Breivic, the British Constitution, Democracy and Violence

The British Constitution is accepted, in England at least, as the symbol for soundness and reliability: and yet its unwritten mysteries and its practical resilience are the despair of theorists. It ... seems to be defined only by the fact that it lives and works. Anon

The only real breach of the British Constitution, Lord Salisbury believed, occurs if the government does something of which the great majority of the population strongly disapproves.

For decades, successive British governments have been doing something of which the great majority of the British population strongly disapproves:

August, 2006: Public wants much harsher immigration policy The Times

April, 2008: Most Britons fear race violence BBC

February, 2009 Cutting immigration top issue for Labour and Tory voters Telegraph

March, 2010:  Voters’ anger over immigration The Sun

February, 2011: Almost two-thirds of white Britons think immigration bad for the UK Independent

August 2011: There ARE too many immigrants in the UK', say seven in 10 Britons Daily Mail

And earlier this year, the Guardian reported that "Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was [sic] not associated with violence and fascist imagery."

From which it does not take a genius of political strategy to infer that the function of the Cambridge-trained, Masonic clown, Nick Griffin, leader of the anit-immigration, British National Party (an intel agency controlled operation, surely) is to associate every populist policy with thuggish, fascistic, racist antics so that the public dare not express their support either for the party or, more importantly, the policies that that party pretends to espouse.

The circumstances are precisely of the kind that lead to civil unrest and violence. It is in that context that the Breivic atrocities needs to be considered. As we asked before, did they constitute the the ruthless but perfectly sane first blow in a civil insurrection against a pseudo-democratic elite intent on destroying the nations of Europe through mass migration, the better to create a servile helot race under the iron grip of a global plutocratic elite?

Or is Breivic a puppet, a Manchurian candidate, set in motion by one of the hundreds of Western intel agencies. And if so, what was his mission? To turn the populace against the government? To justify an intensification in the propaganda of political correctness that labels opposition to national genocide "racism"? To justify further harsh security measures to repress the population?

Or is there a division in the elite behind the Western pseudodemocracies? Is this a psyop intended to set off a chain reaction that will force a change European policy on mass migration?

See also: Did Anders Breivik strike a blow for or against multicultural genocide in Europe?