By Press TV
By Hamid Golpira
Last August, everyone was saying, “London’s burning, the hoodies are burning the town down.”
Since then, there has been much commentary about what really happened, but it seems that most commentators have missed a couple of key points.
The unrest began in London on August 6 after a peaceful march held to protest against a fatal shooting by the Metropolitan Police on August 4, in which Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old Black man, was killed.
The unrest rapidly spread to other cities in Britain.
What began as a demonstration to protest against a single incident of police brutality quickly became a mini-uprising against discrimination, institutionalized racism, poverty, unemployment, stratified class divisions, and social injustice.
From the very beginning, there was a division between protesters who wanted to stage peaceful demonstrations and those who were in favor of violence.
For some of the violent protesters, the violence was an authentic outburst of outrage.
Others were hooligans with no real political views who decided to avail themselves of the opportunity to do a bit of looting and burning and vandalism.
However, it seems there was a third group among the violent protesters who were actually agents provocateurs goading people on to commit acts of violence.
Of course, this will seem like an outrageous charge to most people. After all, why would the British authorities want to enlist agents provocateurs to encourage people to loot and burn?
Well, first of all, through such a move they were able to discredit peaceful protesters with legitimate grievances and make them look like common criminals.
In addition, the chaos provided a good excuse for the British government to increase social control mechanisms.
Britain currently has more surveillance cameras monitoring its citizens than any other country. Britain is the most surveilled country in the world.
And the New World Order will be a total surveillance society.
Shortly after the unrest began, British officials said that video images recorded by surveillance cameras would be used to identify rioters for prosecution.
Tellingly, they also called for increased surveillance, arguing that it would be necessary to prevent a recurrence of such events and to protect law-abiding citizens and their property.
Always beware when you hear phrases like “to protect law-abiding citizens and their property.”
When government officials make such remarks, they are actually saying, “We will be taking away some of your rights, especially your right to privacy, in order to increase your security.”
Or, in other words, “In order to safeguard your rights, we will be taking away some of your rights.”
US officials made similar remarks after 9/11.
They said that surveillance had to be increased, everyone’s phone had to be bugged, everyone’s mail had to be read, everyone’s emails and other electronic communications had to be monitored, and US citizens would have to give up some of the rights guaranteed to them in the US Constitution in order to increase their safety.
In other words, “We will be taking away your liberty in order to safeguard your liberty.”
And most US citizens went along with it with no complaints like good little sheeple, or, more accurately, like sheeple to the slaughter.
In the book An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, which was published in 1759, the eighteenth century US statesman Benjamin Franklin wrote:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Perhaps US citizens should spend some time reflecting on this famous quote.
The discontented hooded youth of Britain involved in the unrest would be horrified to learn that they were being used as pawns to facilitate the establishment of a New World Order that would be a total surveillance society.
They would probably prefer to laugh about the remarks of the pundits who said, “The protesters should be recognized as the legitimate government of Britain.”
But that’s never going to happen, and the truth of the matter is that they were being used as pawns of the NWO.
The political activists of Britain and the rest of the world have to wake up to the fact that the powers that be think 20 moves ahead on the geopolitical chessboard.
The Machiavellian machinations of the mandarins of masonry are subtle and can only be discerned by the most astute observers.
In the late 1970s, there was also unrest in Britain, but it did not lead to a progressive change in the political order.
Quite the contrary, the unrest galvanized right-wing voters, who came to the polls in droves, while many progressives did not bother to vote, and Britain got stuck with Margaret Thatcher for 11 years.
And the New World Order will be a lot worse than Margaret Thatcher.
The New World Order will be a total surveillance society and a total control society.
If we want to avoid such a dystopian future, we better start thinking 20 moves ahead on the geopolitical chessboard.