societies. Yet Nawaz is a perfect example of a prominent leader of civil society being manipulated by the state to control the response.

Having Nawaz, a reformed Islamist and obviously a non-native, lead the response against grooming gangs enables the state to pacify those who quite rightly see this as a racial issue that requires a radical response. After all, you couldn’t denounce the presence of Pakistanis in your society after seeing this brave, good-looking, articulate, reformed character all over your Twitter feed, could you? Exactly. He’s your friendly cornershop immigrant who waves the card charge causing you to take the ‘they’re not all bad’ approach. In terms of the grooming gangs, people like Maajid Nawaz are there to ensure an ethnic issue is met with a civic response. Nawaz has been an excellent candidate for this role for a number of years now. Whenever there’s a terrorist attack or another scandal involving non-white immigrants, he’s invariably the face of public more indignation. He’s had columns in the New York Times, Daily Mail, The Guardian, Financial Times and The Wall St Journal, and has appeared on BBC Hardtalk, Larry King Live, 60 Minutes, Newsnight, as well as having his own show on LBC radio. He even lectures at universities and gives talks at the UK Defence Academy! For somebody who was a terrorist until the last decade, that’s pretty remarkable, right?

When I accuse him of ‘controlling the response’ I’m not even particularly convinced that he’s on some government payroll. He might be, but the more likely explanation is that he actually deeply believes in what he’s saying and what he stands for. This is an example of the state’s ideological foundation matching neatly and coincidentally with a suitable candidate from civil society. Unbeknown to Nawaz, the state is acting behind the scenes to ensure that his voice is most prominent in the aftermath of these scandals, so that it’s Nawaz leading the response and not, say, Tommy Robinson, or the National Front. I’m not saying that the latter figures should be leading the response instead, but it would be nice if the state allowed us to choose these figureheads and not have thrust upon us a foreign Muslim who, frankly, doesn’t have the same stake in the past or future of this nation as others might.

More broadly, we must begin to realise that civil society is no longer an organic formation of communities and opinions. Once upon a time, it was, That’s how the people managed to pressure government into passing no less than five laws restricting immigration between 1914-1939, yet just one in the post-war (73 years!) period. We didn’t change, but the state got wise to how public discourse really works. Governments no longer need to impose overt regulations on democracy, when they can simply manipulate civil discourse under the democratic illusion. So every time a scandal like Telford emerges, or a terrorist attack occurs, watch the response. Watch the response on day one, watch it on day three and then again after a week. Who’s the most prominent, most vocal advocate of the seemingly “radical” position? Who’s on the big radio and TV platforms? What are their motives? What does the state gain from their narrative? Most importantly, are they really representative of the Silent Majority?


UK Police Force: Freemasonry & Privatisation

I’ve noticed two articles which have surfaced in recent days; firstly, a Guardian article concerning the outgoing chair of the Police Federation Steve White‘s comments on the presence of Freemasonry in the Police Force. According to White, said masons are blocking reform in the force. Secondly, there’s a growing rumour that the Tory government seeks to privatise elements of the police force, which has been expressed in a number of minor publications. I believe both these notions to be incredibly harmful to the police force, and I’m going to briefly set out why.

Whilst the original Guardian article is merely another example of liberals twisting a story to shill for minorities, it does indeed raise an interesting point; namely that freemasonry is a threat to the impartiality and effectiveness of the British Police Force. Those who enforce the law of the land must, absolutely and completely, have no conflicting interests, and it’s quite clear that being a mason would present such a conflict. Masons pledge always to protect fellow masons, come-what-may, thus a police officer who is also a freemason finds himself in a very conflicting position, should a fellow freemason warrant investigation for a crime.

There is evidence that this process has permitted high-profile individuals, both within and without the police force, to be effectively immune from investigation and prosecution. The famous phrase “friends in high places” comes to mind. It permits seemingly respectable members of high society, the McCann family for instance, to avoid due process in the wake of truly chilling crimes. It allows the rich and the powerful, the type of which Freemasonry is almost exclusively open to, to find immunity when the ordinary citizen would face due process for the same misdemeanour. In a society that aspires to be a meritocracy based on equality of opportunity, this is simply unacceptable.

Similarly, the presence of private capital in the law enforcement institutions is equally poisonous. There have been murmurs and whispers of late, to the effect that the current Tory government – itself infested with Freemasons – has intentions to privatise the police force, either partially or in full. This will undoubtedly be billed as a necessary cost-cutting measure, if it ever comes to pass, but the more likely motivation is rather more ideological i.e. the Tories’ unshakeable belief in free market economics.

The introduction of private capital into the law enforcement process would put the independence and impartiality of the police force in a highly perilous position. As we’ve already seen with aspects of NHS privatisation, and with past privatisations of the Mail Service, Prisons, the Railways and basic utilities, when a conflict arises between what’s right and what’s profitable, the latter inevitably emerges victorious. This is because there will always arise a situation whereby a conflict of interest exists between what’s right and what’s profitable. Putting the Police in the hands of those concerned with the latter will simply ensure that all of these conflicts are settled against public moral duty.

And who will lose out as a result of these inevitable victories for profit? Those without power, privilege or money, as usual. Whilst corruption undeniably exists at most levels of government, at least under state ownership this remains a crime, and a seldom practised one at that. Introducing private capital to the administration of the state, including the police force, effectively legalises this process, opening the door for mass corruption without recourse for the ordinary citizen. Is this a leftist view of capital? Unquestionably, but I stand by this assessment of the dangers involved with introducing private capital to matters of state.

More broadly, we can view the continued Freemason influence and the introduction of private capital in the context of Tory/New Labour neo-liberal theory. Since 1979, first with Thatcher, then Major, then Blair, Cameron and now May, Britain has been ruled by those with an un-moving belief in both neo-liberal economics, and the political class as a paternal structure guiding the uneducated masses through the complex, globalised world. Its these attitudes – the fetish for privatisation and the willingness to be steered by small cliques of secretive elites – that have destroyed this country, and given rise to the dire influences in institutions like the Police Force today. Through this neo-liberal approach, all the essential functions of a nation – water, electricity, mail, healthcare and so on – have been willingly delivered into the hands of profiteers, oftentimes foreign profiteers, whose only cause is capital growth, and whose last thought is the wellbeing of the citizen.

Grammar Schools Preserve Natural Order


In recent weeks, the debate upon the merit of grammar Schools has been reignited after the government recently proposed investing £500 Million in “free schools”, that could become grammar schools at a later date when the ban on building new grammar schools has been lifted. The fact that there even is a ban on the building of grammar schools in the United Kingdom should tell you straight away that this is a controversial issue. Continue reading “Grammar Schools Preserve Natural Order”