Terror Theater: The EDL UAF Strategy of Tension
   By Keelan Balderson | Jul 13, 2013 | War & Terrorism | 5 comments

The exploitation of murdered solider Lee Rigby is disgustingly unique, in that all sides of the political spectrum are yanking at his lifeless body for their own agenda.

“He’s my martyr,”
“No he’s my martyr!”

The increasingly radicalized fools of the Jewish funded EDL and Tyler Durden’s “middle children of history” Unite Against Fascism (who wouldn’t know a fascist if it slapped them in the face) are on the path of creating a modern version of the “Strategy of Tension”, as they romantically lust for civil war in their own warped crusades of righteousness.

A strategy of tension as described by Swiss historian Daniele Ganser is a political tactic that “aims to divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agent provocateurs, and false flag terrorist actions.”

While the extreme left and the extreme right increasingly engage in these actions, the general public are forced in to the middle, in to the protective arms of the Government. It’s then business as usual. The political change sought by the left and right is neutered, because both sides are fucking mental.

Whether this strategy of tension is a natural and legitimate (though poorly thought out) reaction to Lee Rigby’s death, or something fomented by those in power is not entirely clear. As I previously explored the mainstream media and Government’s reaction to the murder certainly whipped up a frenzy. It was immediately called terrorism, Cameron chaired a COBRA meeting as if 7/7 had just happened, and the headlines ran away with inflammatory nonsense such as the unfounded rumor that it was a “beheading”. The BBC then called on its extremist Muslim talking head Anjem Choudary to compound the fervor, and singled out moderate Muslim representatives to condemn the attack as if they were in some way responsible, just by being Muslim.

In that sense public opinion was definitely manipulated and the result has been disgusting, with mosques being attacked by EDL linked thugs, memorial flowers to Lee Rigby ripped up by UAF attention whores, and violent clashes between them both. It doesn’t matter to those involved that Rigby was neither a member or supporter of the EDL or UAF, because sadly they believe their own bullshit.

And bullshit it is!

The EDL seem to think the likes of Anjem Choudary’s handful of rag-tag morons are a serious threat to Britain, and that our expenses scamming City Boy politicians are going to bow down to Sharia law.

Equally somebody needs to inform the UAF that Nazis are no longer invading Europe, and that the fascist ideology can be more accurately applied to those already in power than any street level hooligans funded by Zionists. Quite how a pro-Israel activist group can be called Nazis is baffling.

While this to-and-fro has been going on for years, what’s worrying in recent weeks is the increased levels of violence and hatred. Yesterday in Tipton a nail bomb was set off near a mosque. Supposed Islamic terrorism is now being met with more terrorism. Of course we must be careful not to immediately finger the EDL, just as Islamic terrorism itself in this country is mostly theater (plots that went nowhere, innocent people fitted up, or as with 77 – accusations yet to be proven in a court of law), there is currently no evidence of who was behind this Tipton attack.

The blast occurred on a disused railway line and harmed nobody. Calling this terrorism only feeds in to the strategy of tension. We can’t rule out that this was purposefully done for that very reason.

This all needs to be nipped in the bud; whoever or whatever is behind this increased tension needs to take a long hard look at history. Terrorism only creates more terrorism. Using violence is the fastest way to alienate the general public from your message…then again perhaps that’s the point.


FOLLOW us on Social Media ... Feed | Facebook | Twitter
Posted In ... War & Terrorism

Related Posts

  • Phil

    This is a tough one. Trying to see things from both sides the EDL do raise some valid issues that the government or the mainstream media refuse to address in public with their some sort of concern that they may actually create a real debate (not the false debates with loaded audiences and panels like on Question Time) and after all the EDL are responding to events in the media whether portrayed rightly or wrongly. The problem with the EDL is that they only focus on the negative and always use it as an opportunity to strengthen try to their argument. As for UAF the group just seems to be set up with the sole purpose of opposing anything that the EDL state whether it has merit or not, they bring no debate and there is no intention from them to bring anything constructive. One group rose from opposing radical Islam while the other, well I really cannot work out the other and would not be surprised if it too was secretly created by Government somehow.

    While all this goes on the general public continue their apathetic ignorant existence and choose neither side. It’s not even sitting on the fence – most of these people are clueless robots to the system who believe everything they see and hear in the mainstream media.

    While I take no sides with the UAF or the EDL at least these people are prepared to try and change the status quo that so many others in this country fail to care about.

    • Keelan Balderson

      The UAF are pretty establishment, they have many mainstream politicians backing them.

  • Martin

    The UAF are a front group and meal ticket for the SWP, just like Stop The War Coalition. Respectable sounding names with the agenda of the SWP to push. The politicians who gave their backing to UAF was upon their formation before their sinister true colours were known

  • Matthew Slater

    Keelan thanks for writing this, you are the only person covering this as far as I know.
    Though I realise you are passionate about the subject, and you seek to impassion your audience similarly, I suggest that expletive/emphatic language is not the best way, as it will call all your work into question in the eyes of those readers you most want to influence.
    Most media separates ‘objective’ reporting from opinion so that readers can make up their own mind; of course their biases show through in other ways such as the very choice of stories.
    You are providing an alternative to to most media, but are you showing how it ought to be done, or are you creating a platform for you ego to strut around on?
    If what you produce is a service to the public, I would ask that you keep fact and opinion separate!

    • Keelan Balderson

      I see what you mean, I go through fits and spurts of doing it – I guess because writing is a creative release. I will point out however that the “fucking mental” line is not a personal statement, it’s about how the public do/will perceive the increasing violence. Just my lame attempt at some humor.

      I often struggle with how to brand the website. Do I want to be a straight up news site? Do I want to be a more personalized blog with my opinion? Am I in the conspiracy community? Am I out of it?

      It’s all a work in progress.